how to write a hypothesis in a psychology report

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 .

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Step 1. ask a question.

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

Step 2. Do some preliminary research

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

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

Step 3. Formulate your hypothesis

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

4. Refine your hypothesis

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

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

5. Phrase your hypothesis in three ways

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

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

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

6. Write a null hypothesis

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

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

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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 8, 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.

Lab Report Format: Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

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

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

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

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

On This Page:

In psychology, a lab report outlines a study’s objectives, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions, ensuring clarity and adherence to APA (or relevant) formatting guidelines.

A typical lab report would include the following sections: title, abstract, introduction, method, results, and discussion.

The title page, abstract, references, and appendices are started on separate pages (subsections from the main body of the report are not). Use double-line spacing of text, font size 12, and include page numbers.

The report should have a thread of arguments linking the prediction in the introduction to the content of the discussion.

This must indicate what the study is about. It must include the variables under investigation. It should not be written as a question.

Title pages should be formatted in APA style .

The abstract provides a concise and comprehensive summary of a research report. Your style should be brief but not use note form. Look at examples in journal articles . It should aim to explain very briefly (about 150 words) the following:

• Start with a one/two sentence summary, providing the aim and rationale for the study.
• Describe participants and setting: who, when, where, how many, and what groups?
• Describe the method: what design, what experimental treatment, what questionnaires, surveys, or tests were used.
• Describe the major findings, including a mention of the statistics used and the significance levels, or simply one sentence summing up the outcome.
• The final sentence(s) outline the study’s “contribution to knowledge” within the literature. What does it all mean? Mention the implications of your findings if appropriate.

The abstract comes at the beginning of your report but is written at the end (as it summarises information from all the other sections of the report).

Introduction

The purpose of the introduction is to explain where your hypothesis comes from (i.e., it should provide a rationale for your research study).

Ideally, the introduction should have a funnel structure: Start broad and then become more specific. The aims should not appear out of thin air; the preceding review of psychological literature should lead logically into the aims and hypotheses.

• Start with general theory, briefly introducing the topic. Define the important key terms.
• Explain the theoretical framework.
• Summarise and synthesize previous studies – What was the purpose? Who were the participants? What did they do? What did they find? What do these results mean? How do the results relate to the theoretical framework?
• Rationale: How does the current study address a gap in the literature? Perhaps it overcomes a limitation of previous research.
• Aims and hypothesis. Write a paragraph explaining what you plan to investigate and make a clear and concise prediction regarding the results you expect to find.

There should be a logical progression of ideas that aids the flow of the report. This means the studies outlined should lead logically to your aims and hypotheses.

Do be concise and selective, and avoid the temptation to include anything in case it is relevant (i.e., don’t write a shopping list of studies).

USE THE FOLLOWING SUBHEADINGS:

Participants

• How many participants were recruited?
• Say how you obtained your sample (e.g., opportunity sample).
• Give relevant demographic details (e.g., gender, ethnicity, age range, mean age, and standard deviation).
• State the experimental design .
• What were the independent and dependent variables ? Make sure the independent variable is labeled and name the different conditions/levels.
• For example, if gender is the independent variable label, then male and female are the levels/conditions/groups.
• How were the IV and DV operationalized?
• Identify any controls used, e.g., counterbalancing and control of extraneous variables.
• List all the materials and measures (e.g., what was the title of the questionnaire? Was it adapted from a study?).
• You do not need to include wholesale replication of materials – instead, include a ‘sensible’ (illustrate) level of detail. For example, give examples of questionnaire items.
• Include the reliability (e.g., alpha values) for the measure(s).
• Describe the precise procedure you followed when conducting your research, i.e., exactly what you did.
• Describe in sufficient detail to allow for replication of findings.
• Be concise in your description and omit extraneous/trivial details, e.g., you don’t need to include details regarding instructions, debrief, record sheets, etc.
• Assume the reader has no knowledge of what you did and ensure that he/she can replicate (i.e., copy) your study exactly by what you write in this section.
• Write in the past tense.
• Don’t justify or explain in the Method (e.g., why you chose a particular sampling method); just report what you did.
• Only give enough detail for someone to replicate the experiment – be concise in your writing.
• The results section of a paper usually presents descriptive statistics followed by inferential statistics.
• Report the means, standard deviations, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each IV level. If you have four to 20 numbers to present, a well-presented table is best, APA style.
• Name the statistical test being used.
• Report appropriate statistics (e.g., t-scores, p values ).
• Report the magnitude (e.g., are the results significant or not?) as well as the direction of the results (e.g., which group performed better?).
• It is optional to report the effect size (this does not appear on the SPSS output).
• Avoid interpreting the results (save this for the discussion).
• Make sure the results are presented clearly and concisely. A table can be used to display descriptive statistics if this makes the data easier to understand.
• DO NOT include any raw data.
• Follow APA style.

Use APA Style

• Numbers reported to 2 d.p. (incl. 0 before the decimal if 1.00, e.g., “0.51”). The exceptions to this rule: Numbers which can never exceed 1.0 (e.g., p -values, r-values): report to 3 d.p. and do not include 0 before the decimal place, e.g., “.001”.
• Percentages and degrees of freedom: report as whole numbers.
• Statistical symbols that are not Greek letters should be italicized (e.g., M , SD , t , X 2 , F , p , d ).
• Include spaces on either side of the equals sign.
• When reporting 95%, CIs (confidence intervals), upper and lower limits are given inside square brackets, e.g., “95% CI [73.37, 102.23]”
• Outline your findings in plain English (avoid statistical jargon) and relate your results to your hypothesis, e.g., is it supported or rejected?
• Compare your results to background materials from the introduction section. Are your results similar or different? Discuss why/why not.
• How confident can we be in the results? Acknowledge limitations, but only if they can explain the result obtained. If the study has found a reliable effect, be very careful suggesting limitations as you are doubting your results. Unless you can think of any c onfounding variable that can explain the results instead of the IV, it would be advisable to leave the section out.
• Suggest constructive ways to improve your study if appropriate.
• What are the implications of your findings? Say what your findings mean for how people behave in the real world.
• Suggest an idea for further research triggered by your study, something in the same area but not simply an improved version of yours. Perhaps you could base this on a limitation of your study.
• Concluding paragraph – Finish with a statement of your findings and the key points of the discussion (e.g., interpretation and implications) in no more than 3 or 4 sentences.

Reference Page

The reference section lists all the sources cited in the essay (alphabetically). It is not a bibliography (a list of the books you used).

In simple terms, every time you refer to a psychologist’s name (and date), you need to reference the original source of information.

If you have been using textbooks this is easy as the references are usually at the back of the book and you can just copy them down. If you have been using websites then you may have a problem as they might not provide a reference section for you to copy.

References need to be set out APA style :

Author, A. A. (year). Title of work . Location: Publisher.

Journal Articles

Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (year). Article title. Journal Title, volume number (issue number), page numbers

A simple way to write your reference section is to use Google scholar . Just type the name and date of the psychologist in the search box and click on the “cite” link.

Next, copy and paste the APA reference into the reference section of your essay.

Once again, remember that references need to be in alphabetical order according to surname.

Psychology Lab Report Example

Quantitative paper template.

Quantitative professional paper template: Adapted from “Fake News, Fast and Slow: Deliberation Reduces Belief in False (but Not True) News Headlines,” by B. Bago, D. G. Rand, and G. Pennycook, 2020,  Journal of Experimental Psychology: General ,  149 (8), pp. 1608–1613 ( https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000729 ). Copyright 2020 by the American Psychological Association.

Qualitative paper template

Qualitative professional paper template: Adapted from “‘My Smartphone Is an Extension of Myself’: A Holistic Qualitative Exploration of the Impact of Using a Smartphone,” by L. J. Harkin and D. Kuss, 2020,  Psychology of Popular Media ,  10 (1), pp. 28–38 ( https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000278 ). Copyright 2020 by the American Psychological Association.

• 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
• Sweepstakes
• 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."

AIMS, HYPOTHESES AND HOW TO WRITE THEM

WHY DO WE HAVE AIMS AND HYPOTHESES?

Aims and hypotheses in research serve as fundamental components that provide direction and structure to the study. They are like signposts that guide researchers along the path of investigation. The aims outline the overarching goals or purposes of the study, while the hypotheses propose specific predictions or explanations to be tested. Together, they help researchers stay focused, establish clear objectives, and frame the inquiry systematically and organised. Defining the scope and purpose of the research, aims, and hypotheses enables researchers to pursue meaningful inquiry and contribute to advancing knowledge in their field.

Imagine you're embarking on a research journey to understand the factors influencing human mate selection. You aim to uncover the underlying mechanisms that drive mate preferences and ultimately contribute to reproductive success.

Your aim, therefore, is to explore the relationship between specific traits and their perceived attractiveness in potential mates. You want to investigate whether evolutionary factors such as facial symmetry, body proportions, and even personality traits play a role in shaping mate preferences.

With this aim in mind, you formulate hypotheses to guide your investigation. For example:

Hypothesis 1: Potential mates will perceive individuals with symmetrical facial features as more attractive than those with asymmetrical features.

Hypothesis 2: Men will prefer female partners who exhibit signs of reproductive health and fertility, such as a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7.

Hypothesis 3: Women will prioritize traits in potential mates that signal resource acquisition and provisioning abilities, such as socioeconomic status and ambition.

These hypotheses serve as your roadmap, outlining the specific predictions you aim to test in your research. They provide a clear direction for your investigation and guide you toward a deeper understanding of the evolutionary underpinnings of mate selection.

In summary, aims and hypotheses in psychology, much like in any field of research, work together to guide inquiry, shape investigations, and ultimately contribute to advancing knowledge in understanding human behaviour and cognition.

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AIMS AND HYPOTHESES?

The aims and hypotheses of a study serve distinct purposes in research.

Aims are typically articulated towards the conclusion of the introduction section of a research paper, following the review of psychological literature. Once the researcher has provided the background history of the study and justified its necessity, the subsequent step is to outline the study's aim explicitly. This entails explaining the study's intended investigation and serving as a guiding framework for the research. The aim is to offer a comprehensive overview of the research study or proposal, delineating the objectives and questions to be addressed.

AIMS IN SHORT:

The justification provided in the introduction should logically lead to the aims, which in turn should logically transition into a statement of the hypothesis(es).

A general prediction about what the researcher expects to happen at the start of an investigation/research.

The aims typically focus on the intended outcomes or contributions of the research to the existing body of knowledge in the field.

AIM VERSUS HYPOTHESIS EXAMPLE

Aim - Strange Situation : The Strange Situation was developed by Mary Ainsworth and aimed to investigate infants' attachment styles towards their caregivers. Specifically, the study explored how infants react when separated from and reunited with their primary caregivers in a controlled laboratory setting. Based on the infants ' behaviours during seven key events, this study sought to identify attachment patterns, such as secure, insecure-avoidant, and insecure-resistant.

Hypothesis- Strange Situation: " There will be a higher quality of attachment associated with more positive behaviours exhibited by infants and their primary caregivers across seven key areas."

EXAMPLE OF AN “AIMS”

“Studies indicate a significant distortion in how individuals perceive body shape within the general population, with a particular emphasis on females; most research was conducted 20 years ago on American undergraduates. The following study aims to determine if these body distortions exist today in 16-to 18-year-old female English students. It will investigate the relationship between perceived body size and ideal body size in females with no history of eating disorders.”

Hypotheses are tentative propositions or educated guesses formulated to explain observed phenomena or answer specific research questions. In neuroscience, hypotheses are often constructed to propose relationships between variables, such as brain activity and behaviour, or the effects of certain interventions on neural processes.

Example: Hypothesis: Increased activation in the prefrontal cortex is associated with improved working memory performance in adults.

Explanation: This hypothesis suggests that there is a relationship between the level of activation in the prefrontal cortex, a brain region associated with executive functions like working memory, and the performance of working memory tasks in adults

IN SUMMARY:

Hypotheses are specific, testable predictions or statements that propose a relationship or difference between variables.

Hypotheses have testable, operationalised terms.

Hypotheses are derived from the study's aims and are formulated based on theoretical considerations, existing evidence, or logical reasoning.

They articulate the expected outcomes or results of the study and provide a basis for testing the research questions.

Hypotheses are often framed as if-then statements, where the independent variable is expected to affect the dependent variable.

They guide the research process by clearly focusing on data collection, analysis, and interpretation.

Hypotheses are typically stated after the aims, as they are more specific and detailed statements that stem from the broader research goals outlined in the aims.

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESES

NULL AND ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES

There are two types of hypotheses: The Alternative (sometimes called the Experimental Hypothesis) and the Null Hypothesis.

WHAT IS A NULL HYPOTHESIS?

POPPER'S INFLUENCE ON NULL AND ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES

Contrary to popular belief, in scientific research, the protocol is to reject the null hypothesis, not confirm the alternative hypothesis. Before Popper, the null hypothesis, as it is now commonly understood, did not have a defined place in scientific methodology.

The null hypothesis (HO) i s the foundational element in scientific experimentation. It represents the default assumption that there is no effect or difference in what is being studied. It is formulated in a way that can be potentially refuted. When deciding whether your research has worked, the scientific language is to accept or reject the null hypothesis and not to accept or reject the alternative hypothesis. This seemingly inconsequential rule demonstrates that the research in question is genuinely scientific as it is capable of having a null hypothesis, e.g., being refuted, unlike, for example, pseudoscientific theories like Freud's, which are incapable of being falsified. For instance, it cannot be refuted that a person has unconscious biases.

The null hypothesis states no effect or difference in what is being studied. It is formulated in a way that can be potentially refuted. For instance, consider the humorous hypothesis: "Baked beans cause naughtiness." This example illustrates how the null hypothesis can be tested and potentially disputed. However, if a hypothesis is theoretically impossible to disprove, such as the non-existence of ghosts, it may not be possible to formulate a null hypothesis, rendering the research unscientific.

Predicting nothing will happen is the opposite of your alternative/experimental hypothesis.

For example Null Hypothesis (H0):

“There is no difference between the perceived current body size of 16-18-year-old female students and their ideal body size as selected on a body shape scale.

"There is no significant relationship between the consumption of cheese before bedtime and the frequency or intensity of nightmares in individuals."

WHAT IS AN ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS?

The alternative hypothesis suggests an effect or difference in the phenomenon under investigation and serves as the basis for comparison against the null hypothesis.

The term "Alternative Hypothesis" (H1) was coined to underscore its role as an alternative explanation to the null hypothesis. In scientific inquiry, the null hypothesis is pivotal as it can be either accepted or rejected based on empirical evidence, making it a fundamental aspect of hypothesis testing.

It is imperative for all research endeavors to incorporate an alternative hypothesis as it acknowledges the possibility that observed correlations or differences in conditions may not be solely attributable to chance, which the null hypothesis cannot ascertain. Interestingly, some psychologists interchangeably refer to the alternative hypothesis as an experimental hypothesis, though the latter term is specifically reserved for studies involving true experimental designs. Nonetheless, conceptually, both terms represent hypotheses that deviate from the null.

Alternative hypotheses are applicable across a spectrum of research contexts, encompassing both non-experimental studies and experiments, such as correlations and content analysis. They encompass both directional (1-tailed) and non-directional (2-tailed) hypotheses and are structured differently from experimental hypotheses.

Alternative Hypothesis ( H1 or HA). : "The consumption of cheese before bedtime is associated with an increase in the frequency and intensity of nightmares in individuals."

In this alternative hypothesis, it is suggested that there is a specific relationship between eating cheese before bedtime and experiencing more frequent and intense nightmares. It proposes a cause-and-effect connection between the two variables.

On the other hand, the null hypothesis suggests no meaningful connection exists between eating cheese before bedtime and the occurrence or intensity of nightmares. It essentially states that any observed differences in nightmares are due to chance and unrelated to cheese consumption.

EXPERIMENTAL AND ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES

The term "Alternative Hypothesis" (H1) was coined to underscore its role as an alternative explanation to the null hypothesis. In scientific inquiry, the null hypothesis is pivotal as it can be accepted or rejected based on empirical evidence, making it a fundamental aspect of hypothesis testing.

All research endeavours must incorporate an alternative hypothesis as it acknowledges the possibility that observed correlations or differences in conditions may not be solely attributable to chance, which the null hypothesis cannot ascertain. Interestingly, some psychologists interchangeably refer to the alternative hypothesis as an experimental hypothesis, though the latter term is reserved explicitly for studies involving true experimental designs. Nonetheless, conceptually, both terms represent hypotheses that deviate from the null.

Alternative hypotheses are applicable across a spectrum of research contexts, encompassing both non-experimental studies and experiments, such as correlations and content analysis. They encompass directional (1-tailed) and non-directional (2-tailed) hypotheses and are structured differently from experimental hypotheses.

WHAT ARE DIRECTIONAL OR ONE-TAILED HYPOTHESES?

Hypotheses may take two forms: directional (1-tailed) and non-directional (2-tailed).

For directional experimental hypotheses , they propose a specific direction of the effect or relationship between variables. This is typically utilised in scenarios where researchers expect the outcome based on prior knowledge or theory. In other words, a hypothesis predicts which condition (IV) will do better or worse. In other words, it predicts one direction (tail) in which the results should occur.

Examples: ' Participants in the jogging condition will rate photographs of the opposite sex higher than participants in the non-jogging condition.’

Participants in the jogging condition will rate photographs of the opposite sex higher than participants in the non-jogging condition.

  If Correlational, a directional hypothesis will predict a specific direction, e.g., negative or positive.

Example: ' There will be a positive correlation between the 4D and 2D finger ratio and Bateman’s risk-taking questionnaire scores .’

If a correlation does not specify if the outcome is considered to be positive or negative, then it is a non-directional hypothesis.

Directional quasi-experimental hypotheses propos e a specific direction of the effect of participant differences on the dependent variable (DV) based on prior knowledge or theory.

Example: “ Female participants will have higher IQs than male participants.”

WHAT ARE NON-DIRECTIONAL OR TWO-TAILED HYPOTHESES?

 On the other hand, non-directional experimental hypotheses suggest a relationship or effect between variables, but they do not specify the direction of this effect. This is often used when researchers have no specific expectations regarding the outcome.

A hypothesis that does not predict which condition will do better or worse only states there will be differences in conditions (the IV). ¬ ® Example:

¬ ‘There will be a difference in the ratings of photographs of the opposite sex made by Participants in the jogging condition and participants in the non-jogging condition.’

Similarly, hypotheses may be non-directional in quasi-experimental designs where participant differences are independent variables (IV).

Non-directional quasi-experimental hypotheses, like their experimental counterparts, suggest a relationship between participant differences and the DV without specifying the direction of this relationship.

UNDERSTANDING HYPOTHESES:

Experimental hypotheses are for experimental research and should contain the word "difference" if applicable in their hypotheses (e.g., "There will be a difference between participants in the cheese condition and the non-cheese condition in the number of nightmares they experience").

Quasi-designs should also include the word "difference" in the hypotheses (e.g., "There will be a difference between French participants and English participants in the number of nightmares they experience.”

Alternative hypotheses are for all types of research, but they are usually used in non-experimental. research

For non-experimental research other than correlations, the word "association should be included in their hypotheses. (e.g., "There will be an association between variables advertised in Lonely Heart advertisements for females").

For correlations, include the words "correlation," "link," or "relationship" in the hypothesis (e.g., "There is a relationship between smartphone usage and lower attention span").

For all non-experimental research other than correlations, use the word "association" (e.g., "There will be an association between variables advertised in Lonely Heart advertisements for females")

TESTS OF DIFFERENCE HYPOTHESES

Tests of difference hypotheses are commonly used in experiments,e.g., those that compare the effects of different conditions or treatments on an outcome variable. They are also used in quasi-experiments,where the aim is to test differences between participants.

Experimental hypotheses are for experimental research and should contain the word "difference" if applicable (e.g., "There will be a difference between participants in the cheese condition and the non-cheese condition in the number of nightmares they experience").

Experimental hypothesis - directional (1 tailed) for ”true experiments”, e.g., laboratory and field

Experimental hypothesis - non-directional (2-tailed) for ”true experiments”, e.g., laboratory and field

Quasi-experimental hypothesis - directional (1 tailed) for experiments where the participant’s differences are the IV.

Quasi-experimental hypothesis - non-directional (2-tailed) for experiments where the participant’s differences are the IV.

TESTS OF ASSOCIATION HYPOTHESES

Non-experimental directional (1 tailed) for observations, questionnaire/surveys, interviews and case studies

Non-experimental, non-directional (2-tailed) for observations, questionnaire/surveys, interviews and case studies

TESTS OF CORRELATION HYPOTHESES

Correlations directional (1-tailed), e.g., positive correlations and negative correlations.

Correlations are non-directional (2-tailed), e.g., just predicting a correlation but not a direction, e.g., it could be either negative or positive.

Writing Experimental Alternative Hypotheses

These are for all experiments: Laboratory, Field, Quasi and Natural. Experimental Hypotheses include directional (1 tailed) and non-directional (2 tailed hypotheses).

HOW TO WRITE A HYPOTHESES

General stuff about writing hypotheses.

TERMINOLOGY USAGE:

Always refer to individuals as "participants" unless studying non-human animals.

Use "male" and "female" instead of other terms like "man," "woman," "boy," or "girl."

OPERATIONALISATION OF VARIABLES:

Operationalise the independent variable (IV) by specifying how it will be measured or manipulated. For example, if studying the perception of age, indicate the age range (e.g., "Participants aged 18-19" to avoid subjective terms like "child" or "old").

Similarly, operationalise the dependent variable (DV) by stating how it will be measured or assessed. For instance, if studying intelligence, operationalise it as "participants' scores on a standardised IQ test."

Know the difference between experimental and alternative hypotheses. Alternative hypotheses are formulated in distinct ways to accommodate the requirements of diverse research methodologies.

You always write a null hypothesis.

HYPOTHEIS FORMULATION

The hypothesis must be worded precisely (called operationalised). A hypothesis such as:

‘Younger people have better memories than older people’ is too imprecise. What age groups are being tested?

The initial hypothesis, "Younger people have better memories than older people," lacks specificity. It's essential to specify the age groups being tested, the type of memory being assessed (short-term or long-term memory), and the metric used to determine "better" memory.

Candidates should ensure that the hypothesis (es) is unambiguous and understandable to someone who has not yet read the rest of the report.

A revised operationalised hypothesis could be:

Participants aged between 16 -25 will recall more digits from a standardised memory test than participants aged between 26- 35 .

This hypothesis outlines the age groups, specifies the type of memory (short-term memory), and clarifies the measure of memory performance (number of digits recalled).

WRITING THE EXPERIMENTAL HYPOTHESES

Guide for writing ‘directional or one-tailed experimental hypotheses..

There are many ways to write directional hypotheses; you'll adopt your version once you find your feet.

To write a directional or one-tailed experimental hypothesis, follow these steps using the following hypothesis as an example: "Participants in the cheese condition will have more nightmares than participants in the non-cheese condition."

STEP ONE: Identify the First IV/Condition

Begin with "Participants in the………… followed by the first condition. Example: "Participants in the cheese condition..."

"Participants in the cheese condition will have more nightmares than participants in the non-cheese condition."

STEP TWO: State the Expected Outcome:

Express what you predict will happen about the first IV/Condition. Use terms like "higher," "lower," "more," "less," "better," or "worse" to indicate the direction of the effect. Example: "...will have more."

STEP THREE: Operationalise the DV:

Clearly define the dependent variable (DV) and how it will be measured or assessed. Example: "...nightmares."

STEP THREE: Identify the Second IV/Condition: EXAMPLE: non-cheese condition

After stating the operationalized DV Example, mention the second condition: "...will have more nightmares..."Examples:

“Participants in the cheese condition will have more nightmares than participants in the non-cheese condition.”

GUIDE FOR WRITING ‘DIRECTIONAL OR ONE-TAILED QUASI-EXPERIMENTS

Remember you are testing the difference between two groups of participants here. So, the groups are different somehow (age, gender, intelligence, birth order, etc.). Why would you test the difference between two groups if they were not different?

The two groups will be tested on the same thing, so only one condition exists. We are not so much interested in what the two groups are doing; we are more interested in the difference between how the two groups perform against each other—for example, Blind participants and sighted participants and their hearing ability. The two groups of participants are the IV.

There are many ways to write non-directional hypotheses; you'll adopt your version once you find your feet.

To write a directional or one-tailed experimental hypothesis for quasi-designs, follow these steps using the following hypothesis as an example: “Participants from Nigeria 2) will have lower scores 3) on a body shape questionnaire 4) than participants from the UK”.

STEP ONE: Always start with ‘Participants who are (then state what is different from them to the other group, for example, male; female, aged 40-60; from Nigeria, etc.…………).

“ Participants from Nigeria will have lower scores on a body shape questionnaire than participants from the UK”.

STEP TWO: State what you think will happen, e.g., if they score higher/lower, prefer more/less, better/worse, etc. What is your prediction?

“Participants from Nigeria will have lower scores on a body shape questionnaire 4) than participants from the UK”.

STEP THREE: State the OPERATIONALISED variable.

STEP FOUR: Always finish with the other set of participants (then state what is different from them to the other group, for example, male, female, aged 40-60; from Nigeria, etc.).

“Participants from Nigeria will have lower scores on a body shape questionnaire than participants from the UK”.

Participants from Nigeria will have lower scores on a body shape questionnaire 4) than participants from the UK.

Participants who are male will rate photographs of the opposite sex higher than participants who are female.

Green participants will recall more digits from a standardised memory test than participants who are yellow.

Participants who came to live in the UK after the age of 18 will have lower scores on the Television addiction questionnaire than participants who were born in the UK (1 tail).

GUIDE FOR WRITING ‘NON-DIRECTIONAL OR TWO-TAILED EXPERIMENTAL HYPOTHESES.

To write a non-directional or two-tailed experimental hypothesis, follow these steps using the following hypothesis as an example: "There will be a difference between participants in the cheese condition and participants in the non-cheese condition and the number of nightmares they have.”

STEP ONE: Identify the First IV/Condition and state the Expected Outcome:

Always start with ‘There will be a difference as you are not predicting a direction or tail, only non-similar results.

"There will be a difference between participants in the cheese condition and participants in the non-cheese condition and the number of nightmares they have.”

STEP TWO: Name the first condition

STEP TWO: Identify the Second IV/Condition: EXAMPLE: non-cheese condition

GUIDE FOR WRITING ‘NON-DIRECTIONAL OR TWO-TAILED QUASI-EXPERIMENTS

The two groups will be tested on the same thing, so only one condition exists. We are not so much interested in what the two groups are doing; we are more interested in the difference between how the two groups perform against each other—for example, males and females and driving ability. The two groups of participants are the IV.

To write a non-directional or two-tailed experimental hypothesis for quasi-designs, follow these steps using the following hypothesis as an example: “There will be a difference between male participants’ scores on a standardised anxiety test and female participants’ scores on a test (2-tailed).”

STEP ONE: The prediction part.

Begin with:” There will be a difference between….”

“There will be a difference between male participants’ scores on a standardised anxiety test and female participants’ scores on a test (2-tailed).”

STEP TWO: State what the difference will manifest as—e.g. scores, attitudes, preferences, etc.

“There will be a difference between male participants’ scores on a standardised anxiety test a nd female participants’ scores on a test (2-tailed).”

STEP THREE: State the operationalised DV.

State the first IV/condition. Always put ‘between participants in ……….condition and

“ There will be a difference between male participants’ scores on a standardised anxiety test and female participants’ scores on a test (2-tailed).”

STEP four: State the second IV.

Always finish with ‘Participants in the other ……….condition.’

There will be a difference in the number of nightmares between participants in the cheese condition and in the non-cheese condition.

There will be a difference in the ratings of photographs of the opposite sex) between participants in the jogging condition and between participants in the non-jogging condition.

WRITING A NULL HYPOTHESES

Null Hypotheses are formulated in a manner akin to two-tailed hypotheses, with the inclusion of the term "no." Once you grasp the structure of writing alternative and experimental hypotheses, crafting null hypotheses becomes straightforward

’ There will be no difference in the number of nightmares between participants in the cheese and non-cheese conditions.

There will be no difference in the ratings of photographs of the opposite sex between participants in the jogging condition and participants in the non-jogging condition.

There will be no difference between green and yellow participants’ scores on a standardized memory test.

There will be no correlation between height and drinking alcohol.

There will be no correlation between siblings’ SRSS scores.

There will be no association between female participants aged 25 – 35, who are more attracted to males with professional jobs, and female participants aged 18- 24, who are more attracted to looks.

WRITING FOR NON- EXPERIMENTAL HYPOTHESES

Hypotheses for tests of correlation.

Use the word correlation or link or relationship in your hypothesis.

If one-tailed use either positive or negative

If two-tailed use just correlation

Examples below:

ONE-TAILED/DIRECTIONAL:

There will be a negative correlation between siblings’ scores on the Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRSS) (1 tail).

There will be a positive correlation between high scores on a standardised happiness scale and high scores on the relationship satisfaction questionnaire (2 tail)

There will be a negative correlation between siblings' birth order and IQ.(1 tail)

There will be a positive correlation between siblings' birth order and IQ.(1 tail)

There will be a positive correlation between above 6ft and drinking alcohol excessively (1 tail)

TWO-TAILED/NON-DIRECTIONAL:

There will be a correlation between siblings’ scores on the Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRSS) (2 tail).

There will be a correlation between high scores on a standardised happiness scale and high scores on relationship satisfaction questionnaire (2 Tail)

There will be a correlation between siblings' birth order and IQ.(2 Tail)

There will be a correlation between siblings’ scores on the Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRSS) (1 tail).

There will be a correlation between above 6ft and drinking alcohol excessively (2 tail)

HYPOTHESES FOR TESTS OF ASSOCIATION

Tests of association cover interviews, questionnaire surveys, content analysis and observations.

Observation of girls and boys at play on the road and pavement.

Content analysis of males and females and what they advertise in Lonely Heart advertisements.

Questionnaire on older and younger females and types of males they are attracted to.

Remember to use the word association in your hypothesis, e.g., there will be an association between this variable and this variable.

Hypothesis examples:

DIRECTIONAL/ONE-TAILED

There will be a higher quality of attachment will be associated with more positive behaviours exhibited by infants and their primary caregivers across seven key areas."

Observation of girls and boys at play on the road and pavement. Hypothesis: Boys are likelier to play on the road than girls.

Content analysis of males and females and what they advertise in Lonely Heart advertisements. Hypothesis: Males will be more likely to advertise status than females in Lonely Heart advertisements.

Questionnaire on older and younger females and types of males they are attracted to. Hypothesis: Older females will be more likely to prefer males with professional jobs than younger females.

NON- NON-DIRECTIONAL/TWO-TAILED

"There will be a significant association between the quality of attachment and the behaviours exhibited by infants and their primary caregivers across seven key areas.

Observation of girls and boys at play on the road and pavement. Hypothesis: There will be an association between the gender of participants (girls vs. boys) and the location of play (road vs. pavement).

Content analysis of males and females and what they advertise in Lonely Heart advertisements. Hypothesis: There will be an association between the gender of participants (males vs. females) and the attributes advertised in Lonely Heart advertisements (looks vs. status).

Questionnaire on older and younger females and types of males they are attracted to. Hypothesis: There will be an association between the age group of female participants (older vs. younger) and the preferences for attributes in males (professional jobs vs. looks)

OPERATIONALISING VARIABLES

Operationalise refers to precisely defining a variable so that it becomes unambiguous and objective. For instance, if two researchers are tasked with observing "naughtiness" on the playground, they might provide different interpretations because "naughtiness" is subjective

Try and operationalise the following:

Risk-taking

Depression:

Sexual attraction

Aggression: ·      

Short-term memory

Intelligence

There are no set answers in this question, check with me if you think you may have a good idea but it has not been listed.

Risk-taking :

Develop a risk-taking questionnaire or measure finger length ratio.

Question: How likely are you to engage in risky behaviour in the following scenarios? (Scale: 1-5)

Measure: Calculate the ratio between the length of the index and ring fingers.

Depression :

Administer a depression scale or conduct a clinical interview.

Question: Over the past two weeks, how often have you experienced symptoms such as sadness, loss of interest, or changes in appetite? (Scale: 0-3)

Measure: Conduct a structured clinical interview based on DSM criteria.

Sexual attraction :

Rate attractiveness from photographs or observe real-life interactions.

Question: On a scale from 1 to 10, how physically attractive do you find the person in the photograph?

Measure: Observe participants' eye movements when presented with images of different genders.

Aggression :

Conduct observations in playgrounds or use aggression scales.

Question: How often do you engage in physical or verbal aggression towards others? (Scale: 1-5)

Measure: Record the frequency of aggressive behaviours observed during playground observations.

Administer memory tests or specifically use a digit span test for short-term memory.

Question: How many words can you recall from the list you just heard? (Immediate recall)

Measure: Use the number of correctly recalled digits in a sequence to measure short-term memory.

Intelligence :

Calculate an average of GCSE scores, ALIS scores, or IQ tests.

Question: What was your score on the standardized intelligence test?

Measure: Calculate the average score across multiple standardized tests.

Attachment :

Use the Strange Situation procedure or the Hazan and Shaver Love Quiz.

Question: How do you typically feel when separated from your primary caregiver? (Secure, insecure-avoidant, insecure-resistant)

Measure: Assess attachment style based on behaviours observed during the Strange Situation procedure.

Measure pupil dilation, use an empathy scale, or conduct experiments where participants stop to help an abandoned child.

Question: How much do you feel for others when they are experiencing strong emotions? (Scale: 1-7)

Measure: Record changes in pupil size while participants view emotionally charged images.

Utilise the Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS), daily Hassles Scale, or measure physiological responses like blood pressure and pupil dilation.

Question: How many stressful life events have you experienced over the past year? (Checklist)

Measure: Record changes in blood pressure and pupil dilation in response to stress-inducing stimuli.

Measure heart rate, employ anxiety questionnaires, conduct Galvanic Skin Response tests, or test blood pressure.

Question: How anxious do you feel in social situations? (Scale: 1-10)

Measure: Record changes in heart rate during a stress-inducing task or social interaction

ACTIVITY: OPERATIONALISING VARIABLES

For each scenario below, operationalise the variables.

Adults with a mental illness will have impaired memory abilities.

Consumption of sugar-filled drinks will increase aggression in boys.

Girls who use social networking sites will have learning difficulties.

Stressed males will take more days off work.

Participants diagnosed with bipolar depression will have lower digit spans than participants without a mental illness.

Male participants aged (5-10) who consume one can of Cola will commit more physically aggressive acts during their ten-minute morning break than male participants aged (5-10) who do not consume Cola.

Female participants (aged 12-17) who use social networking sites for more than 10 hours per week will have lower scores on the Stanford Binet intelligence test than participants who do not use social networking sites.

There will be a positive correlation between high scores on the SRRS and the number of sick days in the preceding year for male participants aged 18-30.

Sometimes psychologists find it hard to operationalise variables themselves (or too unethical to operationalise – how could you operationalise risk-taking behaviour, for instance, without compromising a participant’s physical or psychological well-being?) and so rely on questionnaires, attitudes, tests, etc. These questionnaires, attitudes, and tests need to be standardised. You cannot just make one up! Standardized scales and tests are usually referred to by their specific name, e.g., The GAF scale, which measures a person’s everyday functioning. Standardised questionnaires/tests/scales (like IQ, ALIS, GCSE, A ‘level, Cattel’s personality test, etc.) are questionnaires or scales that psychologists have tested for validity and reliability.

QUESTIONS ON HYPOTHESES

What role do aims and hypotheses play in the research process?

Can you provide an example of an aim in research, specifically in evolutionary psychology?

Explain the purpose of formulating hypotheses in research.

What are the differences between aims and hypotheses?

How are aims typically presented in a research paper?

Provide an example of a hypothesis formulated in evolutionary psychology research.

What is the null hypothesis, and why is it important in scientific experimentation?

Explain the difference between a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis.

What is the significance of Popper's influence on null and alternative hypotheses?

Can you give an example of a null hypothesis in a research context?

Describe the characteristics of an alternative hypothesis.

How do directional (1-tailed) hypotheses differ from non-directional (2-tailed) hypotheses?

Provide an example of a directional hypothesis in an experimental context.

What is the purpose of tests of different hypotheses in experimental and quasi-experimental research?

Explain how to write hypotheses with the operationalisation of variables.

Why is it important for hypotheses to be worded precisely and unambiguously?

Write out the hypothesis for the following. Include 1, 2 tail and null

Participants either listen to music with aggressive or non-aggressive lyrics and then compare their scores on an aggression questionnaire.

2.   Preference for masculine and feminine faces of men when females are ovulating or not ovulating.

3.   The effect of TV on creativity (operationalise DV).

4.   2d and 4d finger length ratios and testosterone (operationalise as risk-taking, then operationalise variables further).

5.   Who are the most conforming, males or females (operationalise variables)?

6.   Gender and playing on the road or not (operationalise variables).

7.   Older siblings and younger siblings and empathy (operationalise variables).

8.   Physiological arousal or not (operationalise IV) and attraction to the opposite sex (operationalise DV).

1a). Participants in the aggressive lyric condition will have higher scores on a standardised aggression test than participants in the non-aggressive lyric condition.

1b). There will be a difference in the scores on a standardised aggression test between participants in the aggressive and non-aggressive conditions.

1c). There will be no difference in the scores on the standardised aggression test between participants in the aggressive and non-aggressive lyric conditions.

2a). Female participants in the ovulation condition will have more preferences for masculine faces (BBC Masculine/Feminine face scale) than female participants in the non-ovulating condition.

2b). There will be a difference in a number of preferences for masculine and feminine faces (BBC Masculine/Feminine face scale) between female participants in the ovulating condition and female participants in the non-ovulating condition.

2c). There will be no difference in the preference for masculine and feminine faces (BBC Masculine/Feminine face scale) between female participants in the ovulating and non-ovulating conditions.

3a). Participants in the non-TV-watching condition will score higher on a standardised creativity test than participants in the TV watching condition

3b). There will be a difference in the scores on a standardised creativity test between participants in the watching TV condition and participants in the non-watching television condition.

3c). There will be no difference in the scores on a standardised creativity test between participants in the watching TV condition and participants in the non-watching television condition.

4a). There will be a correlation between participants’ 2d and 4d finger length ratios and scores on a risk-taking test.

4b). There will be a positive correlation between participants’ 2d and 4d finger length ratio and scores on a risk-taking test; the higher the ratio, the higher the risk test score. Or

4b). There will be a positive correlation between high’ 2d and 4d finger length ratios and high scores on a risk taking test.

4c). There will be no correlation between participants’ 2d and 4d finger length ratios and scores on a risk taking test.

5a). Male participants will score higher on a conformity questionnaire than female participants

5b). Male and female participants will differ in the scores on a conformity test.

5c). There will be no difference in the scores on a conformity test between male participants and female participants

6a). Male participants aged 5-7 will have one foot on the road more frequently than female participants aged 5-7

6b). There will be a difference in the frequency of having one foot on the road between male and female participants aged 5-7.

6c). There will be no difference in the frequency of having one foot on the road between male and female participants aged 5-7.

7a). There will be a negative correlation between older and younger siblings’ empathy scores.

7b). There will be a correlation between older and younger siblings’ empathy scores.

7c). There will be no correlation between older and younger siblings’ empathy scores.

8a). Participants in the jogging on the spot condition will rate photographs of the opposite sex higher in attractiveness than participants in the non-jogging on the spot condition.

8b). There will be a difference in the ratings of photographs of the opposite sex for attractiveness between participants in the jogging on-the-spot condition and participants in the non-jogging on-the-spot condition.

8c). There will be no difference in the ratings of photographs of the opposite sex for attractiveness between participants in the jogging on-the-spot condition and participants in the non-jogging on-the-spot condition.

INTRODUCTION TO SCIENTIFIC PROCESSES

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples

Published on 6 May 2022 by Shona McCombes .

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

Table of contents

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

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

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

Variables in hypotheses

Hypotheses propose a relationship between two or more variables . An independent variable is something the researcher changes or controls. A dependent variable is something the researcher observes and measures.

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Step 1: ask a question.

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

Step 2: Do some preliminary research

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

At this stage, you might construct a conceptual framework to identify which variables you will study and what you think the relationships are between them. Sometimes, you’ll have to operationalise more complex constructs.

Step 3: Formulate your hypothesis

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

Step 4: Refine your hypothesis

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

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

Step 5: Phrase your hypothesis in three ways

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

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

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

Step 6. Write a null hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, May 06). How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 3 September 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/hypothesis-writing/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

Overview of the Scientific Method

Learning Objectives

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

Theories and Hypotheses

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory Testing

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

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

Incorporating Theory into Your Research

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

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

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

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

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

A coherent explanation or interpretation of one or more phenomena.

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

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

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

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

Share This Book

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

Developing a Hypothesis

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

Learning Objectives

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

Theories and Hypotheses

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory Testing

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

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

Incorporating Theory into Your Research

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

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

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

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

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

A coherent explanation or interpretation of one or more phenomena.

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

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

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

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

Share This Book

Psychological Report Writing

March 8, 2021 - paper 2 psychology in context | research methods.

Through using this website, you have learned about, referred to, and evaluated research studies. These research studies are generally presented to the scientific community as a journal article. Most journal articles follow a standard format. This is similar to the way you may have written up experiments in other sciences.

(2) Introduction:

This tells everyone why the study is being carried out and the commentary should form a ‘funnel’ of information. First, there is broad coverage of all the background research with appropriate evaluative comments: “Asch (1951) found…but Crutchfield (1955) showed…” Once the general research has been covered, the focus becomes much narrower finishing with the main researcher/research area you are hoping to support/refute. This then leads to the aims and hypothesis/hypotheses (i.e. experimental and null hypotheses) being stated.

(1) Design:

(4) Results:

All studies have flaws, so anything that went wrong or the limitations of the study are discussed together with suggestions for how it could be improved if it were to be repeated. Suggestions for alternative studies and future research are also explored. The discussion ends with a paragraph summing up what was found and assessing the implications of the study and any conclusions that can be drawn from it.

Look through your report and include a reference every researcher mentioned. A reference should include; the name of the researcher, the date the research was published, the title of the book/journal, where the book was published (or what journal the article was published in), the edition number of the book/volume of the journal article, the page numbers used.

Exam Tip:  In the exam, the types of questions you could expect relating to report writing include; defining what information you would find in each section of the report, in addition, on the old specification, questions linked to report writing have included; writing up a method section, results section and designing a piece of research.

In addition, in the exam, you may get asked to write; a  consent form ,  debriefing sheet  or a set of  standardised instructions.

(2)  A im of the study?

(3)  P rocedure – What will I be asked to do if I take part?

(5) Do I  H ave to take part?

Explain to the participant that they don’t have to take part in the study, explain about their right to withdraw.

Have you received enough information about the study? YES/NO

Do you consent for your data to be used in this study and retained for use in other studies? YES/NO

When writing a set of standardised instructions, it is essential that you include:

5. Explain to the participants what will happen in the study, what they will be expected to do (step by step), how long the task/specific parts of the task will take to complete.

8. Check that the participants are still happy to proceed with the study.

This is the form that you should complete with your participants at the end of the study to ensure that they are happy with the way the study has been conducted, to explain to them the true nature of the study, to confirm consent and to give them the researcher’s contact details in case they want to ask any further questions.

(2) Participants:

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

2.4 Developing a Hypothesis

Learning objectives.

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

Theories and Hypotheses

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory Testing

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

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

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

Incorporating Theory into Your Research

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

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

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

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

Key Takeaways

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

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

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

Chapter 11: Presenting Your Research

Writing a Research Report in American Psychological Association (APA) Style

Learning Objectives

• Identify the major sections of an APA-style research report and the basic contents of each section.
• Plan and write an effective APA-style research report.

In this section, we look at how to write an APA-style empirical research report , an article that presents the results of one or more new studies. Recall that the standard sections of an empirical research report provide a kind of outline. Here we consider each of these sections in detail, including what information it contains, how that information is formatted and organized, and tips for writing each section. At the end of this section is a sample APA-style research report that illustrates many of these principles.

Sections of a Research Report

Title page and abstract.

An APA-style research report begins with a  title page . The title is centred in the upper half of the page, with each important word capitalized. The title should clearly and concisely (in about 12 words or fewer) communicate the primary variables and research questions. This sometimes requires a main title followed by a subtitle that elaborates on the main title, in which case the main title and subtitle are separated by a colon. Here are some titles from recent issues of professional journals published by the American Psychological Association.

• Sex Differences in Coping Styles and Implications for Depressed Mood
• Effects of Aging and Divided Attention on Memory for Items and Their Contexts
• Computer-Assisted Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Child Anxiety: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial
• Virtual Driving and Risk Taking: Do Racing Games Increase Risk-Taking Cognitions, Affect, and Behaviour?

Below the title are the authors’ names and, on the next line, their institutional affiliation—the university or other institution where the authors worked when they conducted the research. As we have already seen, the authors are listed in an order that reflects their contribution to the research. When multiple authors have made equal contributions to the research, they often list their names alphabetically or in a randomly determined order.

In some areas of psychology, the titles of many empirical research reports are informal in a way that is perhaps best described as “cute.” They usually take the form of a play on words or a well-known expression that relates to the topic under study. Here are some examples from recent issues of the Journal Psychological Science .

• “Smells Like Clean Spirit: Nonconscious Effects of Scent on Cognition and Behavior”
• “Time Crawls: The Temporal Resolution of Infants’ Visual Attention”
• “Scent of a Woman: Men’s Testosterone Responses to Olfactory Ovulation Cues”
• “Apocalypse Soon?: Dire Messages Reduce Belief in Global Warming by Contradicting Just-World Beliefs”
• “Serial vs. Parallel Processing: Sometimes They Look Like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but They Can (and Should) Be Distinguished”
• “How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count the Words: The Social Effects of Expressive Writing”

Individual researchers differ quite a bit in their preference for such titles. Some use them regularly, while others never use them. What might be some of the pros and cons of using cute article titles?

For articles that are being submitted for publication, the title page also includes an author note that lists the authors’ full institutional affiliations, any acknowledgments the authors wish to make to agencies that funded the research or to colleagues who commented on it, and contact information for the authors. For student papers that are not being submitted for publication—including theses—author notes are generally not necessary.

The  abstract  is a summary of the study. It is the second page of the manuscript and is headed with the word  Abstract . The first line is not indented. The abstract presents the research question, a summary of the method, the basic results, and the most important conclusions. Because the abstract is usually limited to about 200 words, it can be a challenge to write a good one.

Introduction

The  introduction  begins on the third page of the manuscript. The heading at the top of this page is the full title of the manuscript, with each important word capitalized as on the title page. The introduction includes three distinct subsections, although these are typically not identified by separate headings. The opening introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting, the literature review discusses relevant previous research, and the closing restates the research question and comments on the method used to answer it.

The Opening

The  opening , which is usually a paragraph or two in length, introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting. To capture the reader’s attention, researcher Daryl Bem recommends starting with general observations about the topic under study, expressed in ordinary language (not technical jargon)—observations that are about people and their behaviour (not about researchers or their research; Bem, 2003 [1] ). Concrete examples are often very useful here. According to Bem, this would be a poor way to begin a research report:

Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance received a great deal of attention during the latter part of the 20th century (p. 191)

The following would be much better:

The individual who holds two beliefs that are inconsistent with one another may feel uncomfortable. For example, the person who knows that he or she enjoys smoking but believes it to be unhealthy may experience discomfort arising from the inconsistency or disharmony between these two thoughts or cognitions. This feeling of discomfort was called cognitive dissonance by social psychologist Leon Festinger (1957), who suggested that individuals will be motivated to remove this dissonance in whatever way they can (p. 191).

After capturing the reader’s attention, the opening should go on to introduce the research question and explain why it is interesting. Will the answer fill a gap in the literature? Will it provide a test of an important theory? Does it have practical implications? Giving readers a clear sense of what the research is about and why they should care about it will motivate them to continue reading the literature review—and will help them make sense of it.

Breaking the Rules

Researcher Larry Jacoby reported several studies showing that a word that people see or hear repeatedly can seem more familiar even when they do not recall the repetitions—and that this tendency is especially pronounced among older adults. He opened his article with the following humourous anecdote:

A friend whose mother is suffering symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) tells the story of taking her mother to visit a nursing home, preliminary to her mother’s moving there. During an orientation meeting at the nursing home, the rules and regulations were explained, one of which regarded the dining room. The dining room was described as similar to a fine restaurant except that tipping was not required. The absence of tipping was a central theme in the orientation lecture, mentioned frequently to emphasize the quality of care along with the advantages of having paid in advance. At the end of the meeting, the friend’s mother was asked whether she had any questions. She replied that she only had one question: “Should I tip?” (Jacoby, 1999, p. 3)

Although both humour and personal anecdotes are generally discouraged in APA-style writing, this example is a highly effective way to start because it both engages the reader and provides an excellent real-world example of the topic under study.

The Literature Review

Immediately after the opening comes the  literature review , which describes relevant previous research on the topic and can be anywhere from several paragraphs to several pages in length. However, the literature review is not simply a list of past studies. Instead, it constitutes a kind of argument for why the research question is worth addressing. By the end of the literature review, readers should be convinced that the research question makes sense and that the present study is a logical next step in the ongoing research process.

Like any effective argument, the literature review must have some kind of structure. For example, it might begin by describing a phenomenon in a general way along with several studies that demonstrate it, then describing two or more competing theories of the phenomenon, and finally presenting a hypothesis to test one or more of the theories. Or it might describe one phenomenon, then describe another phenomenon that seems inconsistent with the first one, then propose a theory that resolves the inconsistency, and finally present a hypothesis to test that theory. In applied research, it might describe a phenomenon or theory, then describe how that phenomenon or theory applies to some important real-world situation, and finally suggest a way to test whether it does, in fact, apply to that situation.

Looking at the literature review in this way emphasizes a few things. First, it is extremely important to start with an outline of the main points that you want to make, organized in the order that you want to make them. The basic structure of your argument, then, should be apparent from the outline itself. Second, it is important to emphasize the structure of your argument in your writing. One way to do this is to begin the literature review by summarizing your argument even before you begin to make it. “In this article, I will describe two apparently contradictory phenomena, present a new theory that has the potential to resolve the apparent contradiction, and finally present a novel hypothesis to test the theory.” Another way is to open each paragraph with a sentence that summarizes the main point of the paragraph and links it to the preceding points. These opening sentences provide the “transitions” that many beginning researchers have difficulty with. Instead of beginning a paragraph by launching into a description of a previous study, such as “Williams (2004) found that…,” it is better to start by indicating something about why you are describing this particular study. Here are some simple examples:

Another example of this phenomenon comes from the work of Williams (2004).

Williams (2004) offers one explanation of this phenomenon.

An alternative perspective has been provided by Williams (2004).

We used a method based on the one used by Williams (2004).

Finally, remember that your goal is to construct an argument for why your research question is interesting and worth addressing—not necessarily why your favourite answer to it is correct. In other words, your literature review must be balanced. If you want to emphasize the generality of a phenomenon, then of course you should discuss various studies that have demonstrated it. However, if there are other studies that have failed to demonstrate it, you should discuss them too. Or if you are proposing a new theory, then of course you should discuss findings that are consistent with that theory. However, if there are other findings that are inconsistent with it, again, you should discuss them too. It is acceptable to argue that the  balance  of the research supports the existence of a phenomenon or is consistent with a theory (and that is usually the best that researchers in psychology can hope for), but it is not acceptable to  ignore contradictory evidence. Besides, a large part of what makes a research question interesting is uncertainty about its answer.

The Closing

The  closing  of the introduction—typically the final paragraph or two—usually includes two important elements. The first is a clear statement of the main research question or hypothesis. This statement tends to be more formal and precise than in the opening and is often expressed in terms of operational definitions of the key variables. The second is a brief overview of the method and some comment on its appropriateness. Here, for example, is how Darley and Latané (1968) [2] concluded the introduction to their classic article on the bystander effect:

These considerations lead to the hypothesis that the more bystanders to an emergency, the less likely, or the more slowly, any one bystander will intervene to provide aid. To test this proposition it would be necessary to create a situation in which a realistic “emergency” could plausibly occur. Each subject should also be blocked from communicating with others to prevent his getting information about their behaviour during the emergency. Finally, the experimental situation should allow for the assessment of the speed and frequency of the subjects’ reaction to the emergency. The experiment reported below attempted to fulfill these conditions. (p. 378)

Thus the introduction leads smoothly into the next major section of the article—the method section.

The  method section  is where you describe how you conducted your study. An important principle for writing a method section is that it should be clear and detailed enough that other researchers could replicate the study by following your “recipe.” This means that it must describe all the important elements of the study—basic demographic characteristics of the participants, how they were recruited, whether they were randomly assigned, how the variables were manipulated or measured, how counterbalancing was accomplished, and so on. At the same time, it should avoid irrelevant details such as the fact that the study was conducted in Classroom 37B of the Industrial Technology Building or that the questionnaire was double-sided and completed using pencils.

The method section begins immediately after the introduction ends with the heading “Method” (not “Methods”) centred on the page. Immediately after this is the subheading “Participants,” left justified and in italics. The participants subsection indicates how many participants there were, the number of women and men, some indication of their age, other demographics that may be relevant to the study, and how they were recruited, including any incentives given for participation.

After the participants section, the structure can vary a bit. Figure 11.1 shows three common approaches. In the first, the participants section is followed by a design and procedure subsection, which describes the rest of the method. This works well for methods that are relatively simple and can be described adequately in a few paragraphs. In the second approach, the participants section is followed by separate design and procedure subsections. This works well when both the design and the procedure are relatively complicated and each requires multiple paragraphs.

What is the difference between design and procedure? The design of a study is its overall structure. What were the independent and dependent variables? Was the independent variable manipulated, and if so, was it manipulated between or within subjects? How were the variables operationally defined? The procedure is how the study was carried out. It often works well to describe the procedure in terms of what the participants did rather than what the researchers did. For example, the participants gave their informed consent, read a set of instructions, completed a block of four practice trials, completed a block of 20 test trials, completed two questionnaires, and were debriefed and excused.

In the third basic way to organize a method section, the participants subsection is followed by a materials subsection before the design and procedure subsections. This works well when there are complicated materials to describe. This might mean multiple questionnaires, written vignettes that participants read and respond to, perceptual stimuli, and so on. The heading of this subsection can be modified to reflect its content. Instead of “Materials,” it can be “Questionnaires,” “Stimuli,” and so on.

The  results section  is where you present the main results of the study, including the results of the statistical analyses. Although it does not include the raw data—individual participants’ responses or scores—researchers should save their raw data and make them available to other researchers who request them. Several journals now encourage the open sharing of raw data online.

Although there are no standard subsections, it is still important for the results section to be logically organized. Typically it begins with certain preliminary issues. One is whether any participants or responses were excluded from the analyses and why. The rationale for excluding data should be described clearly so that other researchers can decide whether it is appropriate. A second preliminary issue is how multiple responses were combined to produce the primary variables in the analyses. For example, if participants rated the attractiveness of 20 stimulus people, you might have to explain that you began by computing the mean attractiveness rating for each participant. Or if they recalled as many items as they could from study list of 20 words, did you count the number correctly recalled, compute the percentage correctly recalled, or perhaps compute the number correct minus the number incorrect? A third preliminary issue is the reliability of the measures. This is where you would present test-retest correlations, Cronbach’s α, or other statistics to show that the measures are consistent across time and across items. A final preliminary issue is whether the manipulation was successful. This is where you would report the results of any manipulation checks.

The results section should then tackle the primary research questions, one at a time. Again, there should be a clear organization. One approach would be to answer the most general questions and then proceed to answer more specific ones. Another would be to answer the main question first and then to answer secondary ones. Regardless, Bem (2003) [3] suggests the following basic structure for discussing each new result:

• Remind the reader of the research question.
• Give the answer to the research question in words.
• Present the relevant statistics.
• Qualify the answer if necessary.
• Summarize the result.

Notice that only Step 3 necessarily involves numbers. The rest of the steps involve presenting the research question and the answer to it in words. In fact, the basic results should be clear even to a reader who skips over the numbers.

The  discussion  is the last major section of the research report. Discussions usually consist of some combination of the following elements:

• Summary of the research
• Theoretical implications
• Practical implications
• Limitations
• Suggestions for future research

The discussion typically begins with a summary of the study that provides a clear answer to the research question. In a short report with a single study, this might require no more than a sentence. In a longer report with multiple studies, it might require a paragraph or even two. The summary is often followed by a discussion of the theoretical implications of the research. Do the results provide support for any existing theories? If not, how  can  they be explained? Although you do not have to provide a definitive explanation or detailed theory for your results, you at least need to outline one or more possible explanations. In applied research—and often in basic research—there is also some discussion of the practical implications of the research. How can the results be used, and by whom, to accomplish some real-world goal?

The theoretical and practical implications are often followed by a discussion of the study’s limitations. Perhaps there are problems with its internal or external validity. Perhaps the manipulation was not very effective or the measures not very reliable. Perhaps there is some evidence that participants did not fully understand their task or that they were suspicious of the intent of the researchers. Now is the time to discuss these issues and how they might have affected the results. But do not overdo it. All studies have limitations, and most readers will understand that a different sample or different measures might have produced different results. Unless there is good reason to think they  would have, however, there is no reason to mention these routine issues. Instead, pick two or three limitations that seem like they could have influenced the results, explain how they could have influenced the results, and suggest ways to deal with them.

Most discussions end with some suggestions for future research. If the study did not satisfactorily answer the original research question, what will it take to do so? What  new  research questions has the study raised? This part of the discussion, however, is not just a list of new questions. It is a discussion of two or three of the most important unresolved issues. This means identifying and clarifying each question, suggesting some alternative answers, and even suggesting ways they could be studied.

Finally, some researchers are quite good at ending their articles with a sweeping or thought-provoking conclusion. Darley and Latané (1968) [4] , for example, ended their article on the bystander effect by discussing the idea that whether people help others may depend more on the situation than on their personalities. Their final sentence is, “If people understand the situational forces that can make them hesitate to intervene, they may better overcome them” (p. 383). However, this kind of ending can be difficult to pull off. It can sound overreaching or just banal and end up detracting from the overall impact of the article. It is often better simply to end when you have made your final point (although you should avoid ending on a limitation).

The references section begins on a new page with the heading “References” centred at the top of the page. All references cited in the text are then listed in the format presented earlier. They are listed alphabetically by the last name of the first author. If two sources have the same first author, they are listed alphabetically by the last name of the second author. If all the authors are the same, then they are listed chronologically by the year of publication. Everything in the reference list is double-spaced both within and between references.

Appendices, Tables, and Figures

Appendices, tables, and figures come after the references. An  appendix  is appropriate for supplemental material that would interrupt the flow of the research report if it were presented within any of the major sections. An appendix could be used to present lists of stimulus words, questionnaire items, detailed descriptions of special equipment or unusual statistical analyses, or references to the studies that are included in a meta-analysis. Each appendix begins on a new page. If there is only one, the heading is “Appendix,” centred at the top of the page. If there is more than one, the headings are “Appendix A,” “Appendix B,” and so on, and they appear in the order they were first mentioned in the text of the report.

After any appendices come tables and then figures. Tables and figures are both used to present results. Figures can also be used to illustrate theories (e.g., in the form of a flowchart), display stimuli, outline procedures, and present many other kinds of information. Each table and figure appears on its own page. Tables are numbered in the order that they are first mentioned in the text (“Table 1,” “Table 2,” and so on). Figures are numbered the same way (“Figure 1,” “Figure 2,” and so on). A brief explanatory title, with the important words capitalized, appears above each table. Each figure is given a brief explanatory caption, where (aside from proper nouns or names) only the first word of each sentence is capitalized. More details on preparing APA-style tables and figures are presented later in the book.

Sample APA-Style Research Report

Figures 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, and 11.5 show some sample pages from an APA-style empirical research report originally written by undergraduate student Tomoe Suyama at California State University, Fresno. The main purpose of these figures is to illustrate the basic organization and formatting of an APA-style empirical research report, although many high-level and low-level style conventions can be seen here too.

Key Takeaways

• An APA-style empirical research report consists of several standard sections. The main ones are the abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, and references.
• The introduction consists of an opening that presents the research question, a literature review that describes previous research on the topic, and a closing that restates the research question and comments on the method. The literature review constitutes an argument for why the current study is worth doing.
• The method section describes the method in enough detail that another researcher could replicate the study. At a minimum, it consists of a participants subsection and a design and procedure subsection.
• The results section describes the results in an organized fashion. Each primary result is presented in terms of statistical results but also explained in words.
• The discussion typically summarizes the study, discusses theoretical and practical implications and limitations of the study, and offers suggestions for further research.
• Practice: Look through an issue of a general interest professional journal (e.g.,  Psychological Science ). Read the opening of the first five articles and rate the effectiveness of each one from 1 ( very ineffective ) to 5 ( very effective ). Write a sentence or two explaining each rating.
• Practice: Find a recent article in a professional journal and identify where the opening, literature review, and closing of the introduction begin and end.
• Practice: Find a recent article in a professional journal and highlight in a different colour each of the following elements in the discussion: summary, theoretical implications, practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research.

Long Descriptions

Figure 11.1 long description: Table showing three ways of organizing an APA-style method section.

In the simple method, there are two subheadings: “Participants” (which might begin “The participants were…”) and “Design and procedure” (which might begin “There were three conditions…”).

In the typical method, there are three subheadings: “Participants” (“The participants were…”), “Design” (“There were three conditions…”), and “Procedure” (“Participants viewed each stimulus on the computer screen…”).

In the complex method, there are four subheadings: “Participants” (“The participants were…”), “Materials” (“The stimuli were…”), “Design” (“There were three conditions…”), and “Procedure” (“Participants viewed each stimulus on the computer screen…”). [Return to Figure 11.1]

• Bem, D. J. (2003). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. R. Roediger III (Eds.),  The compleat academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist  (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. ↵
• Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 , 377–383. ↵

A type of research article which describes one or more new empirical studies conducted by the authors.

The page at the beginning of an APA-style research report containing the title of the article, the authors’ names, and their institutional affiliation.

A summary of a research study.

The third page of a manuscript containing the research question, the literature review, and comments about how to answer the research question.

An introduction to the research question and explanation for why this question is interesting.

A description of relevant previous research on the topic being discusses and an argument for why the research is worth addressing.

The end of the introduction, where the research question is reiterated and the method is commented upon.

The section of a research report where the method used to conduct the study is described.

The main results of the study, including the results from statistical analyses, are presented in a research article.

Section of a research report that summarizes the study's results and interprets them by referring back to the study's theoretical background.

Part of a research report which contains supplemental material.

Research Methods in Psychology - 2nd Canadian Edition Copyright © 2015 by Paul C. Price, Rajiv Jhangiani, & I-Chant A. Chiang is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Affiliate Program

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

How to Write a Research Hypothesis: Good & Bad Examples

What is a research hypothesis?

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

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

What is the difference between a hypothesis and a prediction?

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

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

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

Types of Research Hypotheses

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

Alternative Hypothesis

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

Null Hypothesis

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

Directional Hypothesis

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

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

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

Your null hypothesis would then be that

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

Nondirectional Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

How to Write a Hypothesis for a Research Paper

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

Writing a Hypothesis Step:1

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

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

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

Writing a Hypothesis Step 2:

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

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

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

Writing a Hypothesis Step 3:

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

Examples of a Good and Bad Hypothesis

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

Good Hypothesis Examples

Bad Hypothesis Examples

Tips for Writing a Research Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

Perfect Your Manuscript With Professional Editing

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

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

Reference Library

Collections

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

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Psychology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Psychology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

• Study Notes

Aims and Hypotheses

Last updated 22 Mar 2021

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

Observations of events or behaviour in our surroundings provoke questions as to why they occur. In turn, one or multiple theories might attempt to explain a phenomenon, and investigations are consequently conducted to test them. One observation could be that athletes tend to perform better when they have a training partner, and a theory might propose that this is because athletes are more motivated with peers around them.

The aim of an investigation, driven by a theory to explain a given observation, states the intent of the study in general terms. Continuing the above example, the consequent aim might be “to investigate the effect of having a training partner on athletes’ motivation levels”.

The theory attempting to explain an observation will help to inform hypotheses - predictions of an investigation’s outcome that make specific reference to the independent variables (IVs) manipulated and dependent variables (DVs) measured by the researchers.

There are two types of hypothesis:

• - H 1 – Research hypothesis
• - H 0 – Null hypothesis

H 1 – The Research Hypothesis

This predicts a statistically significant effect of an IV on a DV (i.e. an experiment), or a significant relationship between variables (i.e. a correlation study), e.g.

• In an experiment: “Athletes who have a training partner are likely to score higher on a questionnaire measuring motivation levels than athletes who train alone.”
• In a correlation study: ‘There will be a significant positive correlation between athletes’ motivation questionnaire scores and the number of partners athletes train with.”

The research hypothesis will be directional (one-tailed) if theory or existing evidence argues a particular ‘direction’ of the predicted results, as demonstrated in the two hypothesis examples above.

Non-directional (two-tailed) research hypotheses do not predict a direction, so here would simply predict “a significant difference” between questionnaire scores in athletes who train alone and with a training partner (in an experiment), or “a significant relationship” between questionnaire scores and number of training partners (in a correlation study).

H 0 – The Null Hypothesis

This predicts that a statistically significant effect or relationship will not be found, e.g.

• In an experiment: “There will be no significant difference in motivation questionnaire scores between athletes who train with and without a training partner.”
• In a correlation study: “There will be no significant relationship between motivation questionnaire scores and the number of partners athletes train with.”

When the investigation concludes, analysis of results will suggest that either the research hypothesis or null hypothesis can be retained, with the other rejected. Ultimately this will either provide evidence to support of refute the theory driving a hypothesis, and may lead to further research in the field.

You might also like

A level psychology topic quiz - research methods.

Quizzes & Activities

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

Topic Videos

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

Exam Support

Our subjects

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

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

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

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

How to Write a Hypothesis in 6 Steps, With Examples

A hypothesis is a statement that explains the predictions and reasoning of your research—an “educated guess” about how your scientific experiments will end. As a fundamental part of the scientific method, a good hypothesis is carefully written, but even the simplest ones can be difficult to put into words. 

Want to know how to write a hypothesis for your academic paper ? Below we explain the different types of hypotheses, what a good hypothesis requires, the steps to write your own, and plenty of examples.

Write with confidence Grammarly helps you polish your academic writing Write with Grammarly  

What is a hypothesis? 

One of our 10 essential words for university success , a hypothesis is one of the earliest stages of the scientific method. It’s essentially an educated guess—based on observations—of what the results of your experiment or research will be. 

Some hypothesis examples include:

• If I water plants daily they will grow faster.
• Adults can more accurately guess the temperature than children can. 
• Butterflies prefer white flowers to orange ones.

If you’ve noticed that watering your plants every day makes them grow faster, your hypothesis might be “plants grow better with regular watering.” From there, you can begin experiments to test your hypothesis; in this example, you might set aside two plants, water one but not the other, and then record the results to see the differences. 

The language of hypotheses always discusses variables , or the elements that you’re testing. Variables can be objects, events, concepts, etc.—whatever is observable. 

There are two types of variables: independent and dependent. Independent variables are the ones that you change for your experiment, whereas dependent variables are the ones that you can only observe. In the above example, our independent variable is how often we water the plants and the dependent variable is how well they grow. 

Hypotheses determine the direction and organization of your subsequent research methods, and that makes them a big part of writing a research paper . Ultimately the reader wants to know whether your hypothesis was proven true or false, so it must be written clearly in the introduction and/or abstract of your paper. 

7 examples of hypotheses

Depending on the nature of your research and what you expect to find, your hypothesis will fall into one or more of the seven main categories. Keep in mind that these categories are not exclusive, so the same hypothesis might qualify as several different types. 

1 Simple hypothesis

A simple hypothesis suggests only the relationship between two variables: one independent and one dependent. 

• If you stay up late, then you feel tired the next day. 
• Turning off your phone makes it charge faster. 

2 Complex hypothesis

A complex hypothesis suggests the relationship between more than two variables, for example, two independents and one dependent, or vice versa. 

• People who both (1) eat a lot of fatty foods and (2) have a family history of health problems are more likely to develop heart diseases. 
• Older people who live in rural areas are happier than younger people who live in rural areas. 

3 Null hypothesis

A null hypothesis, abbreviated as H 0 , suggests that there is no relationship between variables. 

• There is no difference in plant growth when using either bottled water or tap water. 
• Professional psychics do not win the lottery more than other people. 

4 Alternative hypothesis

An alternative hypothesis, abbreviated as H 1 or H A , is used in conjunction with a null hypothesis. It states the opposite of the null hypothesis, so that one and only one must be true. 

• Plants grow better with bottled water than tap water. 
• Professional psychics win the lottery more than other people. 

5 Logical hypothesis

A logical hypothesis suggests a relationship between variables without actual evidence. Claims are instead based on reasoning or deduction, but lack actual data.  

• An alien raised on Venus would have trouble breathing in Earth’s atmosphere. 
• Dinosaurs with sharp, pointed teeth were probably carnivores. 

6 Empirical hypothesis

An empirical hypothesis, also known as a “working hypothesis,” is one that is currently being tested. Unlike logical hypotheses, empirical hypotheses rely on concrete data. 

• Customers at restaurants will tip the same even if the wait staff’s base salary is raised. 
• Washing your hands every hour can reduce the frequency of illness. 

7 Statistical hypothesis

A statistical hypothesis is when you test only a sample of a population and then apply statistical evidence to the results to draw a conclusion about the entire population. Instead of testing everything , you test only a portion and generalize the rest based on preexisting data. 

• In humans, the birth-gender ratio of males to females is 1.05 to 1.00.  
• Approximately 2% of the world population has natural red hair. 

What makes a good hypothesis?

No matter what you’re testing, a good hypothesis is written according to the same guidelines. In particular, keep these five characteristics in mind: 

Cause and effect

Hypotheses always include a cause-and-effect relationship where one variable causes another to change (or not change if you’re using a null hypothesis). This can best be reflected as an if-then statement: If one variable occurs, then another variable changes. 

Testable prediction

Most hypotheses are designed to be tested (with the exception of logical hypotheses). Before committing to a hypothesis, make sure you’re actually able to conduct experiments on it. Choose a testable hypothesis with an independent variable that you have absolute control over. 

Independent and dependent variables

Define your variables in your hypothesis so your readers understand the big picture. You don’t have to specifically say which ones are independent and dependent variables, but you definitely want to mention them all. 

Candid language

Writing can easily get convoluted, so make sure your hypothesis remains as simple and clear as possible. Readers use your hypothesis as a contextual pillar to unify your entire paper, so there should be no confusion or ambiguity. If you’re unsure about your phrasing, try reading your hypothesis to a friend to see if they understand. 

Adherence to ethics

It’s not always about what you can test, but what you should test. Avoid hypotheses that require questionable or taboo experiments to keep ethics (and therefore, credibility) intact.

How to write a hypothesis in 6 steps

1 ask a question.

Curiosity has inspired some of history’s greatest scientific achievements, so a good place to start is to ask yourself questions about the world around you. Why are things the way they are? What causes the factors you see around you? If you can, choose a research topic that you’re interested in so your curiosity comes naturally. 

2 Conduct preliminary research

Next, collect some background information on your topic. How much background information you need depends on what you’re attempting. It could require reading several books, or it could be as simple as performing a web search for a quick answer. You don’t necessarily have to prove or disprove your hypothesis at this stage; rather, collect only what you need to prove or disprove it yourself. 

3 Define your variables

Once you have an idea of what your hypothesis will be, select which variables are independent and which are dependent. Remember that independent variables can only be factors that you have absolute control over, so consider the limits of your experiment before finalizing your hypothesis. 

4 Phrase it as an if-then statement

When writing a hypothesis, it helps to phrase it using an if-then format, such as, “ If I water a plant every day, then it will grow better.” This format can get tricky when dealing with multiple variables, but in general, it’s a reliable method for expressing the cause-and-effect relationship you’re testing. 

5  Collect data to support your hypothesis

A hypothesis is merely a means to an end. The priority of any scientific research is the conclusion. Once you have your hypothesis laid out and your variables chosen, you can then begin your experiments. Ideally, you’ll collect data to support your hypothesis, but don’t worry if your research ends up proving it wrong—that’s all part of the scientific method. 

6 Write with confidence

Last, you’ll want to record your findings in a research paper for others to see. This requires a bit of writing know-how, quite a different skill set than conducting experiments. 

That’s where Grammarly can be a major help; our writing suggestions point out not only grammar and spelling mistakes , but also new word choices and better phrasing. While you write, Grammarly automatically recommends optimal language and highlights areas where readers might get confused, ensuring that your hypothesis—and your final paper—are clear and polished.

6 Hypothesis Examples in Psychology

The hypothesis is one of the most important steps of psychological research. Hypothesis refers to an assumption or the temporary statement made by the researcher before the execution of the experiment, regarding the possible outcome of that experiment. A hypothesis can be tested through various scientific and statistical tools. It is a logical guess based on previous knowledge and investigations related to the problem under investigation. In this article, we’ll learn about the significance of the hypothesis, the sources of the hypothesis, and the various examples of the hypothesis.

Sources of Hypothesis

The formulation of a good hypothesis is not an easy task. One needs to take care of the various crucial steps to get an accurate hypothesis. The hypothesis formulation demands both the creativity of the researcher and his/her years of experience. The researcher needs to use critical thinking to avoid committing any errors such as choosing the wrong hypothesis. Although the hypothesis is considered the first step before further investigations such as data collection for the experiment, the hypothesis formulation also requires some amount of data collection. The data collection for the hypothesis formulation refers to the review of literature related to the concerned topic, and understanding of the previous research on the related topic. Following are some of the main sources of the hypothesis that may help the researcher to formulate a good hypothesis.

• Reviewing the similar studies and literature related to a similar problem.
• Examining the available data concerned with the problem.
• Discussing the problem with the colleagues, or the professional researchers about the problem under investigation.
• Thorough research and investigation by conducting field interviews or surveys on the people that are directly concerned with the problem under investigation.
• Sometimes ‘institution’ of the well known and experienced researcher is also considered as a good source of the hypothesis formulation.

Real Life Hypothesis Examples

1. null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis examples.

Every research problem-solving procedure begins with the formulation of the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis assumes the existence of the relationship between the variables under study, while the null hypothesis denies the relationship between the variables under study. Following are examples of the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis based on the research problem.

Research Problem: What is the benefit of eating an apple daily on your health?

Alternative Hypothesis: Eating an apple daily reduces the chances of visiting the doctor.

Null Hypothesis : Eating an apple daily does not impact the frequency of visiting the doctor.

Research Problem: What is the impact of spending a lot of time on mobiles on the attention span of teenagers.

Alternative Problem: Spending time on the mobiles and attention span have a negative correlation.

Null Hypothesis: There does not exist any correlation between the use of mobile by teenagers on their attention span.

Research Problem: What is the impact of providing flexible working hours to the employees on the job satisfaction level.

Alternative Hypothesis : Employees who get the option of flexible working hours have better job satisfaction than the employees who don’t get the option of flexible working hours.

Null Hypothesis: There is no association between providing flexible working hours and job satisfaction.

2. Simple Hypothesis Examples

The hypothesis that includes only one independent variable (predictor variable) and one dependent variable (outcome variable) is termed the simple hypothesis. For example, the children are more likely to get clinical depression if their parents had also suffered from the clinical depression. Here, the independent variable is the parents suffering from clinical depression and the dependent or the outcome variable is the clinical depression observed in their child/children. Other examples of the simple hypothesis are given below,

• If the management provides the official snack breaks to the employees, the employees are less likely to take the off-site breaks. Here, providing snack breaks is the independent variable and the employees are less likely to take the off-site break is the dependent variable.

3. Complex Hypothesis Examples

If the hypothesis includes more than one independent (predictor variable) or more than one dependent variable (outcome variable) it is known as the complex hypothesis. For example, clinical depression in children is associated with a family clinical depression history and a stressful and hectic lifestyle. In this case, there are two independent variables, i.e., family history of clinical depression and hectic and stressful lifestyle, and one dependent variable, i.e., clinical depression. Following are some more examples of the complex hypothesis,

4. Logical Hypothesis Examples

If there are not many pieces of evidence and studies related to the concerned problem, then the researcher can take the help of the general logic to formulate the hypothesis. The logical hypothesis is proved true through various logic. For example, if the researcher wants to prove that the animal needs water for its survival, then this can be logically verified through the logic that ‘living beings can not survive without the water.’ Following are some more examples of logical hypotheses,

• Tia is not good at maths, hence she will not choose the accounting sector as her career.
• If there is a correlation between skin cancer and ultraviolet rays, then the people who are more exposed to the ultraviolet rays are more prone to skin cancer.
• The beings belonging to the different planets can not breathe in the earth’s atmosphere.
• The creatures living in the sea use anaerobic respiration as those living outside the sea use aerobic respiration.

5. Empirical Hypothesis Examples

The empirical hypothesis comes into existence when the statement is being tested by conducting various experiments. This hypothesis is not just an idea or notion, instead, it refers to the statement that undergoes various trials and errors, and various extraneous variables can impact the result. The trials and errors provide a set of results that can be testable over time. Following are the examples of the empirical hypothesis,

• The hungry cat will quickly reach the endpoint through the maze, if food is placed at the endpoint then the cat is not hungry.
• The people who consume vitamin c have more glowing skin than the people who consume vitamin E.
• Hair growth is faster after the consumption of Vitamin E than vitamin K.
• Plants will grow faster with fertilizer X than with fertilizer Y.

6. Statistical Hypothesis Examples

The statements that can be proven true by using the various statistical tools are considered the statistical hypothesis. The researcher uses statistical data about an area or the group in the analysis of the statistical hypothesis. For example, if you study the IQ level of the women belonging to nation X, it would be practically impossible to measure the IQ level of each woman belonging to nation X. Here, statistical methods come to the rescue. The researcher can choose the sample population, i.e., women belonging to the different states or provinces of the nation X, and conduct the statistical tests on this sample population to get the average IQ of the women belonging to the nation X. Following are the examples of the statistical hypothesis.

• 30 per cent of the women belonging to the nation X are working.
• 50 per cent of the people living in the savannah are above the age of 70 years.
• 45 per cent of the poor people in the United States are uneducated.

Significance of Hypothesis

A hypothesis is very crucial in experimental research as it aims to predict any particular outcome of the experiment. Hypothesis plays an important role in guiding the researchers to focus on the concerned area of research only. However, the hypothesis is not required by all researchers. The type of research that seeks for finding facts, i.e., historical research, does not need the formulation of the hypothesis. In the historical research, the researchers look for the pieces of evidence related to the human life, the history of a particular area, or the occurrence of any event, this means that the researcher does not have a strong basis to make an assumption in these types of researches, hence hypothesis is not needed in this case. As stated by Hillway (1964)

When fact-finding alone is the aim of the study, a hypothesis is not required.”

The hypothesis may not be an important part of the descriptive or historical studies, but it is a crucial part for the experimental researchers. Following are some of the points that show the importance of formulating a hypothesis before conducting the experiment.

• Hypothesis provides a tentative statement about the outcome of the experiment that can be validated and tested. It helps the researcher to directly focus on the problem under investigation by collecting the relevant data according to the variables mentioned in the hypothesis.
• Hypothesis facilitates a direction to the experimental research. It helps the researcher in analysing what is relevant for the study and what’s not. It prevents the researcher’s time as he does not need to waste time on reviewing the irrelevant research and literature, and also prevents the researcher from collecting the irrelevant data.
• Hypothesis helps the researcher in choosing the appropriate sample, statistical tests to conduct, variables to be studied and the research methodology. The hypothesis also helps the study from being generalised as it focuses on the limited and exact problem under investigation.
• Hypothesis act as a framework for deducing the outcomes of the experiment. The researcher can easily test the different hypotheses for understanding the interaction among the various variables involved in the study. On this basis of the results obtained from the testing of various hypotheses, the researcher can formulate the final meaningful report.

Related Posts

7 Important Methods in Psychology With Examples

10 Framing Effects Examples in Real Life

Accounting for Hire Purchase

Factors Deciding State of Existence of Matter

17 Monopoly Examples in Real Life

Convergent Thinking Examples

Add comment cancel reply.

• Words with Friends Cheat
• Wordle Solver
• Word Unscrambler
• Scrabble Dictionary
• Anagram Solver
• Wordscapes Answers

Make Our Dictionary Yours

Sign up for our weekly newsletters and get:

• Grammar and writing tips
• Fun language articles
• #WordOfTheDay and quizzes

By signing in, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy .

We'll see you in your inbox soon.

How to Write a Strong Hypothesis in 6 Simple Steps

• DESCRIPTION how to write a hypothesis directions
• SOURCE Created by Lindy Gaskill for YourDictionary
• PERMISSION Copyright YourDictionary, Owned by YourDictionary

A hypothesis is an important part of the scientific method. It’s an idea or a proposal based on limited evidence. What comes next is the exciting part. The idea or proposal must be proven through facts, direct testing and evidence. Since the hypothesis acts as the foundation for future research, learn how to write a hypothesis through steps and examples.

What Is a Hypothesis Statement?

A hypothesis statement tells the world what you predict will happen in research. One of the most important elements of a hypothesis is that it must be able to be tested . Sure, you might hypothesize that unicorn horns are made of white gold. But, if you can’t test the independent and dependent variables , your hypothesis will have to remain in your dreams.

If, however, you hypothesize that rose quartz and other crystals possess healing powers, then you might be able to perform a few tests and carry on with your hypothesis. You will have some evidence that either supports or does not support your hypothesis. Now that you know what it is, it’s time to learn how to write a hypothesis.

Steps for How to Write a Hypothesis

When it comes to writing a hypothesis, there are six basic steps:

• Ask a question.
• Gather preliminary research.
• Formulate an answer.
• Write a hypothesis.
• Refine your hypothesis.
• Create a null hypothesis.

1. Ask a Question

In the scientific method , the first step is to ask a question. Frame this question using the classic six: who, what, where, when, why, or how. Sample questions might include:

• How long does it take carrots to grow?
• Why does the sky get darker earlier in winter?
• What happened to the dinosaurs?
• How did we evolve from monkeys?
• Why are students antsier on Friday afternoon?

How does sleep affect motivation?

• Why do IEP accommodations work in schools?

You want the question to be specific and focused. It also needs to be researchable, of course. Once you know you can research your question from several angles, it’s time to start some preliminary research.

2. Gather Preliminary Research

It’s time to collect data. This will come in the form of case studies and academic journals , as well as your own experiments and observations .

Remember, it’s important to explore your question from all sides. Don’t let conflicting research deter you. You might come upon many naysayers as you gather background information. That doesn’t invalidate your hypothesis. In fact, you can use their findings as potential rebuttals and frame your study in such a way as to address these concerns.

For example, if you are looking at the question: "How does sleep affect motivation?", you might find studies with conflicting research about eight hours vs. six hours of sleep. You can use these conflicting points to help to guide the creation of your hypothesis.

3. Formulate an Answer To Your Question

After completing all your research, think about how you will answer your question and defend your position. For example, say the question you posed was:

As you start to collect basic observations and information, you'll find that a lack of sleep creates a negative impact on learning. It decreases thought processes and makes it harder to learn anything new. Therefore, when you are tired, it's harder to learn and requires more effort. Since it is harder, you can be less motivated to do it. Additionally, you discover that there is a point where sleep affects functioning. You use this research to answer your question.

Getting less than eight hours of sleep makes it harder to learn anything new and make new memories. This makes learning harder so you are less likely to be motivated.

4. Write a Hypothesis

With the answer to your question at the ready, it’s time to formulate your hypothesis. To write a good hypothesis, it should include:

• Relevant variables
• Predicted outcome
• Who/what is being studied

Remember that your hypothesis needs to be a statement, not a question. It’s an idea, proposal or prediction. For example, a research hypothesis is formatted in an if/then statement:

If a person gets less than eight hours of sleep, then they will be less motivated at work or school.

This statement shows you:

• who is being studied - a person
• the variables - sleep and motivation
• your prediction - less sleep means less motivation

5. Refine Your Hypothesis

While you might be able to stop at writing your research hypothesis, some hypotheses might be a correlation study or studying the difference between two groups. In these instances, you want to state the relationship or difference you expect to find.

A correlation hypothesis might be:

Getting less than eight hours of sleep has a negative impact on work or school motivation.

A hypothesis showing difference might be:

Those with seven or fewer hours of sleep are less motivated than those with eight or more to complete tasks.

6. Create a Null Hypothesis

Depending on your study, you may need to perform some statistical analysis on the data you collect. When forming your hypothesis statement using the scientific method, it’s important to know the difference between a null hypothesis vs. the alternative hypothesis, and how to create a null hypothesis.

• A null hypothesis , often denoted as H 0 , posits that there is no apparent difference or that there is no evidence to support a difference. Using the motivation example above, the null hypothesis would be that sleep hours have no effect on motivation.
• An alternative hypothesis , often denoted as H 1 , states that there is a statistically significant difference, or there is evidence to support such a difference. Going back to the same carrot example, the alternative hypothesis is that a person getting six hours of sleep has less motivation than someone getting eight hours of sleep.

Good and Bad Hypothesis Examples

Here are a few examples of good and bad hypotheses to get you started.

Tips for Writing a Hypothesis

To write a strong hypothesis, keep these important tips in mind.

• Don’t just choose a topic randomly. Find something that interests you.
• Keep it clear and to the point.
• Use your research to guide you.
• Always clearly define your variables.
• Write it as an if-then statement. If this, then that is the expected outcome.

How to Make a Hypothesis

A hypothesis involves a statement about what you will do, but also what you expect to happen or speculation about what could occur. Once you’ve written your hypothesis, you’ll need to test it, analyze the data and form your conclusion. To read more about hypothesis testing, explore good examples of hypothesis testing .

• Dissertation Proofreading and Editing
• Dissertation Service
• Dissertation Proposal Service
• Dissertation Chapter
• Dissertation Topic and Outline
• Statistical Analysis Services
• Model Answers and Exam Notes
• Dissertation Samples
• Essay Writing Service
• Assignment Service
• Report Service
• Coursework Service
• Literature Review Service
• Reflective Report Service
• Presentation Service
• Poster Service
• Criminal Psychology Dissertation Topics | List of Trending Ideas With Research Aims
• Cognitive Psychology Dissertation Topics | 10 Top Ideas For Research in 2024
• Social Psychology Dissertation Topics | 10 Latest Research Ideas
• Top 10 Clinical Psychology Dissertation Topics with Research Aims
• Educational Psychology Dissertation Topics | 10 Interesting Ideas For Research
• Customer Service Dissertation Topics | List of Latest Ideas For Students
• 15 Interesting Music Dissertation Topics
• Business Intelligence Dissertation Topics | List of Top Ideas With Research Aims
• Physical Education Dissertation Topics | 15 Interesting Title Examples
• 15 Top Forensic Science Dissertation Topics with Research Aims
• Islamic Finance Dissertation Topics | List of 15 Top Ideas With Research Aims
• Dissertation Examples
• Dissertation Proposal Examples
• Essay Examples
• Report Examples
• Coursework Examples
• Assignment Examples
• Literature Review Examples
• Dissertation Topic and Outline Examples
• Dissertation Chapter Examples
• Dissertation Help
• Dissertation Topics
• Academic Library
• Assignment Plagiarism Checker
• Coursework Plagiarism Checke
• Dissertation Plagiarism Checker
• Thesis Plagiarism Checker
• Report Plagiarism Checke
• Plagiarism Remover Service
• Plagiarism Checker Free Service
• Turnitin Plagiarism Checker Free Service
• Free Plagiarism Checker for Students
• Difference Between Paraphrasing & Plagiarism
• Free Similarity Checker
• How Plagiarism Checkers Work?
• How to Cite Sources to Avoid Plagiarism?
• Free Topics
• Get a Free Quote

• Report Generating Service
• Model Answers and Exam Notes Writing
• Reflective or Personal Report Writing
• Poster Writing
• Literature Review Writing
• Premier Sample Dissertations
• Course Work
• Cognitive Psychology Dissertation Topics
• Physical Education Dissertation Topics
• 15 Top Forensic Science Dissertation Topics
• Top 10 Clinical Psychology Dissertation Topics
• Islamic Finance Dissertation Topics
• Social Psychology Dissertation Topics
• Educational Psychology Dissertation Topics
• Business Intelligence Dissertation Topics
• Customer Service Dissertation Topics
• Criminal Psychology Dissertation Topics

• Literature Review Example
• Report Example
• Assignment Example
• Coursework Example

• Coursework Plagiarism Checker
• Turnitin Plagiarism Checker
• Paraphrasing and Plagiarism
• Best Dissertation Plagiarism Checker
• Report Plagiarism Checker
• Similarity Checker
• Plagiarism Checker Free
• FREE Topics

Get an experienced writer start working

Review our examples before placing an order, learn how to draft academic papers, how to write a hypothesis in psychology | a step-by-step guide.

Plagiarism Remover Service That Can Help You Remove Plagiarism from Academic Papers Immediately

How to Write a Reference List? Practical Tips and Guidelines

Crafting your objectives, hypotheses, and supporting arguments for your research represents a seamless extension of the initial stages of brainstorming, reading, writing, and concept development that initiated your research journey.

Take a Look at What is Hypothesis in the Dissertation Here

A hypothesis is a testable proposition crucial for empirical validation. Before starting experiments or data collection, it's vital to formulate hypotheses, especially for assessing connections between variables.

Learn More About Writing Hypothesis in Research 

This article will discuss the multiple categories of hypotheses you may use, how to develop a strong hypothesis, how a hypothesis is utilized in psychology research, and, most importantly, how to write a hypothesis in psychology.

3-Step  Dissertation Process!

Get 3+ Topics

Dissertation Proposal

Get Final Dissertation

What is a hypothesis in psychology.

A hypothesis outlines your expectations for the conclusion of your research. It is a speculative, untested response to your research topic. You might need to develop several hypotheses for specific research projects that speak to various facets of your research issue.

Explore How to Write Research Project in an Expert Way 

A hypothesis should be founded on accepted ideas and a body of information; it shouldn't just be a wild guess. Additionally, it must be testable so that you may use scientific research techniques to confirm or disprove it (such as observations, experiments, and statistical data analysis).

Find New Ways to Analyse Data with SPSS

In psychology, the hypothesis is a theory-based, experimentally tested claim about a fact, behaviour, relation, or something similar that predicts a particular outcome under specific conditions or presumptions.

Explore More on Research Topics Related to Criminal Psychology 

In the scientific method, a hypothesis pertains to researchers' expectations regarding an experiment's outcome, whether in the realm of psychology or another discipline.

The following stages are part of the scientific method:

• Formulating a proposal
• Doing background investigation
• Form a supposition
• Making an experimental plan
• Gathering information
• Analyzing the outcomes
• Presenting the statistics

What are Variables?

Variables, or the components you are testing, are always discussed in the language of hypotheses. Anything seen can be a variable, including events, objects, ideas, etc.

Independent and dependent variables are the two different categories.

• Dependent variables are those you can only observe.
• Independent variables are those you can alter for your experiment.

Testimonials

Very satisfied students

This is our reason for working. We want to make all students happy, every day. Review us on Sitejabber

Types of Hypothesis

The hypothesis you employ depends on what you're investigating and analyzing. Here are several typical Types of Hypotheses you might consider utilizing:

1. Simple Hypothesis

This kind of hypothesis suggests a link between one independent and dependent variable.

2. Complex Hypothesis

This kind of hypothesis alludes to a connection between three or more variables, such as two independent variables and one dependent variable.

3. Null Hypothesis

According to the null hypothesis, the two variables under investigation have no connection (one variable does not affect the other). It claims that the findings are accidental and do not affect the hypothesis under study.

4. Alternative Hypothesis

The alternative hypothesis proposes a relationship between the two variables under study, suggesting that one variable influences the other. It asserts the significance of results in substantiating the concept analysis, emphasizing that they are not mere outcomes of chance.

5. Statistical Hypothesis

Using statistical analysis, this hypothesis evaluates a representative population sample and propagates the results to the population.

6. Empirical Hypothesis

An empirical hypothesis is one that is under examination at the moment; it is often referred to as a "working hypothesis." Empirical hypotheses are dependent on actual data, contrasting logical hypotheses.

7. Logical Hypothesis

Without any research or supporting information, this hypothesis implies a link between the variables.

Developing a Hypothesis

• A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.
• A hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable.
• A hypothesis must be based on observable evidence.
• A hypothesis should be simple and thrifty.
• A hypothesis should be able to be supported or refuted by data.
• A hypothesis should make predictions that can be tested by experimentation.

How to Write a Hypothesis in Psychology?

The question of how to write a hypothesis for research must start with a question you really want to answer through your research input. 

Start by Asking a Question

A good hypothesis comes from a research question you want to answer. Your question should be short, clear, and fit what you can study.

Look closely at how things work. Find out where things come from that you see happening around you. If you can, pick a topic you find interesting for your research. This will make you naturally want to learn more about it.

Do Initial Research

Assemble some background data about the topic. The amount of background knowledge you require will depend on the task at hand. It can involve reading books, or it might only include running a short web search. Collect only the information you require to confirm or refute your hypothesis independently; you are not required to prove or invalidate it at the time.

Explain Your Variables

At this point, you can create a conceptual framework to specify the variables you'll examine and the interactions you believe exist between them. More complicated constructions may occasionally need to be operationalized.

Collect Evidence to Support Your Hypothesis

A hypothesis only serves as a framework to achieve a conclusion. You can start conducting experiments after defining your hypothesis and specifying your variables. It's ideal for gathering facts supporting your theory, but don't be concerned if your research disproves it; it's all a part of the scientific procedure.

Create Your Hypothesis

Now that you know what to anticipate, you can prepare yourself. Your initial response should be expressed in one clear, crisp sentence.

Revise and Refine

Ensure your hypothesis is evaluated and explicit. There are many ways to formulate a hypothesis, but it must include the following, and all terminology used must have precise definitions:

• The essential and relevant variables
• The particular group under observation
• The anticipated conclusion of the research or analysis

Methods of Collecting Data for Hypothesis

A researcher should choose a research plan and begin data collection after developing a scientific hypothesis. The research methodology mostly depends on the actual content under examination. Descriptive research and experimental research are the two fundamental sub-types of research methodology.

1. Descriptive Research

Descriptive research techniques, including case studies, naturalistic observations, and surveys, are frequently employed when it would be impractical or inconvenient to experiment. These techniques work well when describing several facets of behaviour or psychological phenomena.

2. Experimental Research

Experimental methods are employed to demonstrate the causal connections between the variables. In an experiment, a researcher deliberately modifies a critical variable (the independent variable) and evaluates the impact on a different variable (the dependent variable).

Finally, you should document your results in a research paper for others to access. It calls for some writing experience, a very distinct set of skills from experiments. The best way to learn how to write a hypothesis in Psychology is to read, research, and practice. Drop us a message for free samples of our written and published hypotheses in Psychology. 

Get an Immediate Response

Discuss your requirments with our writers

Get 3+ Free Dissertation Topics within 24 hours?

Your Number

Academic Level Select Academic Level Undergraduate Masters PhD

Area of Research

Related posts

Dissertation Interview Questions | Everything You Need To Know

Conducting Interviews for Your Dissertation | A Comprehensive Guide

What is Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle and How Can It Benefit You? | Applications and Example

Comments are closed.

Psychology Hypothesis

Ai generator.

Delving into the realm of human behavior and cognition, Psychology Hypothesis Statement Examples illuminate the intricate workings of the mind. These thesis statement examples span various psychological phenomena, offering insights into crafting hypotheses that drive impactful research. From personality traits to cognitive processes, explore the guide to formulate precise and insightful psychology hypothesis statements that shed light on the complexities of human psychology.

What is the Psychology Hypothesis?

In psychology, a good hypothesis is a tentative statement or educated guess that proposes a potential relationship between variables. It serves as a foundation for research, guiding the investigation into specific psychological phenomena or behaviors. A well-constructed psychology hypothesis outlines the expected outcome of the study and provides a framework for data collection and analysis.

Example of a Psychology Hypothesis Statement :

Research Question: Does exposure to nature improve individuals’ mood and well-being?

Hypothesis Statement: “Individuals who spend more time in natural environments will report higher levels of positive mood and overall well-being compared to those who spend less time outdoors.”

In this example, the psychology hypothesis predicts a positive relationship between exposure to nature and improved mood and well-being. The statement sets the direction for the study and provides a clear basis for data collection and analysis.

100 Psychology Hypothesis Statement Examples

Size: 202 KB

Psychology Hypothesis Statement Examples encompass a diverse range of human behaviors and mental processes. Dive into the complexities of the human mind with Simple hypothesis that explore relationships, patterns, and influences on behavior. From memory recall to social interactions, these examples offer insights into crafting precise and impactful psychology hypotheses that drive meaningful research.

• Effect of Color on Mood : Exposure to blue hues elevates mood in individuals.
• Social Media and Self-Esteem : Higher social media usage correlates with lower self-esteem levels.
• Sleep Quality and Cognitive Performance : Improved sleep quality enhances cognitive performance.
• Personality Traits and Leadership : Extroverted individuals are more likely to assume leadership roles.
• Parent-Child Attachment and Behavior : Strong parent-child attachment fosters positive behavior in children.
• Cognitive Load and Decision Making : Increased cognitive load leads to poorer decision-making abilities.
• Mindfulness Meditation and Stress Reduction : Regular mindfulness practice reduces stress levels.
• Empathy and Altruistic Behavior : Higher empathy levels predict increased altruistic actions.
• Positive Reinforcement and Learning : Positive reinforcement enhances learning outcomes in children.
• Attachment Style and Romantic Relationships : Securely attached individuals experience more satisfying romantic relationships.
• Body Image and Media Exposure : Greater exposure to idealized body images leads to negative body image perceptions.
• Anxiety Levels and Academic Performance : Higher anxiety levels negatively impact academic achievement.
• Parenting Style and Aggression : Authoritarian parenting style correlates with higher aggression in children.
• Cognitive Aging and Memory Recall : Older adults experience reduced memory recall compared to younger individuals.
• Peer Pressure and Risky Behavior : Peer pressure increases engagement in risky behaviors among adolescents.
• Emotional Intelligence and Relationship Satisfaction : High emotional intelligence leads to greater relationship satisfaction.
• Attachment Style and Coping Mechanisms : Insecure attachment is linked to maladaptive coping strategies.
• Perceived Control and Stress Resilience : Higher perceived control buffers against the negative effects of stress.
• Social Comparison and Self-Esteem : Frequent social comparison diminishes self-esteem levels.
• Gender Stereotypes and Career Aspirations : Gender stereotypes influence career aspirations of young adults.
• Technology Usage and Social Isolation : Increased technology usage contributes to feelings of social isolation.
• Empathy and Conflict Resolution : Higher empathy levels facilitate effective conflict resolution.
• Parental Influence and Academic Motivation : Parental involvement positively impacts student academic motivation.
• Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Video Games : Children with ADHD show increased hyperactivity after playing video games.
• Positive Psychology Interventions and Well-being : Engaging in positive psychology interventions enhances overall well-being.
• Social Support and Mental Health : Adequate social support leads to better mental health outcomes.
• Parent-Child Communication and Risky Behavior : Open parent-child communication reduces engagement in risky behaviors.
• Social Media and Body Dissatisfaction : Extensive social media use is linked to increased body dissatisfaction.
• Personality Traits and Coping Strategies : Different personality traits influence varied coping mechanisms.
• Peer Influence and Substance Abuse : Peer influence contributes to higher rates of substance abuse among adolescents.
• Attentional Bias and Anxiety : Individuals with attentional bias are more prone to experiencing anxiety.
• Attachment Style and Romantic Jealousy : Insecure attachment predicts higher levels of romantic jealousy.
• Emotion Regulation and Well-being : Effective emotion regulation leads to greater overall well-being.
• Parenting Styles and Academic Resilience : Supportive parenting styles enhance academic resilience in children.
• Cultural Identity and Self-Esteem : Strong cultural identity is linked to higher self-esteem among minority individuals.
• Working Memory and Problem-Solving : Better working memory capacity improves problem-solving abilities.
• Fear Conditioning and Phobias : Fear conditioning contributes to the development of specific phobias.
• Empathy and Prosocial Behavior : Higher empathy levels result in increased prosocial behaviors.
• Social Anxiety and Online Communication : Individuals with social anxiety prefer online communication over face-to-face interactions.
• Cognitive Biases and Decision-Making Errors : Cognitive biases lead to errors in judgment and decision-making.
• Attachment Style and Romantic Attachment Patterns : Attachment style influences the development of romantic attachment patterns.
• Self-Efficacy and Goal Achievement : Higher self-efficacy predicts greater success in achieving personal goals.
• Stress Levels and Immune System Functioning : Elevated stress levels impair immune system functioning.
• Social Media Use and Loneliness : Excessive social media use is associated with increased feelings of loneliness.
• Emotion Recognition and Social Interaction : Improved emotion recognition skills enhance positive social interactions.
• Perceived Control and Psychological Resilience : Strong perceived control fosters psychological resilience in adverse situations.
• Narcissism and Online Self-Presentation : Narcissistic individuals engage in heightened self-promotion on social media.
• Fear of Failure and Performance Anxiety : Fear of failure contributes to performance anxiety in high-pressure situations.
• Gratitude Practice and Well-being : Regular gratitude practice leads to improved overall well-being.
• Cultural Norms and Communication Styles : Cultural norms shape distinct communication styles among different groups.
• Gender Identity and Mental Health : The alignment between gender identity and assigned sex at birth affects mental health outcomes.
• Social Influence and Conformity : Social influence leads to increased conformity in group settings.
• Parenting Styles and Attachment Security : Parenting styles influence the development of secure or insecure attachment in children.
• Perceived Discrimination and Psychological Distress : Perceived discrimination is associated with higher levels of psychological distress.
• Emotional Regulation Strategies and Impulse Control : Effective emotional regulation strategies enhance impulse control.
• Cognitive Dissonance and Attitude Change : Cognitive dissonance prompts individuals to change attitudes to reduce discomfort.
• Prejudice and Stereotype Formation : Exposure to prejudiced attitudes contributes to the formation of stereotypes.
• Motivation and Goal Setting : High intrinsic motivation leads to more effective goal setting and achievement.
• Coping Mechanisms and Trauma Recovery : Adaptive coping mechanisms facilitate better trauma recovery outcomes.
• Personality Traits and Perceived Stress : Certain personality traits influence how individuals perceive and respond to stress.
• Cognitive Biases and Decision-Making Strategies : Cognitive biases impact the strategies individuals use in decision-making.
• Emotional Intelligence and Interpersonal Relationships : High emotional intelligence fosters healthier and more fulfilling interpersonal relationships.
• Sensory Perception and Memory Formation : The accuracy of sensory perception influences the formation of memories.
• Parental Influences and Peer Relationships : Parental attitudes shape the quality of adolescents’ peer relationships.
• Social Comparison and Body Image : Frequent social comparison contributes to negative body image perceptions.
• Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Academic Achievement : Children with ADHD face challenges in achieving academic success.
• Cultural Identity and Mental Health Stigma : Strong cultural identity buffers against the negative effects of mental health stigma.
• Self-Esteem and Risk-Taking Behavior : Individuals with high self-esteem are more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors.
• Resilience and Adversity Coping : High resilience levels enhance individuals’ ability to cope with adversity.
• Motivation and Learning Styles : Different types of motivation influence preferred learning styles.
• Body Language and Nonverbal Communication : Body language cues play a significant role in nonverbal communication effectiveness.
• Social Identity and Intergroup Bias : Strong identification with a social group contributes to intergroup bias.
• Mindfulness Practice and Anxiety Reduction : Regular mindfulness practice leads to decreased levels of anxiety.
• Attachment Style and Romantic Satisfaction : Attachment style influences satisfaction levels in romantic relationships.
• Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Motivation : Intrinsic motivation yields more sustainable outcomes than extrinsic motivation.
• Attention Allocation and Multitasking Performance : Efficient attention allocation enhances multitasking performance.
• Neuroplasticity and Skill Acquisition : Neuroplasticity supports the acquisition and refinement of new skills.
• Prejudice Reduction Interventions and Attitude Change : Prejudice reduction interventions lead to positive attitude changes.
• Parental Support and Adolescent Resilience : Strong parental support enhances resilience in adolescents facing challenges.
• Social Media Use and FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) : Extensive social media use contributes to higher levels of FOMO.
• Mood and Decision-Making Biases : Different mood states influence cognitive biases in decision-making.
• Parental Attachment and Peer Influence : Strong parental attachment moderates the impact of peer influence on adolescents.
• Personality Traits and Job Satisfaction : Certain personality traits predict higher job satisfaction levels.
• Social Support and Post-Traumatic Growth : Adequate social support fosters post-traumatic growth after adversity.
• Cognitive Load and Creativity : High cognitive load impedes creative thinking and problem-solving.
• Self-Efficacy and Goal Persistence : Higher self-efficacy leads to increased persistence in achieving goals.
• Stress and Physical Health : Chronic stress negatively affects physical health outcomes.
• Perceived Control and Psychological Well-being : Strong perceived control is linked to greater psychological well-being.
• Parenting Styles and Emotional Regulation in Children : Authoritative parenting styles promote effective emotional regulation.
• Cultural Exposure and Empathy Levels : Exposure to diverse cultures enhances empathetic understanding.
• Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution : High emotional intelligence leads to more effective conflict resolution strategies.
• Personality Traits and Leadership Styles : Different personality traits align with distinct leadership approaches.
• Attachment Style and Romantic Relationship Quality : Secure attachment predicts higher quality romantic relationships.
• Social Comparison and Self-Perception : Frequent social comparison impacts individuals’ self-perception and self-esteem.
• Mindfulness Meditation and Stress Resilience : Regular mindfulness practice enhances resilience in the face of stress.
• Cognitive Biases and Prejudice Formation : Cognitive biases contribute to the formation and reinforcement of prejudices.
• Parenting Styles and Social Skills Development : Authoritative parenting styles foster positive social skills in children.
• Emotion Regulation Strategies and Mental Health : Effective emotion regulation strategies contribute to better mental health outcomes.
• Self-Esteem and Academic Achievement : Higher self-esteem correlates with improved academic performance.
• Cultural Identity and Intergroup Bias : Strong cultural identity buffers against the effects of intergroup bias.

Psychology Hypothesis Statement Examples for Social Experiments & Studies : Dive into social dynamics with hypotheses that explore human behavior in various contexts. These examples delve into the intricate interplay of psychological factors in social experiments and studies, shedding light on how individuals interact, perceive, and respond within social environments. You may also be interested in our two tailed hypothesis .

• Influence of Group Size on Conformity : Larger group sizes lead to higher levels of conformity in social experiments.
• Effects of Positive Reinforcement on Prosocial Behavior : Positive reinforcement increases the likelihood of engaging in prosocial actions.
• Role of Normative Social Influence in Decision Making : Normative social influence influences decision-making processes in group settings.
• Impact of Obedience to Authority on Ethical Decision Making : Obedience to authority influences ethical decision-making tendencies.
• Attribution Bias in Social Interactions : Attribution bias leads individuals to attribute their successes to internal factors and failures to external factors.
• Social Comparison and Body Dissatisfaction : Frequent social comparison contributes to negative body image perceptions.
• Perceived Control and Social Stress Resilience : Strong perceived control mitigates the negative effects of social stress.
• Impression Management in Online Social Networks : Individuals engage in impression management to create a favorable online image.
• Social Identity and Group Behavior : Strong social identity fosters a sense of belonging and influences group behavior.
• Altruistic Behavior and Empathy Levels : Higher empathy levels correlate with increased engagement in altruistic actions.

Social Psychology Hypothesis Statement Examples : Explore the intricacies of human behavior within social contexts through these social psychology hypotheses. These examples delve into the dynamics of social interactions, group dynamics, and the psychological factors that influence how individuals perceive and respond to the social world.

• Social Norms and Conformity : Individuals conform to social norms to gain social acceptance and avoid rejection.
• Bystander Effect and Helping Behavior : The bystander effect decreases the likelihood of individuals offering help in emergency situations.
• In-Group Bias and Intergroup Relations : In-group bias leads to favoritism toward members of one’s own social group.
• Social Influence and Decision Making : Social influence impacts decision-making processes in group settings.
• Deindividuation and Uninhibited Behavior : Deindividuation leads to reduced self-awareness and increased uninhibited behavior.
• Perceived Social Support and Coping Mechanisms : Adequate social support enhances effective coping strategies in challenging situations.
• Group Polarization and Risky Decision Making : Group discussions intensify individuals’ pre-existing inclinations, leading to riskier decisions.
• Self-Esteem and Social Comparison : Individuals with lower self-esteem are more prone to engaging in negative social comparison.
• Cultural Norms and Nonverbal Communication : Cultural norms influence nonverbal communication cues and interpretations.

Alternative Psychology Hypothesis Statement Examples : Explore alternative hypothesis perspectives on psychological phenomena with these hypotheses. These examples challenge conventional wisdom and encourage critical thinking, providing a fresh outlook on various aspects of human behavior, cognition, and emotions.

• Nonverbal Communication and Introversion : Nonverbal cues may play a more significant role in communication for introverted individuals.
• Perceived Control and External Locus of Control : High perceived control may lead to an external locus of control in certain situations.
• Cognitive Dissonance and Reinforcement Theory : Cognitive dissonance can be explained through the lens of reinforcement theory.
• Bystander Effect and Social Responsibility : The bystander effect may stem from individuals’ heightened sense of social responsibility.
• Emotion Regulation and Emotional Suppression : Emotion regulation strategies like emotional suppression might lead to long-term emotional well-being.
• Perceived Social Support and Emotional Independence : Adequate social support may contribute to emotional independence rather than dependence.
• Cultural Identity and Interpersonal Conflict : Strong cultural identity might lead to increased interpersonal conflict due to differing values.
• Parenting Styles and Personality Development : Parenting styles might have a limited impact on the formation of certain personality traits.
• Social Media Use and Positive Self-Presentation : Extensive social media use may lead to a more authentic self-presentation.
• Attentional Bias and Cognitive Flexibility : Attentional bias might enhance cognitive flexibility in specific cognitive tasks.

Psychology Hypothesis Statement Examples in Research : Explore the realms of psychological research hypothesis that guide scientific inquiry. These examples span various subfields of psychology, offering insights into human behavior, cognition, and emotions through the lens of empirical investigation.

• Effects of Meditation on Mindfulness : Regular meditation practice enhances individuals’ mindfulness levels.
• Impact of Parenting Styles on Self-Esteem : Parenting styles significantly influence children’s self-esteem development.
• Emotion Regulation Strategies and Anxiety Levels : Effective emotion regulation strategies lead to decreased anxiety levels.
• Cultural Identity and Academic Achievement : Strong cultural identity positively impacts academic achievement in multicultural settings.
• Influence of Peer Pressure on Risky Behavior : Peer pressure increases engagement in risky behaviors among adolescents.
• Effects of Social Support on Depression : Adequate social support leads to decreased depression symptoms in individuals.
• Mindfulness Meditation and Attention Span : Regular mindfulness practice improves individuals’ attention span and focus.
• Attachment Style and Romantic Satisfaction : Attachment style predicts satisfaction levels in romantic relationships.
• Effects of Positive Feedback on Motivation : Positive feedback enhances intrinsic motivation for challenging tasks.
• Impact of Sleep Quality on Memory Consolidation : Better sleep quality leads to improved memory consolidation during sleep.

Experimental Research in Psychology Hypothesis Examples : Embark on experimental journeys with hypotheses that guide controlled investigations into psychological phenomena. These examples facilitate the design and execution of experiments, allowing researchers to manipulate variables, observe outcomes, and draw evidence-based conclusions.

• Effects of Color on Mood : Exposure to warm colors enhances positive mood, while cool colors evoke calmness.
• Impact of Visual Distractions on Concentration : Visual distractions negatively affect individuals’ ability to concentrate on tasks.
• Influence of Music Tempo on Heart Rate : Upbeat music tempo leads to increased heart rate and arousal.
• Effects of Humor on Stress Reduction : Humor interventions reduce stress levels and increase feelings of relaxation.
• Impact of Exercise on Cognitive Function : Regular aerobic exercise improves cognitive function and memory retention.
• Influence of Social Norms on Helping Behavior : Observing prosocial behavior in others increases individuals’ likelihood of offering help.
• Effects of Sleep Duration on Reaction Time : Longer sleep duration leads to faster reaction times in cognitive tasks.
• Impact of Positive Affirmations on Self-Esteem : Repeating positive affirmations boosts self-esteem and self-confidence.
• Influence of Noise Levels on Task Performance : High noise levels impair individuals’ performance on cognitive tasks.
• Effects of Temperature on Aggressive Behavior : Elevated temperatures lead to an increase in aggressive behavior.

Psychology Hypothesis Tentative Statement Examples : Embark on the journey of exploration and inquiry with these tentative hypotheses. These examples reflect the initial assumptions and predictions that researchers formulate before conducting in-depth investigations, paving the way for further study and empirical examination.

• Possible Effects of Mindfulness on Stress Reduction : Mindfulness practices might contribute to reduced stress levels in individuals.
• Potential Impact of Social Media Use on Loneliness : Extensive social media use could be linked to increased feelings of loneliness.
• Tentative Connection Between Personality Traits and Leadership Styles : Certain personality traits may align with specific leadership approaches.
• Potential Relationship Between Parenting Styles and Academic Motivation : Different parenting styles might influence students’ motivation for academics.
• Hypothesized Impact of Cognitive Training on Memory Enhancement : Cognitive training interventions may lead to improved memory function.
• Preliminary Association Between Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution : Higher emotional intelligence might be related to more effective conflict resolution.
• Possible Effects of Music Exposure on Emotional Regulation : Listening to music might impact individuals’ ability to regulate emotions.
• Tentative Link Between Self-Esteem and Resilience : Higher self-esteem may contribute to increased resilience in the face of challenges.
• Potential Connection Between Cultural Exposure and Empathy Levels : Exposure to diverse cultures might influence individuals’ empathetic understanding.
• Tentative Association Between Sleep Quality and Cognitive Performance : Better sleep quality could be linked to improved cognitive function.

Psychology Hypothesis Development Statement Examples : Formulate hypotheses that lay the groundwork for deeper exploration and understanding. These examples illustrate the process of hypothesis development, where researchers craft well-structured statements that guide empirical investigations and contribute to the advancement of psychological knowledge.

• Development of a Hypothesis on Emotional Intelligence and Workplace Performance : Emotional intelligence positively influences workplace performance through enhanced interpersonal interactions and adaptive coping mechanisms.
• Constructing a Hypothesis on Social Media Use and Well-being : Extensive social media use negatively impacts psychological well-being by fostering social comparison, reducing real-life social interactions, and increasing feelings of inadequacy.
• Formulating a Hypothesis on Attachment Styles and Relationship Satisfaction : Secure attachment styles correlate positively with higher relationship satisfaction due to increased trust, effective communication, and emotional support.
• Creating a Hypothesis on Parenting Styles and Child Aggression : Authoritative parenting styles lead to reduced child aggression through the cultivation of emotional regulation skills, consistent discipline, and nurturance.
• Developing a Hypothesis on Cognitive Biases and Decision Making : Cognitive biases influence decision-making processes by shaping information processing, leading to deviations from rational decision-making models.
• Constructing a Hypothesis on Cultural Identity and Psychological Well-being : Strong cultural identity positively impacts psychological well-being by fostering a sense of belonging, social support, and cultural pride.
• Formulating a Hypothesis on Attachment Style and Coping Mechanisms : Attachment style influences coping mechanisms in response to stress, with secure attachments leading to adaptive strategies and insecure attachments resulting in maladaptive ones.
• Creating a Hypothesis on Self-Efficacy and Academic Performance : High self-efficacy predicts better academic performance due to increased motivation, perseverance, and effective learning strategies.
• Developing a Hypothesis on Gender Stereotypes and Career Aspirations : Gender stereotypes negatively impact women’s career aspirations by reinforcing traditional gender roles and limiting their perceived competence in certain fields.
• Constructing a Hypothesis on Cultural Exposure and Empathy Levels : Exposure to diverse cultures enhances empathy levels by fostering cross-cultural understanding, reducing ethnocentrism, and promoting perspective-taking.

These psychology hypothesis development statement examples showcase the critical process of crafting hypotheses that guide research investigations and contribute to the depth and breadth of psychological knowledge.  In addition, you should review our  biology hypothesis .

How Do You Write a Psychology Hypothesis Statement? – Step by Step Guide

Crafting a psychology hypothesis statement is a crucial step in formulating research questions and hypothesis designing empirical investigations. A well-structured hypothesis guides your research, helping you explore, analyze, and understand psychological phenomena. Follow this step-by-step guide to create effective psychology hypothesis statements:

• Identify Your Research Question : Start by identifying the specific psychological phenomenon or relationship you want to explore. Your hypothesis should address a clear research question.
• Choose the Appropriate Type of Hypothesis : Decide whether your hypothesis will be directional (predicting a specific relationship) or non-directional (predicting a relationship without specifying its direction).
• State Your Variables : Clearly identify the independent variable (the factor you’re manipulating or examining) and the dependent variable (the outcome you’re measuring).
• Write a Null Hypothesis (If Applicable) : If your research involves comparing groups or conditions, formulate a null hypothesis that states there’s no significant difference or relationship.
• Formulate the Hypothesis : Craft a clear and concise statement that predicts the expected relationship between your variables. Use specific language and avoid vague terms.
• Use Clear Language : Write your hypothesis in a simple, straightforward manner that is easily understandable by both researchers and readers.
• Ensure Testability : Your hypothesis should be testable through empirical research. It should allow you to collect data, analyze results, and draw conclusions.
• Consider the Population : Specify the population you’re studying (e.g., adults, adolescents, specific groups) to make your hypothesis more precise.
• Be Falsifiable : A good hypothesis can be proven false through empirical evidence. Avoid making statements that cannot be tested or verified.
• Revise and Refine : Review your hypothesis for clarity, coherence, and accuracy. Make revisions as needed to ensure it accurately reflects your research question.

Tips for Writing a Psychology Hypothesis

Writing an effective psychology hypothesis statement requires careful consideration and attention to detail. Follow these tips to craft compelling hypotheses:

• Be Specific : Clearly define your variables and the expected relationship between them. Avoid vague or ambiguous language.
• Avoid Bias : Ensure your hypothesis is objective and unbiased. Avoid making assumptions or including personal opinions.
• Use Measurable Terms : Use terms that can be quantified and measured in your research. This makes data collection and analysis more manageable.
• Consult Existing Literature : Review relevant literature to ensure your hypothesis aligns with existing research and theories in the field.
• Consider Alternative Explanations : Acknowledge other potential explanations for your findings and consider how they might influence your hypothesis.
• Stay Consistent : Keep your hypothesis consistent with the overall research question and objectives of your study.
• Keep It Concise : Write your hypothesis in a concise manner, avoiding unnecessary complexity or jargon.
• Test Your Hypothesis : Consider how you would test your hypothesis using empirical methods. Ensure it’s feasible and practical to gather data to support or refute it.
• Seek Feedback : Share your hypothesis with peers, mentors, or advisors to receive constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement.
• Refine as Needed : As you gather data and analyze results, be open to revising your hypothesis based on the evidence you uncover.

Crafting a psychology hypothesis statement is a dynamic process that involves careful thought, research, and refinement. A well-constructed hypothesis sets the stage for rigorous and meaningful scientific inquiry in the field of psychology.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

• International
• Education Jobs
• Schools directory
• Resources Education Jobs Schools directory News Search

Hypothesis Writing Worksheet for A level & IBDP Psychology :Step by Step guide with format & prompts

Subject: Psychology

Age range: 14-16

Resource type: Worksheet/Activity

Last updated

9 September 2024

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

Elevate your students’ understanding of hypothesis writing with our 14 pages, 45 to 60 min resource on Hypothesis construction with writing prompts. Designed to facilitate learning across educational levels, from A Levels to the IB Diploma Program to students learning research , this worksheet covers key concepts and practical exercises to reinforce learning on hypothesis writing.

• Thorough explanation of the concept of variables and operationalization , crucial for formulating clear hypotheses.
• Detailed exploration of various types of hypotheses, including null, alternate, one-tailed, and two-tailed , with clear examples for each.
• Guidance on adapting hypotheses for correlational and experimental studies , enhancing versatility.
• Illustrative examples and practice exercises to reinforce understanding and application.
• Ready-to-use formats for writing all types of hypotheses, simplifying the process for educators and students alike.
• Hypothesis writing prompts with scenarios

How to Use:

Introduce students to the foundational concepts of variables and operationalization, setting the stage for hypothesis formulation. Guide them through the nuances of different hypothesis types, using the provided examples to deepen comprehension.

Engage students in practical exercises, including the “write your own hypothesis” activity, to solidify their understanding and skills. This worksheet is ideal for classroom use or independent study, offering a structured approach to mastering hypothesis writing with writing prompts.

Empower your students to excel in research and critical thinking with our Hypothesis Writing Worksheet. Download today and witness the transformation in their analytical abilities.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

More From Forbes

A psychologist explains the ‘data-driven approach’ to love.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Here’s how dating like a scientist can transform your love life.

When it comes to dating, emotions are often the driving force behind our decisions. We chase chemistry, passion and that elusive “spark,” hoping to find the right connection. But what if there was a more reliable way to approach love—one rooted in logic, data and experimentation?

Dating like a scientist may initially sound clinical or calculated, but it's a method that can help you make informed decisions, reduce heartache and ultimately lead you to a relationship that genuinely works for you.

The foundation of science is the scientific method: observe, hypothesize, experiment, analyze and adjust based on results. Dating, much like science, is an ongoing process of learning, exploration and adaptation. By applying this method to your dating journey, you can bring structure, intention and clarity to your approach, yielding better long-term outcomes.

Here’s a rundown of each step of this “scientific method” and how it can be applied to dating and relationships.

1. Observation

In any scientific study, the first step is observation—gathering data and noting patterns. In dating, this translates to observing your own behavior, preferences and patterns in relationships. Who are you typically drawn to? Are there recurring dynamics that emerge in your past relationships? Which traits or behaviors have led to success or failure?

The Best Netflix Original Movie 0f 2024 Just Dropped With A Near-Perfect Rotten Tomatoes Score

Today’s nyt mini crossword clues and answers for sunday, september 8, ufc fighter gets sketchy win after replay reveals illegal tactics.

The observational method in research involves systematically and deliberately watching and documenting an individual’s speech and behavior to understand their psychological traits.

You can apply this by keeping a “dating log” or journal. Jotting down your thoughts and experiences helps you identify recurring patterns—perhaps you’re frequently attracted to emotionally unavailable people, or maybe shared interests seem to create stronger connections. By reflecting on your relationship history, you collect important insights that can help you make better choices going forward.

2. Forming A Hypothesis

Once you’ve collected your observations, it’s time to form a hypothesis—an educated guess based on the data you’ve gathered. In dating, this would mean reflecting on your past relationships and creating assumptions about what changes could lead to better outcomes. For example, maybe you’ve noticed that not being clear about your values early on has caused issues. So you might guess that being more upfront from the start could help you attract a partner who’s a better fit.

You can also experiment with different ideas—what if you step outside your comfort zone and date someone who doesn’t match your usual “type”? Or what if you focus more on emotional connection rather than just physical attraction? Each guess gives you a new approach to try and see what works best.

3. Experimentation

Experimentation is the exciting part. Instead of continuing to date on autopilot or falling into old patterns, you can treat each dating experience as an opportunity to experiment and gather fresh data. This doesn’t mean seeing people as test subjects, but rather approaching each new relationship with openness and curiosity about different outcomes.

For instance, if you tend to rush into relationships, experiment with pacing yourself and taking things slower. If you’ve never considered long-distance relationships, try one out and observe how it affects your connection. Each new relationship is a chance to test new hypotheses, ultimately helping you better understand what works for you in love.

4. Analyzing Results

After each dating “experiment,” take time to reflect on what worked and what didn’t. Did your hypothesis hold up? Were there any surprising outcomes? For example, how did it feel to date someone outside of your usual type? Did trying to be more vulnerable early on in a relationship bring you closer to your partner, or did it backfire?

Regularly analyzing your dating experiences allows you to fine-tune your approach. Over time, you’ll begin to recognize which qualities in a partner align with your values and which dating behaviors either strengthen or weaken your connections. Just as in science, not every experiment will be a success, but each one provides valuable data that can help you adjust your future actions.

5. Adjust And Iterate

Finally, refine your approach to dating based on your experiences. It’s all about learning from each relationship or interaction and using those insights to improve.

Research published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships shows that new couples often experience more ups and downs daily compared to long-term couples. It’s normal for your feelings to fluctuate while you’re still getting to know each other. Addressing issues early on, even if the early phases of a relationship feel volatile and unstable, can actually lay the groundwork for a more stable future.

For instance, if you find that emotional availability matters more to you than shared interests, you might start focusing on having deeper conversations earlier on to assess emotional compatibility. Or, if you realize that setting clear boundaries is crucial for your well-being, you can work on communicating those boundaries more clearly and sooner in future relationships.

It’s usually better to address conflicts openly and resolve them, rather than suppressing your feelings and risking bigger issues later. This ongoing adjustment helps you get closer to finding what truly works for you in love.

Is your approach to love working for you? Take the Relationship Satisfaction Scale to know for sure.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.