research hypothesis diagram

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

The Craft of Writing a Strong Hypothesis

Table of Contents

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

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

What is a Hypothesis?

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

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

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

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

Different Types of Hypotheses‌

Types of hypotheses

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

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

1. Null hypothesis

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

2. Alternative hypothesis

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

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

3. Simple hypothesis

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

4. Complex hypothesis

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

5. Associative and casual hypothesis

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

6. Empirical hypothesis

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

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

7. Statistical hypothesis

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

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

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

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

Separating a Hypothesis from a Prediction

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, How to Write a Hypothesis

Quick tips on writing a hypothesis

1.  Be clear about your research question

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

2. Carry out a recce

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

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

3. Create a 3-dimensional hypothesis

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

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

4. Write the first draft

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

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

5. Proof your hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. what is the definition of hypothesis.

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

2. What is an example of hypothesis?

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

3. What is an example of null hypothesis?

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

4. What are the types of research?

• Fundamental research

• Applied research

• Qualitative research

• Quantitative research

• Mixed research

• Exploratory research

• Longitudinal research

• Cross-sectional research

• Field research

• Laboratory research

• Fixed research

• Flexible research

• Action research

• Policy research

• Classification research

• Comparative research

• Causal research

• Inductive research

• Deductive research

5. How to write a hypothesis?

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

• Avoid wordiness by keeping it simple and brief.

• Your hypothesis should contain observable and testable outcomes.

• Your hypothesis should be relevant to the research question.

6. What are the 2 types of hypothesis?

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

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

7. Difference between research question and research hypothesis?

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

8. What is plural for hypothesis?

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

9. What is the red queen hypothesis?

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

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

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

11. When to reject null hypothesis?

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

You might also like

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

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

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

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write a Great Hypothesis

Hypothesis Definition, Format, Examples, and Tips

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

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

Verywell / Alex Dos Diaz

• The Scientific Method

Hypothesis Format

Falsifiability of a hypothesis.

• Operationalization

Hypothesis Types

Hypotheses examples.

• Collecting Data

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

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

At a Glance

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

The Hypothesis in the Scientific Method

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elements of a Good Hypothesis

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

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

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

How to Formulate a Good Hypothesis

To form a hypothesis, you should take these steps:

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

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

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

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

The Importance of Operational Definitions

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

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

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

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

Replicability

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

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

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

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

Hypothesis Checklist

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

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

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

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

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

A few examples of simple hypotheses:

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

Examples of a complex hypothesis include:

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

Examples of a null hypothesis include:

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

Examples of an alternative hypothesis:

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

Collecting Data on Your Hypothesis

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

Descriptive Research Methods

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

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

Experimental Research Methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Privacy Policy

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

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Definition:

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

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

Types of Hypothesis

Types of Hypothesis are as follows:

Research Hypothesis

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

Null Hypothesis

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

Alternative Hypothesis

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

Directional Hypothesis

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

Non-directional Hypothesis

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

Statistical Hypothesis

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

Composite Hypothesis

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

Empirical Hypothesis

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

Simple Hypothesis

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

Complex Hypothesis

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

Applications of Hypothesis

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

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

How to write a Hypothesis

Here are the steps to follow when writing a hypothesis:

Identify the Research Question

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

Conduct a Literature Review

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

Determine the Variables

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

Formulate the Hypothesis

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

Write the Null Hypothesis

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

Refine the Hypothesis

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

Examples of Hypothesis

Here are a few examples of hypotheses in different fields:

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

Purpose of Hypothesis

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

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

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

When to use Hypothesis

Here are some common situations in which hypotheses are used:

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

Characteristics of Hypothesis

Here are some common characteristics of a hypothesis:

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

Advantages of Hypothesis

Hypotheses have several advantages in scientific research and experimentation:

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

Limitations of Hypothesis

Some Limitations of the Hypothesis are as follows:

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

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples

Published on 6 May 2022 by Shona McCombes .

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

Table of contents

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

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

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

Variables in hypotheses

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Step 1: ask a question.

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

Step 2: Do some preliminary research

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

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

Step 3: Formulate your hypothesis

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

Step 4: Refine your hypothesis

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

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

Step 5: Phrase your hypothesis in three ways

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

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

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

Step 6. Write a null hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

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

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

Research Hypothesis In Psychology: Types, & Examples

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

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

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

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

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

On This Page:

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

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

Some key points about hypotheses:

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

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

Types of Research Hypotheses

Alternative hypothesis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Null Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

Nondirectional Hypothesis

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

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

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

Directional Hypothesis

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

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

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

Falsifiability

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

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

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

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

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

Can a Hypothesis be Proven?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to Write a Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

More Examples

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

How to Develop a Good Research Hypothesis

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

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

Table of Contents

What is Hypothesis?

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

What is a Research Hypothesis?

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

Characteristics of a Good Research Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Educational Hub

How to formulate a research hypothesis.

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

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

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

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

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

3. Define the variables

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

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

4. Scrutinize the hypothesis

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

Types of Research Hypothesis

The types of research hypothesis are stated below:

1. Simple Hypothesis

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

2. Complex Hypothesis

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

3. Directional Hypothesis

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

4. Non-directional Hypothesis

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

5. Associative and Causal Hypothesis

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

6. Null Hypothesis

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

7. Alternative Hypothesis

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

Research Hypothesis Examples of Independent and Dependent Variables

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

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

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

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

Importance of a Testable Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks a lot for your valuable guidance.

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

Useful piece!

This is awesome.Wow.

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

Nicely explained

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

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

clear and concise. thanks.

So Good so Amazing

Good to learn

Thanks a lot for explaining to my level of understanding

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

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

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

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

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

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

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

• Industry News

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

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

• Career Corner

Unlocking the Power of Networking in Academic Conferences

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

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

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

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

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

How to Design Effective Research Questionnaires for Robust Findings

Sign-up to read more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research Hypothesis 101

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

What is a hypothesis?

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

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

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

Hypothesis: sleep impacts academic performance.

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

But that’s not good enough…

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

What is a research hypothesis?

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

Let’s take a look at these more closely.

Need a helping hand?

Hypothesis Essential #1: Specificity & Clarity

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

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

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

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

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

Hypothesis Essential #2: Testability (Provability)

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

For example, consider the hypothesis we mentioned earlier:

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

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

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

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

Defining A Research Hypothesis

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

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

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

What about the null hypothesis?

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

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

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

And there you have it – hypotheses in a nutshell. 

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

Psst... there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

16 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

could you please elaborate it more

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

This is very helpful

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

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

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

this is very important note help me much more

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

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

Research questions, hypotheses and objectives

Patricia farrugia.

* Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, the

Bradley A. Petrisor

† Division of Orthopaedic Surgery and the

Forough Farrokhyar

‡ Departments of Surgery and

§ Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont

Mohit Bhandari

There is an increasing familiarity with the principles of evidence-based medicine in the surgical community. As surgeons become more aware of the hierarchy of evidence, grades of recommendations and the principles of critical appraisal, they develop an increasing familiarity with research design. Surgeons and clinicians are looking more and more to the literature and clinical trials to guide their practice; as such, it is becoming a responsibility of the clinical research community to attempt to answer questions that are not only well thought out but also clinically relevant. The development of the research question, including a supportive hypothesis and objectives, is a necessary key step in producing clinically relevant results to be used in evidence-based practice. A well-defined and specific research question is more likely to help guide us in making decisions about study design and population and subsequently what data will be collected and analyzed. 1

Objectives of this article

In this article, we discuss important considerations in the development of a research question and hypothesis and in defining objectives for research. By the end of this article, the reader will be able to appreciate the significance of constructing a good research question and developing hypotheses and research objectives for the successful design of a research study. The following article is divided into 3 sections: research question, research hypothesis and research objectives.

Research question

Interest in a particular topic usually begins the research process, but it is the familiarity with the subject that helps define an appropriate research question for a study. 1 Questions then arise out of a perceived knowledge deficit within a subject area or field of study. 2 Indeed, Haynes suggests that it is important to know “where the boundary between current knowledge and ignorance lies.” 1 The challenge in developing an appropriate research question is in determining which clinical uncertainties could or should be studied and also rationalizing the need for their investigation.

Increasing one’s knowledge about the subject of interest can be accomplished in many ways. Appropriate methods include systematically searching the literature, in-depth interviews and focus groups with patients (and proxies) and interviews with experts in the field. In addition, awareness of current trends and technological advances can assist with the development of research questions. 2 It is imperative to understand what has been studied about a topic to date in order to further the knowledge that has been previously gathered on a topic. Indeed, some granting institutions (e.g., Canadian Institute for Health Research) encourage applicants to conduct a systematic review of the available evidence if a recent review does not already exist and preferably a pilot or feasibility study before applying for a grant for a full trial.

In-depth knowledge about a subject may generate a number of questions. It then becomes necessary to ask whether these questions can be answered through one study or if more than one study needed. 1 Additional research questions can be developed, but several basic principles should be taken into consideration. 1 All questions, primary and secondary, should be developed at the beginning and planning stages of a study. Any additional questions should never compromise the primary question because it is the primary research question that forms the basis of the hypothesis and study objectives. It must be kept in mind that within the scope of one study, the presence of a number of research questions will affect and potentially increase the complexity of both the study design and subsequent statistical analyses, not to mention the actual feasibility of answering every question. 1 A sensible strategy is to establish a single primary research question around which to focus the study plan. 3 In a study, the primary research question should be clearly stated at the end of the introduction of the grant proposal, and it usually specifies the population to be studied, the intervention to be implemented and other circumstantial factors. 4

Hulley and colleagues 2 have suggested the use of the FINER criteria in the development of a good research question ( Box 1 ). The FINER criteria highlight useful points that may increase the chances of developing a successful research project. A good research question should specify the population of interest, be of interest to the scientific community and potentially to the public, have clinical relevance and further current knowledge in the field (and of course be compliant with the standards of ethical boards and national research standards).

FINER criteria for a good research question

Adapted with permission from Wolters Kluwer Health. 2

Whereas the FINER criteria outline the important aspects of the question in general, a useful format to use in the development of a specific research question is the PICO format — consider the population (P) of interest, the intervention (I) being studied, the comparison (C) group (or to what is the intervention being compared) and the outcome of interest (O). 3 , 5 , 6 Often timing (T) is added to PICO ( Box 2 ) — that is, “Over what time frame will the study take place?” 1 The PICOT approach helps generate a question that aids in constructing the framework of the study and subsequently in protocol development by alluding to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and identifying the groups of patients to be included. Knowing the specific population of interest, intervention (and comparator) and outcome of interest may also help the researcher identify an appropriate outcome measurement tool. 7 The more defined the population of interest, and thus the more stringent the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the greater the effect on the interpretation and subsequent applicability and generalizability of the research findings. 1 , 2 A restricted study population (and exclusion criteria) may limit bias and increase the internal validity of the study; however, this approach will limit external validity of the study and, thus, the generalizability of the findings to the practical clinical setting. Conversely, a broadly defined study population and inclusion criteria may be representative of practical clinical practice but may increase bias and reduce the internal validity of the study.

PICOT criteria 1

A poorly devised research question may affect the choice of study design, potentially lead to futile situations and, thus, hamper the chance of determining anything of clinical significance, which will then affect the potential for publication. Without devoting appropriate resources to developing the research question, the quality of the study and subsequent results may be compromised. During the initial stages of any research study, it is therefore imperative to formulate a research question that is both clinically relevant and answerable.

Research hypothesis

The primary research question should be driven by the hypothesis rather than the data. 1 , 2 That is, the research question and hypothesis should be developed before the start of the study. This sounds intuitive; however, if we take, for example, a database of information, it is potentially possible to perform multiple statistical comparisons of groups within the database to find a statistically significant association. This could then lead one to work backward from the data and develop the “question.” This is counterintuitive to the process because the question is asked specifically to then find the answer, thus collecting data along the way (i.e., in a prospective manner). Multiple statistical testing of associations from data previously collected could potentially lead to spuriously positive findings of association through chance alone. 2 Therefore, a good hypothesis must be based on a good research question at the start of a trial and, indeed, drive data collection for the study.

The research or clinical hypothesis is developed from the research question and then the main elements of the study — sampling strategy, intervention (if applicable), comparison and outcome variables — are summarized in a form that establishes the basis for testing, statistical and ultimately clinical significance. 3 For example, in a research study comparing computer-assisted acetabular component insertion versus freehand acetabular component placement in patients in need of total hip arthroplasty, the experimental group would be computer-assisted insertion and the control/conventional group would be free-hand placement. The investigative team would first state a research hypothesis. This could be expressed as a single outcome (e.g., computer-assisted acetabular component placement leads to improved functional outcome) or potentially as a complex/composite outcome; that is, more than one outcome (e.g., computer-assisted acetabular component placement leads to both improved radiographic cup placement and improved functional outcome).

However, when formally testing statistical significance, the hypothesis should be stated as a “null” hypothesis. 2 The purpose of hypothesis testing is to make an inference about the population of interest on the basis of a random sample taken from that population. The null hypothesis for the preceding research hypothesis then would be that there is no difference in mean functional outcome between the computer-assisted insertion and free-hand placement techniques. After forming the null hypothesis, the researchers would form an alternate hypothesis stating the nature of the difference, if it should appear. The alternate hypothesis would be that there is a difference in mean functional outcome between these techniques. At the end of the study, the null hypothesis is then tested statistically. If the findings of the study are not statistically significant (i.e., there is no difference in functional outcome between the groups in a statistical sense), we cannot reject the null hypothesis, whereas if the findings were significant, we can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis (i.e., there is a difference in mean functional outcome between the study groups), errors in testing notwithstanding. In other words, hypothesis testing confirms or refutes the statement that the observed findings did not occur by chance alone but rather occurred because there was a true difference in outcomes between these surgical procedures. The concept of statistical hypothesis testing is complex, and the details are beyond the scope of this article.

Another important concept inherent in hypothesis testing is whether the hypotheses will be 1-sided or 2-sided. A 2-sided hypothesis states that there is a difference between the experimental group and the control group, but it does not specify in advance the expected direction of the difference. For example, we asked whether there is there an improvement in outcomes with computer-assisted surgery or whether the outcomes worse with computer-assisted surgery. We presented a 2-sided test in the above example because we did not specify the direction of the difference. A 1-sided hypothesis states a specific direction (e.g., there is an improvement in outcomes with computer-assisted surgery). A 2-sided hypothesis should be used unless there is a good justification for using a 1-sided hypothesis. As Bland and Atlman 8 stated, “One-sided hypothesis testing should never be used as a device to make a conventionally nonsignificant difference significant.”

The research hypothesis should be stated at the beginning of the study to guide the objectives for research. Whereas the investigators may state the hypothesis as being 1-sided (there is an improvement with treatment), the study and investigators must adhere to the concept of clinical equipoise. According to this principle, a clinical (or surgical) trial is ethical only if the expert community is uncertain about the relative therapeutic merits of the experimental and control groups being evaluated. 9 It means there must exist an honest and professional disagreement among expert clinicians about the preferred treatment. 9

Designing a research hypothesis is supported by a good research question and will influence the type of research design for the study. Acting on the principles of appropriate hypothesis development, the study can then confidently proceed to the development of the research objective.

Research objective

The primary objective should be coupled with the hypothesis of the study. Study objectives define the specific aims of the study and should be clearly stated in the introduction of the research protocol. 7 From our previous example and using the investigative hypothesis that there is a difference in functional outcomes between computer-assisted acetabular component placement and free-hand placement, the primary objective can be stated as follows: this study will compare the functional outcomes of computer-assisted acetabular component insertion versus free-hand placement in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Note that the study objective is an active statement about how the study is going to answer the specific research question. Objectives can (and often do) state exactly which outcome measures are going to be used within their statements. They are important because they not only help guide the development of the protocol and design of study but also play a role in sample size calculations and determining the power of the study. 7 These concepts will be discussed in other articles in this series.

From the surgeon’s point of view, it is important for the study objectives to be focused on outcomes that are important to patients and clinically relevant. For example, the most methodologically sound randomized controlled trial comparing 2 techniques of distal radial fixation would have little or no clinical impact if the primary objective was to determine the effect of treatment A as compared to treatment B on intraoperative fluoroscopy time. However, if the objective was to determine the effect of treatment A as compared to treatment B on patient functional outcome at 1 year, this would have a much more significant impact on clinical decision-making. Second, more meaningful surgeon–patient discussions could ensue, incorporating patient values and preferences with the results from this study. 6 , 7 It is the precise objective and what the investigator is trying to measure that is of clinical relevance in the practical setting.

The following is an example from the literature about the relation between the research question, hypothesis and study objectives:

Study: Warden SJ, Metcalf BR, Kiss ZS, et al. Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound for chronic patellar tendinopathy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Rheumatology 2008;47:467–71.

Research question: How does low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) compare with a placebo device in managing the symptoms of skeletally mature patients with patellar tendinopathy?

Research hypothesis: Pain levels are reduced in patients who receive daily active-LIPUS (treatment) for 12 weeks compared with individuals who receive inactive-LIPUS (placebo).

Objective: To investigate the clinical efficacy of LIPUS in the management of patellar tendinopathy symptoms.

The development of the research question is the most important aspect of a research project. A research project can fail if the objectives and hypothesis are poorly focused and underdeveloped. Useful tips for surgical researchers are provided in Box 3 . Designing and developing an appropriate and relevant research question, hypothesis and objectives can be a difficult task. The critical appraisal of the research question used in a study is vital to the application of the findings to clinical practice. Focusing resources, time and dedication to these 3 very important tasks will help to guide a successful research project, influence interpretation of the results and affect future publication efforts.

Tips for developing research questions, hypotheses and objectives for research studies

• Perform a systematic literature review (if one has not been done) to increase knowledge and familiarity with the topic and to assist with research development.
• Learn about current trends and technological advances on the topic.
• Seek careful input from experts, mentors, colleagues and collaborators to refine your research question as this will aid in developing the research question and guide the research study.
• Use the FINER criteria in the development of the research question.
• Ensure that the research question follows PICOT format.
• Develop a research hypothesis from the research question.
• Develop clear and well-defined primary and secondary (if needed) objectives.
• Ensure that the research question and objectives are answerable, feasible and clinically relevant.

FINER = feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, relevant; PICOT = population (patients), intervention (for intervention studies only), comparison group, outcome of interest, time.

Competing interests: No funding was received in preparation of this paper. Dr. Bhandari was funded, in part, by a Canada Research Chair, McMaster University.

Ohio State nav bar

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Find People
• Search Ohio State

Basic Research Design

What is research design.

• Definition of Research Design : A procedure for generating answers to questions, crucial in determining the reliability and relevance of research outcomes.
• Importance of Strong Designs : Strong designs lead to answers that are accurate and close to their targets, while weak designs may result in misleading or irrelevant outcomes.
• Criteria for Assessing Design Strength : Evaluating a design’s strength involves understanding the research question and how the design will yield reliable empirical information.

The Four Elements of Research Design (Blair et al., 2023)

• The MIDA Framework : Research designs consist of four interconnected elements – Model (M), Inquiry (I), Data strategy (D), and Answer strategy (A), collectively referred to as MIDA.
• Theoretical Side (M and I): This encompasses the researcher’s beliefs about the world (Model) and the target of inference or the primary question to be answered (Inquiry).
• Empirical Side (D and A): This includes the strategies for collecting (Data strategy) and analyzing or summarizing information (Answer strategy).
• Interplay between Theoretical and Empirical Sides : The theoretical side sets the research challenges, while the empirical side represents the researcher’s responses to these challenges.
• Relation among MIDA Components: The diagram above shows how the four elements of a design are interconnected and how they relate to both real-world and simulated quantities.
• Parallelism in Design Representation: The illustration highlights two key parallelisms in research design – between actual and simulated processes, and between the theoretical (M, I) and empirical (D, A) sides.
• Importance of Simulated Processes: The parallelism between actual and simulated processes is crucial for understanding and evaluating research designs.
• Balancing Theoretical and Empirical Aspects : Effective research design requires a balance between theoretical considerations (models and inquiries) and empirical methodologies (data and answer strategies).

Research Design Principles (Blair et al., 2023)

• Integration of Components: Designs are effective not merely due to their individual components but how these components work together.
• Focus on Entire Design: Assessing a design requires examining how each part, such as the question, estimator, and sampling method, fits into the overall design.
• Importance of Diagnosis: The evaluation of a design’s strength lies in diagnosing the whole design, not just its parts.
• Strong Design Characteristics: Designs with parallel theoretical and empirical aspects tend to be stronger.
• The M:I:D:A Analogy: Effective designs often align data strategies with models and answer strategies with inquiries.
• Flexibility in Models: Good designs should perform well even under varying world scenarios, not just under expected conditions.
• Broadening Model Scope: Designers should consider a wide range of models, assessing the design’s effectiveness across these.
• Robustness of Inquiries and Strategies: Inquiries should yield answers and strategies should be applicable regardless of variations in real-world events.
• Diagnosis Across Models: It’s important to understand for which models a design excels and for which it falters.
• Specificity of Purpose: A design is deemed good when it aligns with a specific purpose or goal.
• Balancing Multiple Criteria: Designs should balance scientific precision, logistical constraints, policy goals, and ethical considerations.
• Diverse Goals and Assessments: Different designs may be optimal for different goals; the purpose dictates the design evaluation.
• Early Planning Benefits: Designing early allows for learning and improving design properties before data collection.
• Avoiding Post-Hoc Regrets: Early design helps avoid regrets related to data collection or question formulation.
• Iterative Improvement: The process of declaration, diagnosis, and redesign improves designs, ideally done before data collection.
• Adaptability to Changes: Designs should be flexible to adapt to unforeseen circumstances or new information.
• Expanding or Contracting Feasibility: The scope of feasible designs may change due to various practical factors.
• Continual Redesign: The principle advocates for ongoing design modification, even post research completion, for robustness and response to criticism.
• Improvement Through Sharing: Sharing designs via a formalized declaration makes it easier for others to understand and critique.
• Enhancing Scientific Communication: Well-documented designs facilitate better communication and justification of research decisions.
• Building a Design Library: The idea is to contribute designs to a shared library, allowing others to learn from and build upon existing work.

The Basics of Social Science Research Designs (Panke, 2018)

Deductive and inductive research.

• Starting Point: Begins with empirical observations or exploratory studies.
• Development of Hypotheses: Hypotheses are formulated after initial empirical analysis.
• Case Study Analysis: Involves conducting explorative case studies and analyzing dynamics at play.
• Generalization of Findings: Insights are then generalized across multiple cases to verify their applicability.
• Application: Suitable for novel phenomena or where existing theories are not easily applicable.
• Example Cases: Exploring new events like Donald Trump’s 2016 nomination or Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.
• Theory-Based: Starts with existing theories to develop scientific answers to research questions.
• Hypothesis Development: Hypotheses are specified and then empirically examined.
• Empirical Examination: Involves a thorough empirical analysis of hypotheses using sound methods.
• Theory Refinement: Results can refine existing theories or contribute to new theoretical insights.
• Application: Preferred when existing theories relate to the research question.
• Example Projects: Usually explanatory projects asking ‘why’ questions to uncover relationships.

Explanatory and Interpretative Research Designs

• Definition: Explanatory research aims to explain the relationships between variables, often addressing ‘why’ questions. It is primarily concerned with identifying cause-and-effect dynamics and is typically quantitative in nature. The goal is to test hypotheses derived from theories and to establish patterns that can predict future occurrences.
• Definition: Interpretative research focuses on understanding the deeper meaning or underlying context of social phenomena. It often addresses ‘how is this possible’ questions, seeking to comprehend how certain outcomes or behaviors are produced within specific contexts. This type of research is usually qualitative and prioritizes individual experiences and perceptions.
• Explanatory Research: Poses ‘why’ questions to explore causal relationships and understand what factors influence certain outcomes.
• Interpretative Research: Asks ‘how is this possible’ questions to delve into the processes and meanings behind social phenomena.
• Explanatory Research: Relies on established theories to form hypotheses about causal relationships between variables. These theories are then tested through empirical research.
• Interpretative Research: Uses theories to provide a framework for understanding the social context and meanings. The focus is on constitutive relationships rather than causal ones.
• Explanatory Research: Often involves studying multiple cases to allow for comparison and generalization. It seeks patterns across different scenarios.
• Interpretative Research: Typically concentrates on single case studies, providing an in-depth understanding of that particular case without necessarily aiming for generalization.
• Explanatory Research: Aims to produce findings that can be generalized to other similar cases or populations. It seeks universal or broad patterns.
• Interpretative Research: Offers detailed insights specific to a single case or context. These findings are not necessarily intended to be generalized but to provide a deep understanding of the particular case.

Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed-method Projects

• Definition: Qualitative research is exploratory and aims to understand human behavior, beliefs, feelings, and experiences. It involves collecting non-numerical data, often through interviews, focus groups, or textual analysis. This method is ideal for gaining in-depth insights into specific phenomena.
• Example in Education: A qualitative study might involve conducting in-depth interviews with teachers to explore their experiences and challenges with remote teaching during the pandemic. This research would aim to understand the nuances of their experiences, challenges, and adaptations in a detailed and descriptive manner.
• Definition: Quantitative research seeks to quantify data and generalize results from a sample to the population of interest. It involves measurable, numerical data and often uses statistical methods for analysis. This approach is suitable for testing hypotheses or examining relationships between variables.
• Example in Education: A quantitative study could involve surveying a large number of students to determine the correlation between the amount of time spent on homework and their academic achievement. This would involve collecting numerical data (hours of homework, grades) and applying statistical analysis to examine relationships or differences.
• Definition: Mixed-method research combines both qualitative and quantitative approaches, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the research problem. It allows for the exploration of complex research questions by integrating numerical data analysis with detailed narrative data.
• Example in Education: A mixed-method study might investigate the impact of a new teaching method. The research could start with quantitative methods, like administering standardized tests to measure learning outcomes, followed by qualitative methods, such as conducting focus groups with students and teachers to understand their perceptions and experiences with the new teaching method. This combination provides both statistical results and in-depth understanding.
• Research Questions: What kind of information is needed to answer the questions? Qualitative for “how” and “why”, quantitative for “how many” or “how much”, and mixed methods for a comprehensive understanding of both the breadth and depth of a phenomenon.
• Nature of the Study: Is the study aiming to explore a new area (qualitative), confirm hypotheses (quantitative), or achieve both (mixed-method)?
• Resources Available: Time, funding, and expertise available can influence the choice. Qualitative research can be more time-consuming, while quantitative research may require specific statistical skills.
• Data Sources: Availability and type of data also guide the methodology. Existing numerical data might lean towards quantitative, while studies requiring personal experiences or opinions might be qualitative.

References:

Blair, G., Coppock, A., & Humphreys, M. (2023).  Research Design in the Social Sciences: Declaration, Diagnosis, and Redesign . Princeton University Press.

Panke, D. (2018). Research design & method selection: Making good choices in the social sciences.  Research Design & Method Selection , 1-368.

• Cookies & Privacy
• GETTING STARTED
• Introduction
• FUNDAMENTALS

Getting to the main article

Choosing your route

Setting research questions/ hypotheses

Assessment point

Building the theoretical case

Setting your research strategy

Data collection

Data analysis

STEP FOUR Put your diagram (i.e., your theoretical model) together

Putting your diagram together involves the following five steps :

• STEP A: Start by putting each construct in a circle
• STEP B: Based on your hypotheses?
• STEP C: If relevant, group constructs and highlight ties to theory
• STEP D: Try and order your constructs
• STEP E: Put it all together and give it a suitable title

STEP A Start by putting each construct in a circle

A circle should be used instead of a rectangle because a rectangle has a different purpose. See below for Construct A , Construct B and Construct C , which we call Service Quality , Customer Loyalty and Trust .

Note that most constructs will only be 1-3 words long (e.g., Trust , Service Quality or Customer Loyalty ), but they can also be 4-6 words long (e.g., Trust in the Service Provider , Customer Disposition to Trust ). Whilst they can be longer, it is important to try and keep the name of a construct short (i.e., precise), leaving the longer, operational definition of that construct to the main body of your Literature Review chapter.

STEP B Based on your hypotheses...

Use thick line arrows (i.e., rather than dotted lined arrows ) to show the relationships between your constructs.

Insert the number (and part , if any) of each hypothesis next to the relationships you are trying to show. Hypotheses are expressed as H , followed by the hypotheses number (e.g. H 2 ), sometimes with multiple parts (e.g. H 2a and H 2b , or H 2a and H 2b ).

If you have stated a research hypothesis in your dissertation (i.e., rather than a null hypothesis ), which you probably will have done, and you have expressed the directionality (i.e., positive or negative ) of this hypothesis, insert a positive (+) or negative (-) symbol on the right hand side of each hypothesis (e.g., H 1a (+) ).

If you are unsure about any of these terms, see the section on Research (and null) hypotheses in the Fundamentals part of Lærd Dissertation.

In the examples above, we have illustrated: (a) a positive relationship being predicted between service quality and trust (i.e., as service quality increases, trust increase); (b) a negative relationship being predicted between employee turnover and service quality (i.e., as employee turnover increases, service quality decreases); and (c) no relationship being predicted between trust and customer loyalty (i.e., we believe that there is a relationship between trust and customer loyalty , but we are unsure whether the relationship is positive or negative ).

STEP C If relevant, group constructs and highlight ties to theory:

As previously mentioned in STEP THREE , sometimes constructs can be grouped (i.e., construct grouping ) and the theories that underpin the relationships between them illustrated (i.e., theoretical group ). We do highlighting construct grouping and theoretical grouping using different types of rectangles (see diagram below):

Construct grouping

We can show that constructs are related to each other in some way (e.g., the three dimensions of organisational commitment , namely affective , continuance and normative commitment ) by enclosing these constructs (which we put in circles ) in a rectangle . As you can see in the diagram below, these rectangles either have (a) a thick line with no inner shading or (b) a dotted line with no shading . We recommend using:

A thick line when the constructs are part of a broader , overarching construct

For example, the case of organisational commitment , since normative commitment , continuance commitment and affective commitment were part of the broader construct, organisational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991).

A dotted line when the constructs are more loosely coupled/tied by some other factor

For example, in a study looking at the construct, customer loyalty , you may be interested in number of constructs, such as service quality , trust , customer satisfaction , and so forth. However, you may also be interested in a customer's age , gender , income , educational background , and so forth. All of these latter constructs (i.e., age , gender , income , educational background , etc.) could be classified as individual characteristics . Therefore, we can enclose these constructs in a rectangle with a dotted line to show that they are loosely coupled/tied .

In either case, you should give the rectangle a name (e.g., Organisational Commitment in the first example, and Individual Characteristics in the second example).

Theoretical grouping

When you are simply illustrating how different constructs are underpinned by certain theories, this can be shown by placing a rectangle , with inner shading , but no line , underneath the relevant constructs (which we put in circles ).

When we want to show how theories and constructs may overlap , we can bring together two (or more) rectangles ; again, rectangles with inner shading , but no line .

In both cases, it is helpful to use a different colour of inner shading for each of the different theories, especially when they overlap.

STEP D Try and order your constructs

With all the different construct, hypotheses, arrows, construct grouping, and maybe even theoretical grouping, it is difficult to avoid producing a diagram (i.e., a theoretical model) that is not very messy. A lot of this is trial and error, but one rule that you should try and stick to is to start with those constructs that are acting as independent variables on the left of the diagram, and those constructs acting as dependent variables on the right . Just as we read the page from left-to-right , we want the reader to quickly understand that we are examining the impact of those independent variables (also known as predictor variables ) on the left , on the dependent variables (also known as outcomes variables ) on the right . This is the same formula that we use when putting together quantitative research questions or hypotheses ; again, because it helps the reader to understand what we are trying to study [see the articles: Quantitative research questions and Research (and null) hypotheses in the Fundamentals part of Lærd Dissertation].

STEP E Put it all together and give it a suitable title

Once you've worked through STEPS A to D above, it is time to put your diagram together, and give the theoretical model you have created a suitable title. Below we illustrate an example model:

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Formulating Hypotheses Graphically in Social Research

1998, Quality & Quantity

This article explores the proposition that the appropriate use of suitable forms of graphic communication can improve the formulation and presentation of hypotheses in quantitative social science research. The creative nature of scientific diagrams is discussed and the technological advances in computer graphic media are seen as part of a ‘visual revolution’ which is markedly changing not only the way we see things but also the way we think and do things today. Brief historical views on the use of hypotheses and diagrammatic languages in science are given. The restricted use of graphic communication tools in social research academic documents is discussed and the importance of using well-designed data graphics in the production and transmission of scientific knowledge is highlighted. Hypotheses are conceptualised and their importance within social research is emphasised. A methodological approach for formulating hypotheses graphically is proposed based on the use of three types of language: notation, statement (ordinary language) and diagram. Some criteria are suggested for the selection of diagram type dependent on the related variables. Several examples are given covering the different models proposed.

Related Papers

Cheryl Poth

Tünde Varga-Atkins , Peggy Tso , Johannes Wheeldon

The use of graphic representations of experience and the social environment in the data collection process is an emerging approach in qualitative research. The terms diagramming, mapping and drawing are often used interchangeably, however, there is no common interdisciplinary understanding of what they mean and how they might be differentiated. The lack of a unifying terminology has resulted in simultaneous but separate developments undermining a more coherent approach to this emergent method. By defining what a diagram is and examining where diagramming fits amongst other data collection approaches, this paper proposes the term diagrammatic elicitation to refer to the use of diagrams in the data collection process. Two subcategories of this approach include: 1) participant-led diagrammatic elicitation, where participants create original diagrams for data analysis; and 2) researcher-led diagrammatic elicitation, where the researcher draws the diagram during the data collection process for discussion or the participant edits a researcher-prepared diagram. By exploring in greater detail what this approach is and what it is not, researchers can share best practice and developments across disciplines.

Jenifer S Larson Hall

Graphics are often mistaken for a mere frill in the methodological arsenal of data analysis when in fact they can be one of the simplest and at the same time most powerful methods of communicating statistical information (Tufte, 2001). The first section of the article argues for the statistical necessity of graphs, echoing and amplifying similar calls from Hudson (2015) and Larson–Hall & Plonsky (2015). The second section presents a historical survey of graphical use over the entire history of language acquisition journals, spanning a total of 192 years. This shows that a consensus for using certain types of graphics, which lack data credibility, has developed in the applied linguistics field, namely the bar plot and the line graph. The final section of the article is devoted to presenting various types of graphic alternatives to these two consensus graphics. Suggested graphics are data accountable and present all of the data, as well as a summary structure; such graphics include the scatterplot, beeswarm or pirate plot. It is argued that the use of such graphics attracts readers, helps researchers improve the way they understand and analyze their data, and builds credibility in numerical statistical analyses and conclusions that are drawn.

Journal of Public Health

Gianfranco Damiani

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Muriah Umoquit

Background In research, diagrams are most commonly used in the analysis of data and visual presentation of results. However there has been a substantial growth in the use of diagrams in earlier stages of the research process to collect data. Despite this growth, guidance on this technique is often isolated within disciplines. Methods A multidisciplinary systematic review was performed, which included 13 traditional healthcare and non-health-focused indexes, non-indexed searches and contacting experts in the field. English-language articles that used diagrams as a data collection tool and reflected on the process were included in the review, with no restriction on publication date. Results The search identified 2690 documents, of which 80 were included in the final analysis. The choice to use diagrams for data collection is often determined by requirements of the research topic, such as the need to understand research subjects' knowledge or cognitive structure, to overcome cultural and linguistic differences, or to understand highly complex subject matter. How diagrams were used for data collection varied by the degrees of instruction for, and freedom in, diagram creation, the number of diagrams created or edited and the use of diagrams in conjunction with other data collection methods. Depending on how data collection is structured, a variety of options for qualitative and quantitative analysis are available to the researcher. The review identified a number of benefits to using diagrams in data collection, including the ease with which the method can be adapted to complement other data collection methods and its ability to focus discussion. However it is clear that the benefits and challenges of diagramming depend on the nature of its application and the type of diagrams used. Discussion/Conclusion The results of this multidisciplinary systematic review examine the application of diagrams in data collection and the methods for analyzing the unique datasets elicited. Three recommendations are presented. Firstly, the diagrammatic approach should be chosen based on the type of data needed. Secondly, appropriate instructions will depend on the approach chosen. And thirdly, the final results should present examples of original or recreated diagrams. This review also highlighted the need for a standardized terminology of the method and a supporting theoretical framework.

Dominic Dayta

Conventional data visualization techniques give little consideration for how human perception affects one&#39;s comprehension of statistical charts. Motivated to address this inadequacy, the present paper seeks to study the improvement in statistical communication when visualization techniques are integrated with the Gestalt principles from cognitive psychology. Students from a local high school are made to take a timed chart comprehension exam where their test scores represent their level of understanding--to be compared based on the type of chart used (‘conventional’ versus ‘Gestalt-modified’)--hypothesizing that the latter is more effective in delivering its intended message to the student. This study aims to provide an evidence-based analysis towards finding more effective and efficient data visualization techniques in an age of data overload.

Krista Francis , Michele Jacobsen , Sharon Friesen

The Qualitative Report

Muriah Umoquit , Johannes Wheeldon , Tünde Varga-Atkins

The use of graphic representations of experience and the social environment in the data collection process is an emerging approach. The terms diagramming, mapping and drawing are often used interchangeably, with no common interdisciplinary understanding of what they mean. The lack of a unifying terminology has resulted in simultaneous but separate developments undermining a more coherent approach to this emergent method. By defining what a diagram is and examining where diagramming fits amongst other data collection approaches, this paper proposes the term diagrammatic elicitation to refer to the use of diagrams in the data collection process. Two subcategories of this approach include: (a) participant-led diagrammatic elicitation, where participants create original diagrams and (b) researcher-led diagrammatic elicitation, where the researcher draws the diagram during the data collection process for discussion or participants edit a researcher-prepared diagram. Establishing these terms will allow researchers to share best practice and developments across disciplines.

The Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour

Daniel Silver

The visualization of social theory is an important part of the development and communication of our theoretical ideas. While most theorists use figures of some kind, few if any have formal training, or guiding rules or principles for the representation of theory. This has often led to poor visualization efforts, and the visual culture of sociology continues to lag behind the natural sciences. The intent of this paper is to serve as a practical and empirically aided guide for social theorists, by providing insights surrounding the cognitive and perceptual properties of certain elements and figures. Through these properties we identify four major problems in theory visualization: vagueness, reduction, unwanted spatial inferences and unwanted metaphorical inferences. We offer solutions to these problems, and to improving theory visualization more generally. Our hope is that this paper will serve as a resource for more thoughtful and informed visualization for practicing social theorists.

Acta Scientiae

Teresa Sofía Oviedo Millones

RELATED PAPERS

Baldev Singh Kulaste

Lupita Núñez Ibarra

Matilde Inés Césari

Physical Review E

Doochul Kim

SpringerBriefs in Education

Derek Irwin

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

J. McGrenere

PAUDIA : JURNAL PENELITIAN DALAM BIDANG PENDIDIKAN ANAK USIA DINI

Ellya Rakhmawati

Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery

Materials Science and Engineering: A

International Journal of Security and Its Applications

priya verma

Waru Djuriatno

The Journal of Urology

A. Houlgatte

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development

Duncan Hilchey

Southern African Journal of Gerontology

david everatt

FAIDIL ADHA NUR

South African Journal of Chemistry

Alimorad Rashidi

La. L. Rev.

Claudiu Claudiu

Limbago: Journal of Constitutional Law

Irawan Djoko Nugroho

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Journal of Neurochemistry

Madelon Price

Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

Borhane Annabi

Pain Research and Treatment

Enrico Bellato

Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad : JAMC

Sajjad Husain

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Developing the research hypothesis

Affiliation.

• 1 Division of Abdominal Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA. [email protected]
• PMID: 21867386
• DOI: 10.3109/08941939.2011.609449

The research hypothesis is needed for a sound and well-developed research study. The research hypothesis contributes to the solution of the research problem. Types of research hypotheses include inductive and deductive, directional and non-directional, and null and alternative hypotheses. Rejecting the null hypothesis and accepting the alternative hypothesis is the basis for building a good research study. This work reviews the most important aspects of organizing and establishing an efficient and complete hypothesis.

• Biomedical Research / methods*
• Data Interpretation, Statistical
• Research Design*

Integrations

What's new?

Prototype Testing

Live Website Testing

Feedback Surveys

Interview Studies

Card Sorting

Tree Testing

In-Product Prompts

Participant Management

Automated Reports

Templates Gallery

Choose from our library of pre-built mazes to copy, customize, and share with your own users

Browse all templates

Financial Services

Tech & Software

Product Designers

Product Managers

User Researchers

By use case

Concept & Idea Validation

Wireframe & Usability Test

Content & Copy Testing

Feedback & Satisfaction

Content Hub

Educational resources for product, research and design teams

Explore all resources

Question Bank

Research Maturity Model

Guides & Reports

Help Center

Future of User Research Report

The Optimal Path Podcast

User Research

Mar 21, 2024

Creating a research hypothesis: How to formulate and test UX expectations

A research hypothesis helps guide your UX research with focused predictions you can test and learn from. Here’s how to formulate your own hypotheses.

Armin Tanovic

All great products were once just thoughts—the spark of an idea waiting to be turned into something tangible.

A research hypothesis in UX is very similar. It’s the starting point for your user research; the jumping off point for your product development initiatives.

Formulating a UX research hypothesis helps guide your UX research project in the right direction, collect insights, and evaluate not only whether an idea is worth pursuing, but how to go after it.

In this article, we’ll cover what a research hypothesis is, how it's relevant to UX research, and the best formula to create your own hypothesis and put it to the test.

Test your hypothesis with Maze

Maze lets you validate your design and test research hypotheses to move forward with authentic user insights.

What defines a research hypothesis?

A research hypothesis is a statement or prediction that needs testing to be proven or disproven.

Let’s say you’ve got an inkling that making a change to a feature icon will increase the number of users that engage with it—with some minor adjustments, this theory becomes a research hypothesis: “ Adjusting Feature X’s icon will increase daily average users by 20% ”.

A research hypothesis is the starting point that guides user research . It takes your thought and turns it into something you can quantify and evaluate. In this case, you could conduct usability tests and user surveys, and run A/B tests to see if you’re right—or, just as importantly, wrong .

A good research hypothesis has three main features:

• Specificity: A hypothesis should clearly define what variables you’re studying and what you expect an outcome to be, without ambiguity in its wording
• Relevance: A research hypothesis should have significance for your research project by addressing a potential opportunity for improvement
• Testability: Your research hypothesis must be able to be tested in some way such as empirical observation or data collection

What is the difference between a research hypothesis and a research question?

Research questions and research hypotheses are often treated as one and the same, but they’re not quite identical.

A research hypothesis acts as a prediction or educated guess of outcomes , while a research question poses a query on the subject you’re investigating. Put simply, a research hypothesis is a statement, whereas a research question is (you guessed it) a question.

For example, here’s a research hypothesis: “ Implementing a navigation bar on our dashboard will improve customer satisfaction scores by 10%. ”

This statement acts as a testable prediction. It doesn’t pose a question, it’s a prediction. Here’s what the same hypothesis would look like as a research question: “ Will integrating a navigation bar on our dashboard improve customer satisfaction scores? ”

The distinction is minor, and both are focused on uncovering the truth behind the topic, but they’re not quite the same.

Why do you use a research hypothesis in UX?

Research hypotheses in UX are used to establish the direction of a particular study, research project, or test. Formulating a hypothesis and testing it ensures the UX research you conduct is methodical, focused, and actionable. It aids every phase of your research process , acting as a north star that guides your efforts toward successful product development .

Typically, UX researchers will formulate a testable hypothesis to help them fulfill a broader objective, such as improving customer experience or product usability. They’ll then conduct user research to gain insights into their prediction and confirm or reject the hypothesis.

A proven or disproven hypothesis will tell if your prediction is right, and whether you should move forward with your proposed design—or if it's back to the drawing board.

Formulating a hypothesis can be helpful in anything from prototype testing to idea validation, and design iteration. Put simply, it’s one of the first steps in conducting user research.

Whether you’re in the initial stages of product discovery for a new product, a single feature, or conducting ongoing research, a strong hypothesis presents a clear purpose and angle for your research It also helps understand which user research methodology to use to get your answers.

What are the types of research hypotheses?

Not all hypotheses are built the same—there are different types with different objectives. Understanding the different types enables you to formulate a research hypothesis that outlines the angle you need to take to prove or disprove your predictions.

Here are some of the different types of hypotheses to keep in mind.

Null and alternative hypotheses

While a normal research hypothesis predicts that a specific outcome will occur based upon a certain change of variables, a null hypothesis predicts that no difference will occur when you introduce a new condition.

By that reasoning, a null hypothesis would be:

• Adding a new CTA button to the top of our homepage will make no difference in conversions

Null hypotheses are useful because they help outline what your test or research study is trying to dis prove, rather than prove, through a research hypothesis.

An alternative hypothesis states the exact opposite of a null hypothesis. It proposes that a certain change will occur when you introduce a new condition or variable. For example:

• Adding a CTA button to the top of our homepage will cause a difference in conversion rates

Simple hypotheses and complex hypotheses

A simple hypothesis is a prediction that includes only two variables in a cause-and-effect sequence, with one variable dependent on the other. It predicts that you'll achieve a particular outcome based on a certain condition. The outcome is known as the dependent variable and the change causing it is the independent variable .

For example, this is a simple hypothesis:

• Including the search function on our mobile app will increase user retention

The expected outcome of increasing user retention is based on the condition of including a new search function. But, what happens when there are more than two factors at play?

We get what’s called a complex hypothesis. Instead of a simple condition and outcome, complex hypotheses include multiple results. This makes them a perfect research hypothesis type for framing complex studies or tracking multiple KPIs based on a single action.

Building upon our previous example, a complex research hypothesis could be:

• Including the search function on our mobile app will increase user retention and boost conversions

Directional and non-directional hypotheses

Research hypotheses can also differ in the specificity of outcomes. Put simply, any hypothesis that has a specific outcome or direction based on the relationship of its variables is a directional hypothesis . That means that our previous example of a simple hypothesis is also a directional hypothesis.

Non-directional hypotheses don’t specify the outcome or difference the variables will see. They just state that a difference exists. Following our example above, here’s what a non-directional hypothesis would look like:

• Including the search function on our mobile app will make a difference in user retention

In this non-directional hypothesis, the direction of difference (increase/decrease) hasn’t been specified, we’ve just noted that there will be a difference.

The type of hypothesis you write helps guide your research—let’s get into it.

How to write and test your UX research hypothesis

Now we’ve covered the types of research hypothesis examples, it’s time to get practical.

Creating your research hypothesis is the first step in conducting successful user research.

Here are the four steps for writing and testing a UX research hypothesis to help you make informed, data-backed decisions for product design and development.

1. Formulate your hypothesis

Start by writing out your hypothesis in a way that’s specific and relevant to a distinct aspect of your user or product experience. Meaning: your prediction should include a design choice followed by the outcome you’d expect—this is what you’re looking to validate or reject.

Your proposed research hypothesis should also be testable through user research data analysis. There’s little point in a hypothesis you can’t test!

Let’s say your focus is your product’s user interface—and how you can improve it to better meet customer needs. A research hypothesis in this instance might be:

• Adding a settings tab to the navigation bar will improve usability

By writing out a research hypothesis in this way, you’re able to conduct relevant user research to prove or disprove your hypothesis. You can then use the results of your research—and the validation or rejection of your hypothesis—to decide whether or not you need to make changes to your product’s interface.

2. Identify variables and choose your research method

Once you’ve got your hypothesis, you need to map out how exactly you’ll test it. Consider what variables relate to your hypothesis. In our case, the main variable of our outcome is adding a settings tab to the navigation bar.

Once you’ve defined the relevant variables, you’re in a better position to decide on the best UX research method for the job. If you’re after metrics that signal improvement, you’ll want to select a method yielding quantifiable results—like usability testing . If your outcome is geared toward what users feel, then research methods for qualitative user insights, like user interviews , are the way to go.

3. Carry out your study

It’s go time. Now you’ve got your hypothesis, identified the relevant variables, and outlined your method for testing them, you’re ready to run your study. This step involves recruiting participants for your study and reaching out to them through relevant channels like email, live website testing , or social media.

Given our hypothesis, our best bet is to conduct A/B and usability tests with a prototype that includes the additional UI elements, then compare the usability metrics to see whether users find navigation easier with or without the settings button.

We can also follow up with UX surveys to get qualitative insights and ask users how they found the task, what they preferred about each design, and to see what additional customer insights we uncover.

💡 Want more insights from your usability tests? Maze Clips enables you to gather real-time recordings and reactions of users participating in usability tests .

4. Analyze your results and compare them to your hypothesis

By this point, you’ve neatly outlined a hypothesis, chosen a research method, and carried out your study. It’s now time to analyze your findings and evaluate whether they support or reject your hypothesis.

Look at the data you’ve collected and what it means. Given that we conducted usability testing, we’ll want to look to some key usability metrics for an indication of whether the additional settings button improves usability.

For example, with the usability task of ‘ In account settings, find your profile and change your username ’, we can conduct task analysis to compare the times spent on task and misclick rates of the new design, with those same metrics from the old design.

If you also conduct follow-up surveys or interviews, you can ask users directly about their experience and analyze their answers to gather additional qualitative data . Maze AI can handle the analysis automatically, but you can also manually read through responses to get an idea of what users think about the change.

By comparing the findings to your research hypothesis, you can identify whether your research accepts or rejects your hypothesis. If the majority of users struggle with finding the settings page within usability tests, but had a higher success rate with your new prototype, you’ve proved the hypothesis.

However, it's also crucial to acknowledge if the findings refute your hypothesis rather than prove it as true. Ruling something out is just as valuable as confirming a suspicion.

In either case, make sure to draw conclusions based on the relationship between the variables and store findings in your UX research repository . You can conduct deeper analysis with techniques like thematic analysis or affinity mapping .

UX research hypotheses: four best practices to guide your research

Knowing the big steps for formulating and testing a research hypothesis ensures that your next UX research project gives you focused, impactful results and insights. But, that’s only the tip of the research hypothesis iceberg. There are some best practices you’ll want to consider when using a hypothesis to test your UX design ideas.

Here are four research hypothesis best practices to help guide testing and make your UX research systematic and actionable.

Align your hypothesis to broader business and UX goals

Before you begin to formulate your hypothesis, be sure to pause and think about how it connects to broader goals in your UX strategy . This ensures that your efforts and predictions align with your overarching design and development goals.

For example, implementing a brand new navigation menu for current account holders might work for usability, but if the wider team is focused on boosting conversion rates for first-time site viewers, there might be a different research project to prioritize.

Create clear and actionable reports for stakeholders

Once you’ve conducted your testing and proved or disproved your hypothesis, UX reporting and analysis is the next step. You’ll need to present your findings to stakeholders in a way that's clear, concise, and actionable. If your hypothesis insights come in the form of metrics and statistics, then quantitative data visualization tools and reports will help stakeholders understand the significance of your study, while setting the stage for design changes and solutions.

If you went with a research method like user interviews, a narrative UX research report including key themes and findings, proposed solutions, and your original hypothesis will help inform your stakeholders on the best course of action.

Consider different user segments

While getting enough responses is crucial for proving or disproving your hypothesis, you’ll want to consider which users will give you the highest quality and most relevant responses. Remember to consider user personas —e.g. If you’re only introducing a change for premium users, exclude testing with users who are on a free trial of your product.

You can recruit and target specific user demographics with the Maze Panel —which enables you to search for and filter participants that meet your requirements. Doing so allows you to better understand how different users will respond to your hypothesis testing. It also helps you uncover specific needs or issues different users may have.

Involve stakeholders from the start

Before testing or even formulating a research hypothesis by yourself, ensure all your stakeholders are on board. Informing everyone of your plan to formulate and test your hypothesis does three things:

Firstly, it keeps your team in the loop . They’ll be able to inform you of any relevant insights, special considerations, or existing data they already have about your particular design change idea, or KPIs to consider that would benefit the wider team.

Secondly, informing stakeholders ensures seamless collaboration across multiple departments . Together, you’ll be able to fit your testing results into your overall CX strategy , ensuring alignment with business goals and broader objectives.

Finally, getting everyone involved enables them to contribute potential hypotheses to test . You’re not the only one with ideas about what changes could positively impact the user experience, and keeping everyone in the loop brings fresh ideas and perspectives to the table.

Test your UX research hypotheses with Maze

Formulating and testing out a research hypothesis is a great way to define the scope of your UX research project clearly. It helps keep research on track by providing a single statement to come back to and anchor your research in.

Whether you run usability tests or user interviews to assess your hypothesis—Maze's suite of advanced research methods enables you to get the in-depth user and customer insights you need.

Frequently asked questions about research hypothesis

What is the difference between a hypothesis and a problem statement in UX?

A research hypothesis describes the prediction or method of solving that problem. A problem statement, on the other hand, identifies a specific issue in your design that you intend to solve. A problem statement will typically include a user persona, an issue they have, and a desired outcome they need.

How many hypotheses should a UX research problem have?

Technically, there are no limits to the amount of hypotheses you can have for a certain problem or study. However, you should limit it to one hypothesis per specific issue in UX research. This ensures that you can conduct focused testing and reach clear, actionable results.

Generating New Research Hypotheses from a Result Diagram of Qualitative Research

• Conference paper
• Cite this conference paper

• Herman J. Adèr 9 ,
• H. Roeline W. Pasman 10 &
• B. Anne-Mei The 10  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2980))

Included in the following conference series:

• International Conference on Theory and Application of Diagrams

701 Accesses

We discuss the use of diagrams in support of empirical research. In particular, we try to find out if an analysis of a diagram that represents the results from a series of qualitative studies, can be used to formulate subsequent (quantitative or qualitative) research.

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Adèr, H.J., Anne-Mei The, B., Roeline, H., Pasman, W.: Diagramming basic notions in qualitatieve research. In: Proceedings of the Second workshop on Research Methodology, RM 2003, June 25-27 (2003), VU University, Amsterdam, VU University medical Center, Amsterdam. Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine. VU medical center,Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2003)

Google Scholar  

Roeline, H., Pasman, W., Anne-Mei The, B., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B.D., van der Wal, G., Ribbe, M.W.: Participants in the decision-making on artificial nutrition and hydration to demented nursing home patients: a qualitative study. Journal of Aging Studies (2003)

Anne-Mei The, B., Roeline, H., Pasman, W., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B.D., Ribbe, M.W., van der Wal, G.: Withholding the artificial administration of fluids and food from elderly patients with dementia: ethnographic study. British Medical Journal, 325, December 7 (2002)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Dept. of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam

Herman J. Adèr

Inst. for Research in Extramural Medicine EMGO, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam

H. Roeline W. Pasman & B. Anne-Mei The

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, CB3 0FD, Cambridge, UK

Alan F. Blackwell

Clayton School of IT Monash University, 3800, Australia

Kim Marriott

Faculty of Culture and Information Science, Doshisha University, Japan

Atsushi Shimojima

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Adèr, H.J., Pasman, H.R.W., The, B.AM. (2004). Generating New Research Hypotheses from a Result Diagram of Qualitative Research. In: Blackwell, A.F., Marriott, K., Shimojima, A. (eds) Diagrammatic Representation and Inference. Diagrams 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2980. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-25931-2_31

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-25931-2_31

Publisher Name : Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

Print ISBN : 978-3-540-21268-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-540-25931-2

eBook Packages : Springer Book Archive

Share this paper

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

share this!

April 26, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

Study details a common bacterial defense against viral infection

by Emily Caldwell, The Ohio State University

One of the many secrets to bacteria's success is their ability to defend themselves from viruses, called phages, that infect bacteria and use their cellular machinery to make copies of themselves.

Technological advances have enabled recent identification of the proteins involved in these systems, but scientists are still digging deeper into what those proteins do.

In a new study, a team from The Ohio State University has reported on the molecular assembly of one of the most common anti-phage systems—from the family of proteins called Gabija—that is estimated to be used by at least 8.5%, and up to 18%, of all bacteria species on Earth.

Researchers found that one protein appears to have the power to fend off a phage, but when it binds to a partner protein, the resulting complex is highly adept at snipping the genome of an invading phage to render it unable to replicate.

"We think the two proteins need to form the complex to play a role in phage prevention, but we also believe one protein alone does have some anti-phage function," said Zhangfei Shen, co-lead author of the study and a postdoctoral scholar in biological chemistry and pharmacology at Ohio State's College of Medicine. "The full role of the second protein needs to be further studied."

The findings add to scientific understanding of microorganisms' evolutionary strategies and could one day be translated into biomedical applications , researchers say.

Shen and co-lead author Xiaoyuan Yang, a Ph.D. student, work in the lab of senior author Tianmin Fu, assistant professor of biological chemistry and pharmacology at Ohio State.

The study was published April 16 in Nature Structural & Molecular Biology .

The two proteins that make up this defense system are called Gabija A and Gabija B, or GajA and GajB for short.

Researchers used cryo-electron microscopy to determine the biochemical structures of GajA and GajB individually and of what is called a supramolecular complex, GajAB, created when the two bind to form a cluster consisting of four molecules from each protein.

In experiments using Bacillus cereus bacteria as a model, researchers observed the activity of the complex in the presence of phages to gain insight into how the defense system works.

Though GajA alone showed signs of activity that could disable a phage's DNA, the complex it formed with GajB was much more effective at ensuring phages would not be able take over the bacterial cell.

"That's the mysterious part," Yang said. "GajA alone is sufficient to cleave the phage nucleus, but it also does form the complex with GajB when we incubate them together. Our hypothesis is that GajA recognizes the phage's genomic sequence, but GajB enhances that recognition and helps to cut the phage DNA."

The large size and elongated configuration of the complex made it difficult to get the full picture of GajB's functional contributions when bound to GajA, Shen said, leaving the team to make some assumptions about protein roles that have yet to be confirmed.

"We only know GajB helps enhance GajA activity, but we don't yet know how it works because we only see about 50% of it on the complex," Shen said.

One of their hypotheses is that GajB may influence the concentration level of an energy source, the nucleotide ATP ( adenosine triphosphate ), in the cellular environment—specifically, by driving ATP down upon detection of the phage's presence. That would have the dual effect of expanding GajA's phage DNA-disabling activity and stealing energy that a phage would need to start replicating, Yang said.

There is more to learn about bacterial anti-phage defense systems, but this team has already shown that blocking virus replication isn't the only weapon in the bacterial arsenal. In a previous study , Fu, Shen, Yang and colleagues described a different defense strategy: bacteria programming their own death rather than letting phages take over a community.

Journal information: Nature Structural & Molecular Biology

Provided by The Ohio State University

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Optical barcodes expand range of high-resolution sensor

10 hours ago

Ridesourcing platforms thrive on socio-economic inequality, say researchers

11 hours ago

Did Vesuvius bury the home of the first Roman emperor?

Florida dolphin found with highly pathogenic avian flu: Report

A new way to study and help prevent landslides

New algorithm cuts through 'noisy' data to better predict tipping points

12 hours ago

Researchers reconstruct landscapes that greeted the first humans in Australia around 65,000 years ago

High-precision blood glucose level prediction achieved by few-molecule reservoir computing

13 hours ago

Enhancing memory technology: Multiferroic nanodots for low-power magnetic storage

Researchers advance detection of gravitational waves to study collisions of neutron stars and black holes

Relevant physicsforums posts, the cass report (uk).

Apr 24, 2024

Major Evolution in Action

Apr 22, 2024

If theres a 15% probability each month of getting a woman pregnant...

Apr 19, 2024

Can four legged animals drink from beneath their feet?

Apr 15, 2024

Mold in Plastic Water Bottles? What does it eat?

Apr 14, 2024

Dolphins don't breathe through their esophagus

More from Biology and Medical

Related Stories

Study reveals unexpected strategy in competition between bacteria and viruses

Jan 11, 2024

Research reveals a rare enzyme role change with bacterial defense system assembly

Dec 13, 2023

The value of information gathering in phage–bacteria warfare

Jan 10, 2024

Scientists discover new phage resistance mechanism in phage-bacterial arms race

Apr 8, 2024

Giant phage holds promise as treatment for lung infections, researchers find

Apr 3, 2024

Phage structure, captured for the first time, could benefit biotech applications

May 15, 2023

Recommended for you

Study suggests host response needs to be studied along with other bacteriophage research

14 hours ago

Automated machine learning robot unlocks new potential for genetics research

AI deciphers new gene regulatory code in plants and makes accurate predictions for newly sequenced genomes

Researchers decipher how an enzyme modifies the genetic material in the cell nucleus

Scientists discover higher levels of CO₂ increase survival of viruses in the air and transmission risk

Scientists suggest using mobile device location data for studying human-wildlife interactions

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter