causal hypothesis

Causal Hypothesis

In scientific research, understanding causality is key to unraveling the intricacies of various phenomena. A causal hypothesis is a statement that predicts a cause-and-effect relationship between variables in a study. It serves as a guide to study design, data collection, and interpretation of results. This thesis statement segment aims to provide you with clear examples of causal hypotheses across diverse fields, along with a step-by-step guide and useful tips for formulating your own. Let’s delve into the essential components of constructing a compelling causal hypothesis.

What is Causal Hypothesis?

A causal hypothesis is a predictive statement that suggests a potential cause-and-effect relationship between two or more variables. It posits that a change in one variable (the independent or cause variable) will result in a change in another variable (the dependent or effect variable). The primary goal of a causal hypothesis is to determine whether one event or factor directly influences another. This type of Simple hypothesis is commonly tested through experiments where one variable can be manipulated to observe the effect on another variable.

What is an example of a Causal Hypothesis Statement?

Example 1: If a person increases their physical activity (cause), then their overall health will improve (effect).

Explanation: Here, the independent variable is the “increase in physical activity,” while the dependent variable is the “improvement in overall health.” The hypothesis suggests that by manipulating the level of physical activity (e.g., by exercising more), there will be a direct effect on the individual’s health.

Other examples can range from the impact of a change in diet on weight loss, the influence of class size on student performance, or the effect of a new training method on employee productivity. The key element in all causal hypotheses is the proposed direct relationship between cause and effect.

100 Causal Hypothesis Statement Examples

Size: 185 KB

Causal hypotheses predict cause-and-effect relationships, aiming to understand the influence one variable has on another. Rooted in experimental setups, they’re essential for deriving actionable insights in many fields. Delve into these 100 illustrative examples to understand the essence of causal relationships.

• Dietary Sugar & Weight Gain: Increased sugar intake leads to weight gain.
• Exercise & Mental Health: Regular exercise improves mental well-being.
• Sleep & Productivity: Lack of adequate sleep reduces work productivity.
• Class Size & Learning: Smaller class sizes enhance student understanding.
• Smoking & Lung Disease: Regular smoking causes lung diseases.
• Pesticides & Bee Decline: Use of certain pesticides leads to bee population decline.
• Stress & Hair Loss: Chronic stress accelerates hair loss.
• Music & Plant Growth: Plants grow better when exposed to classical music.
• UV Rays & Skin Aging: Excessive exposure to UV rays speeds up skin aging.
• Reading & Vocabulary: Regular reading improves vocabulary breadth.
• Video Games & Reflexes: Playing video games frequently enhances reflex actions.
• Air Pollution & Respiratory Issues: High levels of air pollution increase respiratory diseases.
• Green Spaces & Happiness: Living near green spaces improves overall happiness.
• Yoga & Blood Pressure: Regular yoga practices lower blood pressure.
• Meditation & Stress Reduction: Daily meditation reduces stress levels.
• Social Media & Anxiety: Excessive social media use increases anxiety in teenagers.
• Alcohol & Liver Damage: Regular heavy drinking leads to liver damage.
• Training & Job Efficiency: Intensive training improves job performance.
• Seat Belts & Accident Survival: Using seat belts increases chances of surviving car accidents.
• Soft Drinks & Bone Density: High consumption of soft drinks decreases bone density.
• Homework & Academic Performance: Regular homework completion improves academic scores.
• Organic Food & Health Benefits: Consuming organic food improves overall health.
• Fiber Intake & Digestion: Increased dietary fiber enhances digestion.
• Therapy & Depression Recovery: Regular therapy sessions improve depression recovery rates.
• Financial Education & Savings: Financial literacy education increases personal saving rates.
• Brushing & Dental Health: Brushing teeth twice a day reduces dental issues.
• Carbon Emission & Global Warming: Higher carbon emissions accelerate global warming.
• Afforestation & Climate Stability: Planting trees stabilizes local climates.
• Ad Exposure & Sales: Increased product advertisement boosts sales.
• Parental Involvement & Academic Success: Higher parental involvement enhances student academic performance.
• Hydration & Skin Health: Regular water intake improves skin elasticity and health.
• Caffeine & Alertness: Consuming caffeine increases alertness levels.
• Antibiotics & Bacterial Resistance: Overuse of antibiotics leads to increased antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
• Pet Ownership & Loneliness: Having pets reduces feelings of loneliness.
• Fish Oil & Cognitive Function: Regular consumption of fish oil improves cognitive functions.
• Noise Pollution & Sleep Quality: High levels of noise pollution degrade sleep quality.
• Exercise & Bone Density: Weight-bearing exercises increase bone density.
• Vaccination & Disease Prevention: Proper vaccination reduces the incidence of related diseases.
• Laughter & Immune System: Regular laughter boosts the immune system.
• Gardening & Stress Reduction: Engaging in gardening activities reduces stress levels.
• Travel & Cultural Awareness: Frequent travel increases cultural awareness and tolerance.
• High Heels & Back Pain: Prolonged wearing of high heels leads to increased back pain.
• Junk Food & Heart Disease: Excessive junk food consumption increases the risk of heart diseases.
• Mindfulness & Anxiety Reduction: Practicing mindfulness lowers anxiety levels.
• Online Learning & Flexibility: Online education offers greater flexibility to learners.
• Urbanization & Wildlife Displacement: Rapid urbanization leads to displacement of local wildlife.
• Vitamin C & Cold Recovery: High doses of vitamin C speed up cold recovery.
• Team Building Activities & Work Cohesion: Regular team-building activities improve workplace cohesion.
• Multitasking & Productivity: Multitasking reduces individual task efficiency.
• Protein Intake & Muscle Growth: Increased protein consumption boosts muscle growth in individuals engaged in strength training.
• Mentoring & Career Progression: Having a mentor accelerates career progression.
• Fast Food & Obesity Rates: High consumption of fast food leads to increased obesity rates.
• Deforestation & Biodiversity Loss: Accelerated deforestation results in significant biodiversity loss.
• Language Learning & Cognitive Flexibility: Learning a second language enhances cognitive flexibility.
• Red Wine & Heart Health: Moderate red wine consumption may benefit heart health.
• Public Speaking Practice & Confidence: Regular public speaking practice boosts confidence.
• Fasting & Metabolism: Intermittent fasting can rev up metabolism.
• Plastic Usage & Ocean Pollution: Excessive use of plastics leads to increased ocean pollution.
• Peer Tutoring & Academic Retention: Peer tutoring improves academic retention rates.
• Mobile Usage & Sleep Patterns: Excessive mobile phone use before bed disrupts sleep patterns.
• Green Spaces & Mental Well-being: Living near green spaces enhances mental well-being.
• Organic Foods & Health Outcomes: Consuming organic foods leads to better health outcomes.
• Art Exposure & Creativity: Regular exposure to art boosts creativity.
• Gaming & Hand-Eye Coordination: Engaging in video games improves hand-eye coordination.
• Prenatal Music & Baby’s Development: Exposing babies to music in the womb enhances their auditory development.
• Dark Chocolate & Mood Enhancement: Consuming dark chocolate can elevate mood.
• Urban Farms & Community Engagement: Establishing urban farms promotes community engagement.
• Reading Fiction & Empathy Levels: Reading fiction regularly increases empathy.
• Aerobic Exercise & Memory: Engaging in aerobic exercises sharpens memory.
• Meditation & Blood Pressure: Regular meditation can reduce blood pressure.
• Classical Music & Plant Growth: Plants exposed to classical music show improved growth.
• Pollution & Respiratory Diseases: Higher pollution levels increase respiratory diseases’ incidence.
• Parental Involvement & Child’s Academic Success: Direct parental involvement in schooling enhances children’s academic success.
• Sugar Intake & Tooth Decay: High sugar intake is directly proportional to tooth decay.
• Physical Books & Reading Comprehension: Reading physical books improves comprehension better than digital mediums.
• Daily Journaling & Self-awareness: Maintaining a daily journal enhances self-awareness.
• Robotics Learning & Problem-solving Skills: Engaging in robotics learning fosters problem-solving skills in students.
• Forest Bathing & Stress Relief: Immersion in forest environments (forest bathing) reduces stress levels.
• Reusable Bags & Environmental Impact: Using reusable bags reduces environmental pollution.
• Affirmations & Self-esteem: Regularly reciting positive affirmations enhances self-esteem.
• Local Produce Consumption & Community Economy: Buying and consuming local produce boosts the local economy.
• Sunlight Exposure & Vitamin D Levels: Regular sunlight exposure enhances Vitamin D levels in the body.
• Group Study & Learning Enhancement: Group studies can enhance learning compared to individual studies.
• Active Commuting & Fitness Levels: Commuting by walking or cycling improves overall fitness.
• Foreign Film Watching & Cultural Understanding: Watching foreign films increases understanding and appreciation of different cultures.
• Craft Activities & Fine Motor Skills: Engaging in craft activities enhances fine motor skills.
• Listening to Podcasts & Knowledge Expansion: Regularly listening to educational podcasts broadens one’s knowledge base.
• Outdoor Play & Child’s Physical Development: Encouraging outdoor play accelerates physical development in children.
• Thrift Shopping & Sustainable Living: Choosing thrift shopping promotes sustainable consumption habits.
• Nature Retreats & Burnout Recovery: Taking nature retreats aids in burnout recovery.
• Virtual Reality Training & Skill Acquisition: Using virtual reality for training accelerates skill acquisition in medical students.
• Pet Ownership & Loneliness Reduction: Owning a pet significantly reduces feelings of loneliness among elderly individuals.
• Intermittent Fasting & Metabolism Boost: Practicing intermittent fasting can lead to an increase in metabolic rate.
• Bilingual Education & Cognitive Flexibility: Being educated in a bilingual environment improves cognitive flexibility in children.
• Urbanization & Loss of Biodiversity: Rapid urbanization contributes to a loss of biodiversity in the surrounding environment.
• Recycled Materials & Carbon Footprint Reduction: Utilizing recycled materials in production processes reduces a company’s overall carbon footprint.
• Artificial Sweeteners & Appetite Increase: Consuming artificial sweeteners might lead to an increase in appetite.
• Green Roofs & Urban Temperature Regulation: Implementing green roofs in urban buildings contributes to moderating city temperatures.
• Remote Work & Employee Productivity: Adopting a remote work model can boost employee productivity and job satisfaction.
• Sensory Play & Child Development: Incorporating sensory play in early childhood education supports holistic child development.

Causal Hypothesis Statement Examples in Research

Research hypothesis often delves into understanding the cause-and-effect relationships between different variables. These causal hypotheses attempt to predict a specific effect if a particular cause is present, making them vital for experimental designs.

• Artificial Intelligence & Job Market: Implementation of artificial intelligence in industries causes a decline in manual jobs.
• Online Learning Platforms & Traditional Classroom Efficiency: The introduction of online learning platforms reduces the efficacy of traditional classroom teaching methods.
• Nano-technology & Medical Treatment Efficacy: Using nano-technology in drug delivery enhances the effectiveness of medical treatments.
• Genetic Editing & Lifespan: Advancements in genetic editing techniques directly influence the lifespan of organisms.
• Quantum Computing & Data Security: The rise of quantum computing threatens the security of traditional encryption methods.
• Space Tourism & Aerospace Advancements: The demand for space tourism propels advancements in aerospace engineering.
• E-commerce & Retail Business Model: The surge in e-commerce platforms leads to a decline in the traditional retail business model.
• VR in Real Estate & Buyer Decisions: Using virtual reality in real estate presentations influences buyer decisions more than traditional methods.
• Biofuels & Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Increasing biofuel production directly reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
• Crowdfunding & Entrepreneurial Success: The availability of crowdfunding platforms boosts the success rate of start-up enterprises.

Causal Hypothesis Statement Examples in Epidemiology

Epidemiology is a study of how and why certain diseases occur in particular populations. Causal hypotheses in this field aim to uncover relationships between health interventions, behaviors, and health outcomes.

• Vaccine Introduction & Disease Eradication: The introduction of new vaccines directly leads to the reduction or eradication of specific diseases.
• Urbanization & Rise in Respiratory Diseases: Increased urbanization causes a surge in respiratory diseases due to pollution.
• Processed Foods & Obesity Epidemic: The consumption of processed foods is directly linked to the rising obesity epidemic.
• Sanitation Measures & Cholera Outbreaks: Implementing proper sanitation measures reduces the incidence of cholera outbreaks.
• Tobacco Consumption & Lung Cancer: Prolonged tobacco consumption is the primary cause of lung cancer among adults.
• Antibiotic Misuse & Antibiotic-Resistant Strains: Misuse of antibiotics leads to the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains.
• Alcohol Consumption & Liver Diseases: Excessive and regular alcohol consumption is a leading cause of liver diseases.
• Vitamin D & Rickets in Children: A deficiency in vitamin D is the primary cause of rickets in children.
• Airborne Pollutants & Asthma Attacks: Exposure to airborne pollutants directly triggers asthma attacks in susceptible individuals.
• Sedentary Lifestyle & Cardiovascular Diseases: Leading a sedentary lifestyle is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular diseases.

Causal Hypothesis Statement Examples in Psychology

In psychology, causal hypotheses explore how certain behaviors, conditions, or interventions might influence mental and emotional outcomes. These hypotheses help in deciphering the intricate web of human behavior and cognition.

• Childhood Trauma & Personality Disorders: Experiencing trauma during childhood increases the risk of developing personality disorders in adulthood.
• Positive Reinforcement & Skill Acquisition: The use of positive reinforcement accelerates skill acquisition in children.
• Sleep Deprivation & Cognitive Performance: Lack of adequate sleep impairs cognitive performance in adults.
• Social Isolation & Depression: Prolonged social isolation is a significant cause of depression among teenagers.
• Mindfulness Meditation & Stress Reduction: Regular practice of mindfulness meditation reduces symptoms of stress and anxiety.
• Peer Pressure & Adolescent Risk Taking: Peer pressure significantly increases risk-taking behaviors among adolescents.
• Parenting Styles & Child’s Self-esteem: Authoritarian parenting styles negatively impact a child’s self-esteem.
• Multitasking & Attention Span: Engaging in multitasking frequently leads to a reduced attention span.
• Childhood Bullying & Adult PTSD: Individuals bullied during childhood have a higher likelihood of developing PTSD as adults.
• Digital Screen Time & Child Development: Excessive digital screen time impairs cognitive and social development in children.

Causal Inference Hypothesis Statement Examples

Causal inference is about deducing the cause-effect relationship between two variables after considering potential confounders. These hypotheses aim to find direct relationships even when other influencing factors are present.

• Dietary Habits & Chronic Illnesses: Even when considering genetic factors, unhealthy dietary habits increase the chances of chronic illnesses.
• Exercise & Mental Well-being: When accounting for daily stressors, regular exercise improves mental well-being.
• Job Satisfaction & Employee Turnover: Even when considering market conditions, job satisfaction inversely relates to employee turnover.
• Financial Literacy & Savings Behavior: When considering income levels, financial literacy is directly linked to better savings behavior.
• Online Reviews & Product Sales: Even accounting for advertising spends, positive online reviews boost product sales.
• Prenatal Care & Child Health Outcomes: When considering genetic factors, adequate prenatal care ensures better health outcomes for children.
• Teacher Qualifications & Student Performance: Accounting for socio-economic factors, teacher qualifications directly influence student performance.
• Community Engagement & Crime Rates: When considering economic conditions, higher community engagement leads to lower crime rates.
• Eco-friendly Practices & Brand Loyalty: Accounting for product quality, eco-friendly business practices boost brand loyalty.
• Mental Health Support & Workplace Productivity: Even when considering workload, providing mental health support enhances workplace productivity.

What are the Characteristics of Causal Hypothesis

Causal hypotheses are foundational in many research disciplines, as they predict a cause-and-effect relationship between variables. Their unique characteristics include:

• Cause-and-Effect Relationship: The core of a causal hypothesis is to establish a direct relationship, indicating that one variable (the cause) will bring about a change in another variable (the effect).
• Testability: They are formulated in a manner that allows them to be empirically tested using appropriate experimental or observational methods.
• Specificity: Causal hypotheses should be specific, delineating clear cause and effect variables.
• Directionality: They typically demonstrate a clear direction in which the cause leads to the effect.
• Operational Definitions: They often use operational definitions, which specify the procedures used to measure or manipulate variables.
• Temporal Precedence: The cause (independent variable) always precedes the effect (dependent variable) in time.

What is a causal hypothesis in research?

In research, a causal hypothesis is a statement about the expected relationship between variables, or explanation of an occurrence, that is clear, specific, testable, and falsifiable. It suggests a relationship in which a change in one variable is the direct cause of a change in another variable. For instance, “A higher intake of Vitamin C reduces the risk of common cold.” Here, Vitamin C intake is the independent variable, and the risk of common cold is the dependent variable.

What is the difference between causal and descriptive hypothesis?

• Causal Hypothesis: Predicts a cause-and-effect relationship between two or more variables.
• Descriptive Hypothesis: Describes an occurrence, detailing the characteristics or form of a particular phenomenon.
• Causal: Consuming too much sugar can lead to diabetes.
• Descriptive: 60% of adults in the city exercise at least thrice a week.
• Causal: To establish a causal connection between variables.
• Descriptive: To give an accurate portrayal of the situation or fact.
• Causal: Often involves experiments.
• Descriptive: Often involves surveys or observational studies.

How do you write a Causal Hypothesis? – A Step by Step Guide

• Identify Your Variables: Pinpoint the cause (independent variable) and the effect (dependent variable). For instance, in studying the relationship between smoking and lung health, smoking is the independent variable while lung health is the dependent variable.
• State the Relationship: Clearly define how one variable affects another. Does an increase in the independent variable lead to an increase or decrease in the dependent variable?
• Be Specific: Avoid vague terms. Instead of saying “improved health,” specify the type of improvement like “reduced risk of cardiovascular diseases.”
• Use Operational Definitions: Clearly define any terms or variables in your hypothesis. For instance, define what you mean by “regular exercise” or “high sugar intake.”
• Ensure It’s Testable: Your hypothesis should be structured so that it can be disproven or supported by data.
• Review Existing Literature: Check previous research to ensure that your hypothesis hasn’t already been tested, and to ensure it’s plausible based on existing knowledge.
• Draft Your Hypothesis: Combine all the above steps to write a clear, concise hypothesis. For instance: “Regular exercise (defined as 150 minutes of moderate exercise per week) decreases the risk of cardiovascular diseases.”

Tips for Writing Causal Hypothesis

• Simplicity is Key: The clearer and more concise your hypothesis, the easier it will be to test.
• Avoid Absolutes: Using words like “all” or “always” can be problematic. Few things are universally true.
• Seek Feedback: Before finalizing your hypothesis, get feedback from peers or mentors.
• Stay Objective: Base your hypothesis on existing literature and knowledge, not on personal beliefs or biases.
• Revise as Needed: As you delve deeper into your research, you may find the need to refine your hypothesis for clarity or specificity.
• Falsifiability: Always ensure your hypothesis can be proven wrong. If it can’t be disproven, it can’t be validated either.
• Avoid Circular Reasoning: Ensure that your hypothesis doesn’t assume what it’s trying to prove. For example, “People who are happy have a positive outlook on life” is a circular statement.
• Specify Direction: In causal hypotheses, indicating the direction of the relationship can be beneficial, such as “increases,” “decreases,” or “leads to.”

AI Generator

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Assessing causality in epidemiology: revisiting Bradford Hill to incorporate developments in causal thinking

Michal shimonovich.

1 MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

Anna Pearce

Hilary thomson, katherine keyes.

2 Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY USA

Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi

The nine Bradford Hill (BH) viewpoints (sometimes referred to as criteria) are commonly used to assess causality within epidemiology. However, causal thinking has since developed, with three of the most prominent approaches implicitly or explicitly building on the potential outcomes framework: directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), sufficient-component cause models (SCC models, also referred to as ‘causal pies’) and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methodology. This paper explores how these approaches relate to BH’s viewpoints and considers implications for improving causal assessment. We mapped the three approaches above against each BH viewpoint. We found overlap across the approaches and BH viewpoints, underscoring BH viewpoints’ enduring importance. Mapping the approaches helped elucidate the theoretical underpinning of each viewpoint and articulate the conditions when the viewpoint would be relevant. Our comparisons identified commonality on four viewpoints: strength of association (including analysis of plausible confounding); temporality; plausibility (encoded by DAGs or SCC models to articulate mediation and interaction, respectively); and experiments (including implications of study design on exchangeability). Consistency may be more usefully operationalised by considering an effect size’s transportability to a different population or unexplained inconsistency in effect sizes (statistical heterogeneity). Because specificity rarely occurs, falsification exposures or outcomes (i.e., negative controls) may be more useful. The presence of a dose-response relationship may be less than widely perceived as it can easily arise from confounding. We found limited utility for coherence and analogy. This study highlights a need for greater clarity on BH viewpoints to improve causal assessment.

Introduction

Causal assessment is fundamental to epidemiology as it may inform policy and practice to improve population health. A leading figure in epidemiology, Sir Austin Bradford Hill, suggested the goal of causal assessment is to understand if there is “any other way of explaining the set of facts before us … any other answer equally, or more, likely than cause and effect” [ 1 ]. Causal assessment may be applied to a body of evidence or a single study to interrogate the “set of facts” underlying a relationship. Bradford Hill notably laid out a set of such facts. Although commonly described as Bradford Hill criteria, he described them as ‘viewpoints’ and emphasised they should not be used as a checklist, but as considerations for assessing causality. As a result, we refer to them as ‘BH viewpoints’ [ 2 ].

Since Bradford Hill first introduced his viewpoints, causal thinking in epidemiology has increasingly incorporated the potential outcomes framework [ 3 – 8 ]. Informally, the potential outcomes framework posits that a true causal effect is the difference between the observed outcome when the individual was exposed and the unobserved potential outcome had the individual not been exposed, all other things being equal [ 6 ]. Because the unobserved potential outcome of an individual cannot be known, investigators often compare the outcomes of exposed and unexposed groups [ 6 ]. Application of the potential outcomes framework asks investigators to consider exchangeability between these groups i.e., if the unexposed group would have the same risk of the outcome as the exposed group had they also been exposed [ 6 ]. In practice, this means considering if groups are comparable. Investigators may be more confident that the observed effect equals the true causal effect if the groups are exchangeable [ 9 ].

We focus on three approaches that implicitly or explicitly incorporate the potential outcomes framework but operationalise it differently [ 4 , 10 – 12 ]. Firstly, directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) help articulate assumptions about the interrelationships between variables of interest and therefore threats to valid causal inference. Sufficient-component cause (SCC) models highlight the multi-factorial nature of causality, drawing attention to how different exposures interact to produce the outcome. Finally, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology provides a systematic approach to assessing the certainty of a causal relationship based on a body of evidence (i.e., the existing studies available used to assess whether a causal relationship between an exposure and outcome exists). Epidemiologists have proposed that causal assessment may be improved by combining approaches such as these [ 7 , 13 – 15 ].

To draw on the strengths of each of these potential outcomes framework approaches, we compared the extent to which they overlap or complement each other. There is limited literature comparing the potential outcomes framework in SCC models and DAGs [ 4 , 5 , 11 ] and one study comparing BH viewpoints to GRADE [ 10 ]. While BH viewpoints have been revisited to critically reflect on the theory and application of each viewpoint [ 2 , 16 – 20 ], we have not identified any attempts to compare it to DAGs and SCC models, with the former particularly important given the growing influence of DAGs in epidemiology [ 21 ].

Our main aims are to examine: 1) if and how each BH viewpoint is considered by each of the three potential outcomes framework approaches (referred to simply as ‘approaches’ hereafter); and 2) the extent they elucidate the underpinning theory of BH viewpoints. BH viewpoints serve as the foundation for this comparison because of its influential status within epidemiology [ 19 , 20 , 22 ]. Additionally, there is agreement in the literature that the BH viewpoints account for the most relevant considerations in causal assessment [ 17 ]. To facilitate comparisons, we drew DAGs and SCC models for each BH viewpoint and mapped each BH viewpoint against each GRADE domain. We use the example of alcohol consumption and active-tuberculosis where relevant to illustrate the elements of each approach. Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) is the bacterium responsible for tuberculosis (TB). MTB causes latent-TB, which can turn into active-TB in individuals with low immunity [ 23 ]. Alcohol consumption is hypothesised to cause a weaker immune system, resulting in active-TB [ 24 ]. The example is purposefully simplified and may not reflect real-world scenarios.

In the next section, we summarise the BH viewpoints and key characteristics of the three approaches they are being compared against. Our aim is to introduce the commonalities and distinctions within these approaches as approaches to causal inference, rather than to provide a detailed explanation or critical assessment of each approach. Following this, we compare each of the nine BH viewpoints against the three approaches and critically reflect on the theoretical implications for assessing causal relationships. We finish by summarising our key findings, make tentative suggestions about how causal assessment could be conducted in the future and note some areas for future research.

Causal assessment approaches

Bradford hill viewpoints.

Bradford Hill’s explanation of the nine viewpoints is summarised in Table ​ Table1. 1 . These were not intended to be “hard and fast rules of evidence that must be obeyed before we accept cause and effect,” but characteristics to keep in mind while considering if an observed association is due to something other than causality [ 1 ]. In current practice, BH viewpoints are applied together or separately to a body of evidence or a single empirical study.

Bradford Hill viewpoints and explanatory quotations

Directed acyclic graphs

DAGs are diagrams that illustrate the putative causal relationship between an exposure and outcome [ 6 ]. DAGs include the variables that might bias the relationship in question and their development is based on background knowledge of the topic [ 25 ]. Detailed explanations of DAGs can be found elsewhere [ 5 , 6 , 25 – 27 ]. DAGs are commonly applied to a single study, but it has been proposed that they can be applied to a body of evidence [ 62 ].

The simplified DAG below (Fig.  1 ) shows the pathway between the exposure and outcome, alcohol consumption and active-TB, respectively. Alcohol consumption may result in active-TB, for example, by lowering an individual’s immune system (mediator not shown) [ 23 ]. Overcrowding is a confounding variable, causing both alcohol consumption and active-TB. If there was no causal effect of alcohol consumption on active-TB (i.e. no edge between those two variables in the DAG), an association would still be observed between them in the data due to the common cause overcrowding [ 4 , 25 , 28 , 29 ]. Thus, overcrowding must be conditioned upon, indicated by a square around the variable, to obtain an unbiased estimate of alcohol consumption on active-TB. If investigators condition on the appropriate variables using a DAG that accurately represents a causal relationship, they may be more confident of exchangeability and thus estimating the true causal effect [ 9 , 30 ].

Directed acyclic graph representing relationship between alcohol consumption and active-TB. The confounding variable, overcrowding, effects both the exposure and outcome and should be conditioned on, as indicated by the bold square around overcrowding

Sufficient-component cause (SCC) models

SCC models (also known as causal pies) illustrate the multi-factorial nature of causality through pie charts [ 31 ]. SCC models view each of the variables that contribute to the outcome occurring as causal components [ 32 ], with many different combinations of components potentially bringing about the outcome of interest. Taken together, the components for each ‘complete pie’ are sufficient to produce the outcome. Necessary components are those without which the outcome could not occur [ 33 ]. For example, MTB is a necessary (but insufficient) component of tuberculosis and will therefore be a component for all of the causal pies for tuberculosis (but never features as a sole component of a causal pie). The origins of SCC models can be traced to Mackie’s definition of causality. This introduced the idea of INUS causation, that is a cause can be “an insufficient but necessary part of a condition which is itself unnecessary but sufficient for the result” [ 34 ] p. 45.

Causal pies are useful for understanding causal mechanisms and interactions of causal components [ 33 ]. Table ​ Table2 2 illustrates four pies ( S 1 , S 2 , S 3 , S 4 ) for two different populations (population 1 and population 2) which represent the possible combination of selected causal components (alcohol, overcrowding and unknown factors) for the development of active TB.

Sufficient component cause models and corresponding prevalence rates and risk ratios (RRs) for each sufficient-cause between two populations

The prevalence of each causal pie differs in each population, and as a result the RR differs in each population

Unknown factors may differ in each combination of components, as indicated by the different subscripts of U corresponding to each SCC model. In a hypothetical dataset of 400 individuals, A and O are measured and U is not. The causal pies can be found in column one (see label). Columns two and three indicate if the individual has been exposed to each measured causal component ( A and O , where A  = 1 indicates individuals represented in the corresponding SCC models have been exposed). Columns four and five for population 1 and columns eight and nine for population 2 show the number of individuals in the example dataset who developed active-TB ( T  = 1) and who did not ( T  = 0), respectively. The sum of columns four and five for population 1 and eight and nine for population 2 is the total number of individuals exposed to each causal pie for each population. Finally, column seven for population 1 and eleven for population 2 is the risk ratio (RR) for each pie calculated using S 1 as the reference group

GRADE methodology

GRADE is the most widely adopted approach for assessing certainty of evidence in systematic reviews, guideline development and evidence-informed recommendations [ 35 ]. Certainty has been defined by the GRADE Working Group as the “extent of our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct” [ 10 , 36 – 38 ]. Certainty is based both on assessing the risk of bias of individual studies and an evaluation across studies [ 35 ]. GRADE typically considers evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as providing a higher level of certainty than evidence from nonrandomised studies (NRSs), although the appropriateness of this has been critiqued [ 39 ]. Certainty may be modified according to different GRADE domains (summarised in Table ​ Table3). 3 ). Large associations, dose-response relationships and adjusting for plausible confounding upgrade certainty.

The initial level of certainty, according to GRADE, differs between randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomised studies (NRSs)

The level of certainty indicates the confidence of investigators that the estimated effect is close to the true causal effect. GRADE provides domains that may upgrade or downgrade the level of certainty. Based on tables in [ 38 ]

Concerns about directness, inconsistency, imprecision and publication bias may reduce certainty. Directness refers to how closely the research evidence relates to the research question of interest, with different study populations (such as available evidence only focusing on adults, rather than children) or the use of surrogate outcomes being examples of ‘indirectness’. Inconsistency reflects differences in the effect size across studies (often identified through high levels of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis) which cannot be adequately explained. Imprecision occurs when effect estimates have wide confidence interval. Publication bias may arise if studies with a positive or exciting result are more likely to be published than those without a large association

Comparisons against Bradford Hill’s viewpoints

Table ​ Table4 4 summarises the overlapping elements between BH viewpoints and the potential outcomes framework approaches, with subsequent text providing additional detail.

Summary of utilisation of each Bradford Hill (BH) viewpoint by each causal assessment approach: BH viewpoints, directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), sufficient-component cause models and GRADE methodology. Based on comparative analysis of causal assessment approaches

Strength of association

Bradford Hill argued that a large association suggests the observed effect is less likely to be due to bias [ 1 , 40 ], but he acknowledged that weak (or small) associations may still reflect causal relationships. As noted by Greenland and Robins, large associations can still arise from confounding and a weak association does not mean there is an absence of causality[ 33 ]. In practice, investigators may rely on existing tools and guidelines, or their own interpretation, to determine what constitutes a strong association.

Although DAGs cannot represent the size of an association, they facilitate “bias analysis” (see Fig.  1 ) [ 14 ]. Investigators may use DAGs to highlight important variables that they were unable to condition on and consider their implications for the effect estimate, including residual confounding (from inaccurately or poorly measured variables, including confounders) [ 41 ].

SCC models draw attention to the impact of disease prevalence and the prevalence of competing causes on the strenth of association or effect estimate. For example, the RR of S 3 is attenuated as the prevalence of a competing sufficient cause (S 4 ) or the prevalence of the outcome in the reference group (S 1 ) increases (see Table ​ Table2 2 ).

According to the GRADE Working Group, a strong association is indicated by a risk ratio (RR) of 2–5 or 0.2–0.5 [ 17 , 17 , 17 ]. Evidence from NRSs that estimate a large effect will be upgraded on the basis that confounding is less likely to entirely remove the observed association [ 43 ].

Consistency

Bradford Hill argued that consistent estimates observed in different circumstances reduce the likelihood that the effect is due to chance or bias [ 1 ]. Comparison with the three approaches demonstrate that differences in effect size across studies which may be due to variations in causal structures, variable interactions, or biases of the relevant studies.

Transportability refers to the extent to which a causal effect in one context can be used to infer a causal effect in different circumstances, such as different populations or study designs [ 44 ]. Investigators can use DAGs to understand how differences in causal structures may explain different observed effect sizes. For example, investigators may want to understand if the causal effect of alcohol consumption on active-TB can be extrapolated to a target population with a high baseline risk of HIV (represented in Fig.  2 ). In other words, to understand if the different effect size in the target population is due to HIV modifying the effect of alcohol consumption on active-TB by reducing immunity [ 45 , 46 ]. To represent the target population’s exposure to a stratum of HIV (i.e., a higher risk of HIV), there is a square around HIV [ 44 , 46 ]. If the likelihood of active-TB for a given level of alcohol consumption is equivalent between the populations, the estimated effect of alcohol on active-TB is transportable and any statistical heterogeneity observed is likely due to HIV risk modifying the effect of alcohol on active-TB[ 46 ].

Directed acyclic graph (DAG) of target population with high baseline risk of HIV. The high baseline risk of HIV means that HIV has been conditioned upon, indicated by square around HIV. The estimated effect of alcohol consumption on active-TB in this population will be

modified by the higher risk of HIV. This needs to be considered when comparing the effect estimates between this target population and the one described in Fig.  1 with low risk of HIV

Investigators can use SCC models to understand differences in variable interactions and if that can explain different observed effect sizes observed between populations [ 44 , 47 – 49 ]. For example, investigators may want to understand if the RR of individuals in population 1 in Table ​ Table2 2 can be transported to population 2. According to Table ​ Table2, 2 , the RR of active-TB when individuals are exposed only to overcrowding (S 3 ) is lower in population 2 than population 1. i.e., the effect of overcrowding on active-TB differs between populations when alcohol is not consumed. It may be that the unknown factors of S 3 differ between populations. However, because the RRs are the same for other causal pies, investigators may assume that the reason for different prevalence and RRs for S 3 is that unknown factors and overcrowding are interacting differently between the populations, in which case the effect sizes cannot be transported from population 1 to population 2.

In GRADE, unexplained inconsistency (typically, statistical heterogeneity) suggests lower confidence about the likely effect of the exposure under different circumstances. GRADE considers unexplained inconsistency rather than consistent effect estimates, as Bradford Hill suggested, to highlight that consistent estimates in different circumstances may be subject to the same bias and do not necessarily increase confidence in causality [ 50 ].

Specificity

According to Bradford Hill, a relationship is specific if the exposure is associated with the outcome in question and no others, and if the outcome is associated with the exposure in question and no others. He emphasised that a non-specific relationship does not undermine causality. Specificity originated in Robert Koch’s postulates to evaluate causality in infectious diseases, but is rare in epidemiology and usually arises when the outcome is defined based on the exposure status (e.g., tuberculosis being defined by the presence of the tubercle bacillus) [ 17 , 51 , 52 ]. Comparisons highlighted how multiple causation (where one exposure may affect many outcomes and one outcome may be effected by many exposures) limits the utility of directly applying specificity in epidemiological practice, but extending the concept to the related idea of ‘falsification’ may improve its usefulness.

The DAG in Fig.  1 illustrates a non-specific relationship as active-TB is caused by at least two exposures: alcohol-consumption and overcrowding [ 53 ]. The relationship is also non-specific because alcohol consumption may cause many other outcomes such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and injuries [ 54 ]. This is not shown in the DAG in Fig.  1 because DAGs typically include the main variables related to the relationship of interest (i.e., an exposure, outcome and any potential confounders) [ 55 ]. This is also the reason why DAGs are not used to demonstrate specific relationships; a variable may be left out of a DAG because it is not of interest, not because the relationship illustrated in the DAG is specific.

One important reason for specificity is multiple causation suggests a higher likelihood that the observed association is due to confounding. Rather than seeking evidence of specificity, DAGs can be used to help identify and assess falsification (or negative control) outcomes and exposures. A falsification outcome is expected to be both independent of the outcome and associated with the exposure only through the confounding variable [ 56 ]. If investigators accurately condition on the confounding variable, they would not observe an effect of the exposure on the falsification outcome.

A hypothetical falsification outcome is head lice (Fig. ​ (Fig.3). 3 ). Alcohol consumption does not have a causal effect on head lice. If investigators observe an effect of alcohol consumption on head lice despite conditioning upon overcrowding, this is likely due to residual confounding due to overcrowding being inaccurately measured. Therefore, it is possible that the relationship between alcohol and active-TB is also subject to residual confounding of overcrowding and investigators should adjust their conclusions accordingly. An absence of association between alcohol consumption and head lice does not suggest specificity, but investigators may be more confident that in this study, the association between alcohol consumption and active-TB is not confounded by overcrowding.

The directed acyclic graphs (DAG) shows the relationship between the exposure (alcohol consumption), the outcome (active-TB), the confounding variable (overcrowding) and the falsification outcome (head lice). The bold square around overcrowding indicates that it has been conditioned on. If there is no effect of alcohol consumption on head lice, there is a greater likelihood that overcrowding has been accurately conditioned upon

Finding falsification variables can be challenging. Take the example of identifying a falsification exposure (which is independent of the exposure and associated with the outcome only through the confounding variable). Many possible exposures associated with the confounder (overcrowding), such as smoking, air pollution, experiences of homelessness and malnutrition are also associated with the outcome (active-TB) and therefore would fail as a falsification exposure [ 57 , 58 ]. Put another way, the lack of specificity in most causal relationships in epidemiology limits our ability to carry out falsification tests. However, where they do exist they can offer a powerful tool for assessing bias.

Causal pies illustrate the multi-factorial nature of causal relationship that limits the likelihood of specificity because a range of causal pies (and causal components) may produce the same outcome (see Table ​ Table2). 2 ). One causal pie may also be used to represent a possible sufficient-cause for various exposures[ 59 ]. The causal pie would represent a specific relationship only if a component is both necessary and sufficient to produce the outcome and the outcome could only be produced by this necessary and sufficient cause [ 31 , 33 ]. These limitations are among the reasons why some, including the originators of GRADE methodology, argue that specificity should be excluded from causal assessment [ 7 , 10 , 31 , 60 ].

Temporality

Temporality is considered fundamental to causality; an exposure must precede an outcome. Bradford Hill alluded to how reverse causality skews temporality: “does a particular occupation or occupational environment promote infection by the tubercle bacillus … or, indeed, have they already contracted it?” [ 1 ]. Two of the three approaches explicitly incorporate temporality, with the order of cause and effect being fundamental to DAGs.

DAGs can highlight reverse causality [ 20 , 61 ]. For example, in a cross-sectional study, the observed effect of alcohol consumption is based on measurements after individuals were diagnosed with active-TB. However, active-TB may have actually occurred prior to diagnosis of active-TB and been a cause of alcohol consumption, via social marginalisation [ 62 ]. Given a longitudinal study that has information on previous diagnoses, investigators could test for reverse causation by considering if active-TB was present before the diagnosis that was observed after alcohol consumption (see Fig. ​ Fig.4). 4 ). If investigators conditioned upon active-TB before diagnosis and continued to observe an effect of consuming alcohol on active-TB after diagnosis, or if they found no effect of active-TB before diagnosis on alcohol consumption, then the estimated effect of alcohol consumption on active-TB after diagnosis is less likely due to reverse causation.

Temporality using directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). Investigators may be more confident that the effect of alcohol consumption on active-TB is not due to reverse causality if (1) they condition upon active-TB before diagnosis and continue to observe an effect of alcohol consumption on active-TB after diagnosis or (2) if they do not observe an effect of active-TB before diagnosis on alcohol consumption

Time may be one component of a causal pie but temporality is not considered in the synergy, antagonism and interaction of the components [ 2 ]. Temporality is not directly considered by GRADE. RCTs, which guarantee that the exposure precedes the outcome through study design, are upgraded. However, the favouring of RCTs is not only about temporality but also about the achievement of exchangeability through randomisation. Additionally temporality is not explicitly considered for NRSs (which include longitudinal studies and so may also be able to ensure that the exposure precedes the outcome).([ 10 ].

Dose-response

A dose-response gradient exists when incremental increases (or decreases) of the exposure produce incremental increases (or decreases) of the outcome. Dose-response is fundamental to causal assessment in pharmacology and toxicology [ 63 ]. Bradford Hill argued that a dose-response gradient provides a “simpler explanation” of the causal relationship than if it were not observed (see Table ​ Table1) 1 ) [ 1 ]. However, there are many reasons investigators may not observe a dose-response gradient including exposure threshold effects, as in the case of allergens [ 17 ]. Furthermore, a dose-response relationship may be induced by a confounding variable [ 64 , 65 ]. For example, an incremental increase in alcohol consumption that corresponds to an incremental increase in active-TB may be due to incremental increases in overcrowding (see Fig.  1 ) [ 66 ]. While DAGs non-parametric (and so cannot show the structure of the relationship between any two variables), they can be used to consider the plausibility of one or more confounding variables undermining a dose-response relationship.

Unknown components limit the utility of SCC models to assess dose-response gradients. Evidence from NRSs is upgraded in GRADE if a dose-response relationship has been observed on the basis that confounding is less likely [ 35 ]. However, as noted above, a dose-response relationship may easily arise from confounding.

Plausibility

Investigators develop assumptions about a causal relationship based on background knowledge. Thus, the plausibility of the causal relationship is both dependent on and limited by knowledge available at the time [ 1 ]. It may be further limited by assumptions based on investigators’ beliefs rather than empirical evidence [ 67 ].

The process of developing DAGs and SCC models forces investigators to explicitly articulate assumptions about the causal relationships relevant to the research question of interest, making it transparent to other investigators [ 44 , 68 ] [ 69 ]. DAGs may include mediators, which lie on the causal path between the exposure and outcome; a weakened immunity is the mediator by which alcohol consumption causes active-TB. Mediation analysis considers the direct and indirect effect of mediators [ 70 ]. Interrogating background knowledge to develop a DAG encourages a more systematic exploration of the plausibility of the causal chain.

For SCC models, investigators make explicit the nature of variable interaction [ 71 ]. GRADE upgrades for appropriate adjustment for all plausible confounding variables, but does not consider the broader variables relevant to the plausibility of a causal relationship across a body of evidence [ 35 ].

Coherence is an assessment of how the putative relationship fits into existing theory and empirical evidence [ 1 , 60 ]. Our comparisons suggest that coherence is not considered by the other approaches and may have limited utility, partly because it is poorly delineated from plausibility [ 72 ]. Investigators evaluating the coherence of a DAG or SCC model may consider how the assumptions illustrated by either approach fit existing theory, however, neither consider or illustrate coherence. Schünemann and colleagues argue that GRADE considers coherence by assessing indirectness [ 10 ]. However, in considering indirectness, investigators determine how applicable the population and interventions of identified studies are to the putative causal relationship under study. Coherence, on the other hand, asks investigators to consider how applicable the putative causal relationship is to broader evidence, including studies that do not investigate that specific relationship.

Bradford Hill argued that “strong support for the causation hypothesis might be revealed” from “experimental, or semi-experimental data” [ 1 ]. He alluded to natural experiment studies, where the exposure is determined by nature or other factors outside of the control of investigators and where exchangeability between comparison groups is more likely [ 29 ].

Investigators have used DAGs to elucidate why randomisation results in exchangeability. Randomisation is an example of an instrumental variable; it causes (and is not caused by) the exposure and only impacts the outcome through the exposure [ 73 ]. If consuming alcohol was completely random and randomisation was independent of active-TB (see Fig.  5 ), the risk of overcrowding would be the same for individuals allocated to consume alcohol and those allocated to not [ 74 ]. Thus, the effect estimated would be based on exchangeable groups, but bounded by the proportion of individuals exposed due to randomisation, potentially limiting the transportability of the effect estimate [ 44 , 75 ].

Directed acyclic graph (DAG) with randomisation as the instrumental variable. According to this DAG, randomisation causes alcohol consumption. If this were true, there is a greater likelihood that the effect estimated would be similar or equivalent to the true causal effect

Due to limitations on randomisation, epidemiologists rely largely on observational data. Investigators can use DAGs to interrogate the plausibility of “naturally occurring” instrumental variables, and how likely it is that individuals were truly randomly exposed [ 29 , 73 ]. Clarity about study design, particularly procedures for assigning exposure, has been assisted by DAGs through the development of the ‘target trial’ (or ‘emulated trial’) where observational data analysis emulates randomised trial data analysis [ 76 ]. While it has several advantages, this does not seem to be directly comparable with the original BH viewpoint.

The causal pies that result in a given disease include both known and unknown components, as shown in Table ​ Table2. 2 . As investigators are unable to measure unknown variables for each causal pie, they cannot be certain that the groups exposed to each causal pie are exchangeable because they may differ in other characteristics that affect the outcome [ 4 , 11 ]. GRADE privileges effect estimates from randomised (experimental) studies which are more likely to be “causally attributable to the intervention” by initially grading RCTs higher than NRSs [ 43 ]. At present, no distinction is made between natural experiment studies and other NRSs on the basis of study design.

Bradford Hill argued that the likelihood of a causal relationship may be strengthened if a comparable association is observed between the same outcome and an analogous exposure or the same exposure and an analogous outcome. DAGs and SCC models do not account for analogous relationships in their assessment, but analogous relationships may be part of developing the assumptions and theories encoded in the diagrams. In GRADE, downgrading would be prevented if there was certainty in a causal relationship between the same exposure and similar outcomes in the same body of evidence [ 10 ]. While this has been conflated with analogy, this is more to do with the directness of the evidence to the research question rather than the transportability of the assumptions of an analogous, confirmed causal relationship to the one under study [ 77 ].

Discussion and conclusions

Epidemiologists evaluate evidence to understand how likely it is the observed effect is equal to the causal effect. We mapped DAGs, SCC models and GRADE against each BH viewpoint by comparing each tool to identify the overlap between different perspectives on causal assessment. The summary of these comparisons and the potential implications for causal assessment can be found in Table ​ Table5 5 .

Summary of conclusions. Interpretation of each BH based on mapping of DAGs, SCC models and GRADE

The comparisons highlight the overlap between BH viewpoints and other approaches. This underscores the ongoing influence of BH viewpoints in causal assessment alongside developments in causal thinking. It also highlights the importance of other approaches in understanding BH viewpoints. DAGs help explain the theoretical underpinning of strength of association, consistency, temporality, specificity, dose-response, plausibility, and experiment. GRADE provides guidance on how causal assessment can be applied in practice, particularly for considering strength of association, consistency, temporality, dose-response and experiment. While the inclusion of SCC models can be debated as they can be considered a framework to describe causal reality and are least used of the approaches we studied, their inclusion has been useful for understanding strength of association and plausibility in our analysis. Despite their seemingly limited utility for understanding BH viewpoints, SCC models, along with GRADE, also help explain why specificity may have limited usefulness in causal inference.

Our analysis is the first to compare insights from advancements in causal assessment with BH viewpoints [ 7 ]. This is an area that requires further research and we hope our study will encourage debate and discussion on overlapping approaches to causal inference. Further research and discussion is necessary to develop a new and comprehensive set of causal criteria that incorporates both traditional and recently developed approaches in causal inference. Such work would likely benefit from applying these different approaches to specific research questions, with a view to identifying their relative capacity to facilitate causal assessment. However, we did not critique the individual approaches as this has been done in previous works [ 4 , 5 , 10 , 11 ]. We did not investigate all potential approaches to assessing causality (e.g. International Agency for Research on Cancer and criteria for teratogenicity) due to limited time and resources. Instead, we focused on GRADE, DAGs and SCC models which are perhaps the best-known causal assessment approaches outside of BH viewpoints.

This study underscores the need for greater clarity on causal assessment in epidemiology. This is an initial attempt to demonstrate how recent approaches can be used to elucidate BH viewpoints, which remain fundamental to causal assessment and to tentatively suggest how their application could be improved. Our findings are preliminary and we welcome debate about our comparisons and the suggested implications for causal assessment.

Wellcome Trust (GB) (205412/Z/16/Z) Dr Anna Pearce; Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate (SPHSU13) Dr Anna Pearce Dr Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi; Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12017/13) Dr Anna Pearce Dr Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi; Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU15) Dr Hilary Thomson; NHS Health Scotland (SCAF/15/02) Dr Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi; Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/15 Dr Hilary Thomson; Medical Research Council MC_ST_U18004 Michal Shimonovich.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Social Science Research in the Arab World and Beyond pp 51–86 Cite as

Bivariate Analysis: Associations, Hypotheses, and Causal Stories

• Mark Tessler 2  
• Open Access
• First Online: 04 October 2022

2765 Accesses

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Sociology ((BRIEFSSOCY))

Every day, we encounter various phenomena that make us question how, why, and with what implications they vary. In responding to these questions, we often begin by considering bivariate relationships, meaning the way that two variables relate to one another. Such relationships are the focus of this chapter.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

3.1 Description, Explanation, and Causal Stories

There are many reasons why we might be interested in the relationship between two variables. Suppose we observe that some of the respondents interviewed in Arab Barometer surveys and other surveys report that they have thought about emigrating, and we are interested in this variable. We may want to know how individuals’ consideration of emigration varies in relation to certain attributes or attitudes. In this case, our goal would be descriptive , sometimes described as the mapping of variance. Our goal may also or instead be explanation , such as when we want to know why individuals have thought about emigrating.

Description

Description means that we seek to increase our knowledge and refine our understanding of a single variable by looking at whether and how it varies in relation to one or more other variables. Descriptive information makes a valuable contribution when the structure and variance of an important phenomenon are not well known, or not well known in relation to other important variables.

Returning to the example about emigration, suppose you notice that among Jordanians interviewed in 2018, 39.5 percent of the 2400 men and women interviewed reported that they have considered the possibility of emigrating.

Our objective may be to discover what these might-be migrants look like and what they are thinking. We do this by mapping the variance of emigration across attributes and orientations that provide some of this descriptive information, with the descriptions themselves each expressed as bivariate relationships. These relationships are also sometimes labeled “associations” or “correlations” since they are not considered causal relationships and are not concerned with explanation.

Of the 39.5 percent of Jordanians who told interviewers that they have considered emigrating, 57.3 percent are men and 42.7 percent are women. With respect to age, 34 percent are age 29 or younger and 19.2 percent are age 50 or older. It might have been expected that a higher percentage of respondents age 29 or younger would have considered emigrating. In fact, however, 56 percent of the 575 men and women in this age category have considered emigrating. And with respect to destination, the Arab country most frequently mentioned by those who have considered emigration is the UAE, named by 17 percent, followed by Qatar at 10 percent and Saudi Arabia at 9.8 percent. Non-Arab destinations were mentioned more frequently, with Turkey named by 18.1 percent, Canada by 21.1 percent, and the U.S. by 24.2 percent.

With the variables sex, age, and prospective destination added to the original variable, which is consideration of emigration, there are clearly more than two variables under consideration. But the variables are described two at a time and so each relationship is bivariate.

These bivariate relationships, between having considered emigration on the one hand and sex, age, and prospective destination on the other, provide descriptive information that is likely to be useful to analysts, policymakers, and others concerned with emigration. They tell, or begin to tell, as noted above, what might-be migrants look like and what they are thinking. Still additional insight may be gained by adding descriptive bivariate relationships for Jordanians interviewed in a different year to those interviewed in 2018. In addition, of course, still more information and possibly a more refined understanding, may be gained by examining the attributes and orientations of prospective emigrants who are citizens of other Arab (and perhaps also non-Arab) countries.

With a focus on description, these bivariate relationships are not constructed to shed light on explanation, that is to contribute to causal stories that seek to account for variance and tell why some individuals but not others have considered the possibility of emigrating. In fact, however, as useful as bivariate relationships that provide descriptive information may be, researchers usually are interested as much if not more in bivariate relationships that express causal stories and purport to provide explanations.

Explanation and Causal Stories

There is a difference in the origins of bivariate relationships that seek to provide descriptive information and those that seek to provide explanatory information. The former can be thought to be responding to what questions: What characterizes potential emigrants? What do they look like? What are their thoughts about this or that subject? If the objective is description, a researcher collects and uses her data to investigate the relationship between two variables without a specific and firm prediction about the relationship between them. Rather, she simply wonders about the “what” questions listed above and believes that finding out the answers will be instructive. In this case, therefore, she selects the bivariate relationships to be considered based on what she thinks it will be useful to know, and not based on assessing the accuracy of a previously articulated causal story that specifies the strength and structure of the effect that one variable has on the other.

A researcher is often interested in causal stories and explanation, however, and this does usually begin with thinking about the relationship between two variables, one of which is the presumed cause and the other the presumed effect. The presumed cause is the independent variable, and the presumed effect is the dependent variable . Offering evidence that there is a strong relationship between two variables is not sufficient to demonstrate that the variables are likely to be causally related, but it is a necessary first step. In this respect it is a point of departure for the fuller, probably multivariate analysis, required to persuasively argue that a relationship is likely to be causal. In addition, as discussed in Chap. 4 , multivariate analysis often not only strengthens the case for inferring that a relationship is causal, but also provides a more elaborate and more instructive causal story. The foundation, however, on which a multivariate analysis aimed at causal inference is built, is a bivariate relationship composed of a presumed independent variable and a presumed dependent variable.

A hypothesis that posits a causal relationship between two variables is not the same as a causal story, although the two are of course closely connected. The former specifies a presumed cause, a presumed determinant of variance on the dependent variable. It probably also specifies the structure of the relationship, such as linear as opposed to non-linear, or positive (also called direct) as opposed to negative (also called inverse).

On the other hand, a causal story describes in more detail what the researcher believes is actually taking place in the relationship between the variables in her hypothesis; and accordingly, why she thinks this involves causality. A causal story provides a fuller account of operative processes, processes that the hypothesis references but does not spell out. These processes may, for example, involve a pathway or a mechanism that tells how it is that the independent variable causes and thus accounts for some of the variance on the dependent variable. Expressed yet another way, the causal story describes the researcher’s understandings, or best guesses, about the real world, understandings that have led her to believe, and then propose for testing, that there is a causal connection between her variables that deserves investigation. The hypothesis itself does not tell this story; it is rather a short formulation that references and calls attention to the existence, or hypothesized existence, of a causal story. Research reports present the causal story as well as the hypothesis, as the hypothesis is often of limited interpretability without the causal story.

A causal story is necessary for causal inference. It enables the researcher to formulate propositions that purport to explain rather than merely describe or predict. There may be a strong relationship between two variables, and if this is the case, it will be possible to predict with relative accuracy the value, or score, of one variable from knowledge of the value, or score, of the other variable. Prediction is not explanation, however. To explain, or attribute causality, there must be a causal story to which a hypothesized causal relationship is calling attention.

An instructive illustration is provided by a recent study of Palestinian participation in protest activities that express opposition to Israeli occupation. Footnote 1 There is plenty of variance on the dependent variable: There are many young Palestinians who take part in these activities, and there are many others who do not take part. Education is one of the independent variables that the researcher thought would be an important determinant of participation, and so she hypothesized that individuals with more education would be more likely to participate in protest activities than individuals with less education.

But why would the researcher think this? The answer is provided by the causal story. To the extent that this as yet untested story is plausible, or preferably, persuasive, at least in the eyes of the investigator, it gives the researcher a reason to believe that education is indeed a determinant of participation in protest activities in Palestine. By spelling out in some detail how and why the hypothesized independent variable, education in this case, very likely impacts a person’s decision about whether or not to protest, the causal story provides a rationale for the researcher’s hypothesis.

In the case of Palestinian participation in protest activities, another investigator offered an insightful causal story about the ways that education pushes toward greater participation, with emphasis on its role in communication and coordination. Footnote 2 Schooling, as the researcher theorizes and subsequently tests, integrates young Palestinians into a broader institutional environment that facilitates mass mobilizations and lowers informational and organizational barriers to collective action. More specifically, she proposes that those individuals who have had at least a middle school education, compared to those who have not finished middle school, have access to better and more reliable sources of information, which, among other things, enables would-be protesters to assess risks. More schooling also makes would-be protesters better able to forge inter-personal relationships and establish networks that share information about needs, opportunities, and risks, and that in this way facilitate engaging in protest activities in groups, rather than on an individual basis. This study offers some additional insights to be discussed later.

The variance motivating the investigation of a causal story may be thought of as the “variable of interest,” and it may be either an independent variable or a dependent variable. It is a variable of interest because the way that it varies poses a question, or puzzle, that a researcher seeks to investigate. It is the dependent variable in a bivariate relationship if the researcher seeks to know why this variable behaves, or varies, as it does, and in pursuit of this objective, she will seek to identify the determinants and drivers that account for this variance. The variable of interest is an independent variable in a particular research project if the researcher seeks to know what difference it makes—on what does its variance have an impact, of what other variable or variables is it a driver or determinant.

The variable in which a researcher is initially interested, that is to say the variable of interest, can also be both a dependent variable and an independent variable. Returning to the variable pertaining to consideration of emigration, but this time with country as the unit of analysis, the variance depicted in Table 3.1 provides an instructive example. The data are based on Arab Barometer surveys conducted in 2018–2019, and the table shows that there is substantial variation across twelve countries. Taking the countries together, the mean percentage of citizens that have thought about relocating to another country is 30.25 percent. But in fact, there is very substantial variation around this mean. Kuwait is an outlier, with only 8 percent having considered emigration. There are also countries in which only 21 percent or 22 percent of the adult population have thought about this, figures that may be high in absolute terms but are low relative to other Arab countries. At the other end of the spectrum are countries in which 45 percent or even 50 percent of the citizens report having considered leaving their country and relocating elsewhere.

The very substantial variance shown in Table 3.1 invites reflection on both the causes and the consequences of this country-level variable, aggregate thinking about emigration. As a dependent variable, the cross-country variance brings the question of why the proportion of citizens that have thought about emigrating is higher in some countries than in others; and the search for an answer begins with the specification of one or more bivariate relationships, each of which links this dependent variable to a possible cause or determinant. As an independent variable, the cross-country variance brings the question of what difference does it make—of what is it a determinant or driver and what are the consequences for a country if more of its citizens, rather than fewer, have thought about moving to another country.

3.2 Hypotheses and Formulating Hypotheses

Hypotheses emerge from the research questions to which a study is devoted. Accordingly, a researcher interested in explanation will have something specific in mind when she decides to hypothesize and then evaluate a bivariate relationship in order to determine whether, and if so how, her variable of interest is related to another variable. For example, if the researcher’s variable of interest is attitude toward gender equality and one of her research questions asks why some people support gender equality and others do not, she might formulate the hypothesis below to see if education provides part of the answer.

Hypothesis 1. Individuals who are better educated are more likely to support gender equality than are individuals who are less well-educated.

The usual case, and the preferred case, is for an investigator to be specific about the research questions she seeks to answer, and then to formulate hypotheses that propose for testing part of the answer to one or more of these questions. Sometimes, however, a researcher will proceed without formulating specific hypotheses based on her research questions. Sometimes she will simply look at whatever relationships between her variable of interest and a second variable her data permit her to identify and examine, and she will then follow up and incorporate into her study any findings that turn out to be significant and potentially instructive. This is sometimes described as allowing the data to “speak.” When this hit or miss strategy of trial and error is used in bivariate and multivariate analysis, findings that are significant and potentially instructive are sometimes described as “grounded theory.” Some researchers also describe the latter process as “inductive” and the former as “deductive.”

Although the inductive, atheoretical approach to data analysis might yield some worthwhile findings that would otherwise have been missed, it can sometimes prove misleading, as you may discover relationships between variables that happened by pure chance and are not instructive about the variable of interest or research question. Data analysis in research aimed at explanation should be, in most cases, preceded by the formulation of one or more hypotheses. In this context, when the focus is on bivariate relationships and the objective is explanation rather than description, each hypothesis will include a dependent variable and an independent variable and make explicit the way the researcher thinks the two are, or probably are, related. As discussed, the dependent variable is the presumed effect; its variance is what a hypothesis seeks to explain. The independent variable is the presumed cause; its impact on the variance of another variable is what the hypothesis seeks to determine.

Hypotheses are usually in the form of if-then, or cause-and-effect, propositions. They posit that if there is variance on the independent variable, the presumed cause, there will then be variance on the dependent variable, the presumed effect. This is because the former impacts the latter and causes it to vary.

An illustration of formulating hypotheses is provided by a study of voting behavior in seven Arab countries: Algeria, Bahrain, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine, and Yemen. Footnote 3 The variable of interest in this individual-level study is electoral turnout, and prominent among the research questions is why some citizens vote and others do not. The dependent variable in the hypotheses proposed in response to this question is whether a person did or did not vote in the country’s most recent parliamentary election. The study initially proposed a number of hypotheses, which include the two listed here and which would later be tested with data from Arab Barometer surveys in the seven countries in 2006–2007. We will return to this illustration later in this chapter.

Hypothesis 1: Individuals who have used clientelist networks in the past are more likely to turn out to vote than are individuals who have not used clientelist networks in the past.

Hypothesis 2: Individuals with a positive evaluation of the economy are more likely to vote than are individuals with a negative evaluation of the economy.

Another example pertaining to voting, which this time is hypothetical but might be instructively tested with Arab Barometer data, considers the relationship between perceived corruption and turning out to vote at the individual level of analysis.

The normal expectation in this case would be that perceptions of corruption influence the likelihood of voting. Even here, however, competing causal relationships are plausible. More perceived corruption might increase the likelihood of voting, presumably to register discontent with those in power. But greater perceived corruption might also actually reduce the likelihood of voting, presumably in this case because the would-be voter sees no chance that her vote will make a difference. But in this hypothetical case, even the direction of the causal connection might be ambiguous. If voting is complicated, cumbersome, and overly bureaucratic, it might be that the experience of voting plays a role in shaping perceptions of corruption. In cases like this, certain variables might be both independent and dependent variables, with causal influence pushing in both directions (often called “endogeneity”), and the researcher will need to carefully think through and be particularly clear about the causal story to which her hypothesis is designed to call attention.

The need to assess the accuracy of these hypotheses, or any others proposed to account for variance on a dependent variable, will guide and shape the researcher’s subsequent decisions about data collection and data analysis. Moreover, in most cases, the finding produced by data analysis is not a statement that the hypothesis is true or that the hypothesis is false. It is rather a statement that the hypothesis is probably true or it is probably false. And more specifically still, when testing a hypothesis with quantitative data, it is often a statement about the odds, or probability, that the researcher will be wrong if she concludes that the hypothesis is correct—if she concludes that the independent variable in the hypothesis is indeed a significant determinant of the variance on the dependent variable. The lower the probability of being wrong, of course, the more confident a researcher can be in concluding, and reporting, that her data and analysis confirm her hypothesis.

Exercise 3.1

Hypotheses emerge from the research questions to which a study is devoted. Thinking about one or more countries with which you are familiar: (a) Identify the independent and dependent variables in each of the example research questions below. (b) Formulate at least one hypothesis for each question. Make sure to include your expectations about the directionality of the relationship between the two variables; is it positive/direct or negative/inverse? (c) In two or three sentences, describe a plausible causal story to which each of your hypotheses might call attention.

Does religiosity affect people’s preference for democracy?

Does preference for democracy affect the likelihood that a person will vote? Footnote 4

Exercise 3.2

Since its establishment in 2006, the Arab Barometer has, as of spring 2022, conducted 68 social and political attitude surveys in the Middle East and North Africa. It has conducted one or more surveys in 16 different Arab countries, and it has recorded the attitudes, values, and preferences of more than 100,000 ordinary citizens.

The Arab Barometer website ( arabbarometer.org ) provides detailed information about the Barometer itself and about the scope, methodology, and conduct of its surveys. Data from the Barometer’s surveys can be downloaded in either SPSS, Stata, or csv format. The website also contains numerous reports, articles, and summaries of findings.

In addition, the Arab Barometer website contains an Online Data Analysis Tool that makes it possible, without downloading any data, to find the distribution of responses to any question asked in any country in any wave. The tool is found in the “Survey Data” menu. After selecting the country and wave of interest, click the “See Results” tab to select the question(s) for which you want to see the response distributions. Click the “Cross by” tab to see the distributions of respondents who differ on one of the available demographic attributes.

The charts below present, in percentages, the response distributions of Jordanians interviewed in 2018 to two questions about gender equality. Below the charts are questions that you are asked to answer. These questions pertain to formulating hypotheses and to the relationship between hypotheses and causal stories.

For each of the two distributions, do you think (hypothesize) that the attitudes of Jordanian women are:

About the same as those of Jordanian men

More favorable toward gender equality than those of Jordanian men

Less favorable toward gender equality than those of Jordanian men

For each of the two distributions, do you think (hypothesize) that the attitudes of younger Jordanians are:

About the same as those of older Jordanians

More favorable toward gender equality than those of older Jordanians

Less favorable toward gender equality than those of older Jordanians

Restate your answers to Questions 1 and 2 as hypotheses.

Give the reasons for your answers to Questions 1 and 2. In two or three sentences, make explicit the presumed causal story on which your hypotheses are based.

Using the Arab Barometer’s Online Analysis Tool, check to see whether your answers to Questions 1 and 2 are correct. For those instances in which an answer is incorrect, suggest in a sentence or two a causal story on which the correct relationship might be based.

In which other country surveyed by the Arab Barometer in 2018 do you think the distributions of responses to the questions about gender equality are very similar to the distributions in Jordan? What attributes of Jordan and the other country informed your selection of the other country?

In which other country surveyed by the Arab Barometer in 2018 do you think the distributions of responses to the questions about gender equality are very different from the distributions in Jordan? What attributes of Jordan and the other country informed your selection of the other country?

Using the Arab Barometer’s Online Analysis Tool, check to see whether your answers to Questions 6 and 7 are correct. For those instances in which an answer is incorrect, suggest in a sentence or two a causal story on which the correct relationship might be based.

We will shortly return to and expand the discussion of probabilities and of hypothesis testing more generally. First, however, some additional discussion of hypothesis formulation is in order. Three important topics will be briefly considered. The first concerns the origins of hypotheses; the second concerns the criteria by which the value of a particular hypothesis or set of hypotheses should be evaluated; and the third, requiring a bit more discussion, concerns the structure of the hypothesized relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable, or between any two variables that are hypothesized to be related.

Origins of Hypotheses

Where do hypotheses come from? How should an investigator identify independent variables that may account for much, or at least some, of the variance on a dependent variable that she has observed and in which she is interested? Or, how should an investigator identify dependent variables whose variance has been determined, presumably only in part, by an independent variable whose impact she deems it important to assess.

Previous research is one place the investigator may look for ideas that will shape her hypotheses and the associated causal stories. This may include previous hypothesis-testing research, and this can be particularly instructive, but it may also include less systematic and structured observations, reports, and testimonies. The point, very simply, is that the investigator almost certainly is not the first person to think about, and offer information and insight about, the topic and questions in which the researcher herself is interested. Accordingly, attention to what is already known will very likely give the researcher some guidance and ideas as she strives for originality and significance in delineating the relationship between the variables in which she is interested.

Consulting previous research will also enable the researcher to determine what her study will add to what is already known—what it will contribute to the collective and cumulative work of researchers and others who seek to reduce uncertainty about a topic in which they share an interest. Perhaps the researcher’s study will fill an important gap in the scientific literature. Perhaps it will challenge and refine, or perhaps even place in doubt, distributions and explanations of variance that have thus far been accepted. Or perhaps her study will produce findings that shed light on the generalizability or scope conditions of previously accepted variable relationships. It need not do any of these things, but that will be for the researcher to decide, and her decision will be informed by knowledge of what is already known and reflection on whether and in what ways her study should seek to add to that body of knowledge.

Personal experience will also inform the researcher’s search for meaningful and informative hypotheses. It is almost certainly the case that a researcher’s interest in a topic in general, and in questions pertaining to this topic in particular, have been shaped by her own experience. The experience itself may involve many different kinds of connections or interactions, some more professional and work-related and some flowing simply and perhaps unintentionally from lived experience. The hypotheses about voting mentioned earlier, for example, might be informed by elections the researcher has witnessed and/or discussions with friends and colleagues about elections, their turnout, and their fairness. Or perhaps the researcher’s experience in her home country has planted questions about the generalizability of what she has witnessed at home.

All of this is to some extent obvious. But the take-away is that an investigator should not endeavor to set aside what she has learned about a topic in the name of objectivity, but rather, she should embrace whatever personal experience has taught her as she selects and refines the puzzles and propositions she will investigate. Should it happen that her experience leads her to incorrect or perhaps distorted understandings, this will be brought to light when her hypotheses are tested. It is in the testing that objectivity is paramount. In hypothesis formation, by contrast, subjectivity is permissible, and, in fact, it may often be unavoidable.

A final arena in which an investigator may look for ideas that will shape her hypotheses overlaps with personal experience and is also to some extent obvious. This is referenced by terms like creativity and originality and is perhaps best captured by the term “sociological imagination.” The take-away here is that hypotheses that deserve attention and, if confirmed, will provide important insights, may not all be somewhere out in the environment waiting to be found, either in the relevant scholarly literature or in recollections about relevant personal experience. They can and sometimes will be the product of imagination and wondering, of discernments that a researcher may come upon during moments of reflection and deliberation.

As in the case of personal experience, the point to be retained is that hypothesis formation may not only be a process of discovery, of finding the previous research that contains the right information. Hypothesis formation may also be a creative process, a process whereby new insights and proposed original understandings are the product of an investigator’s intellect and sociological imagination.

Crafting Valuable Hypotheses

What are the criteria by which the value of a hypothesis or set of hypotheses should be evaluated? What elements define a good hypothesis? Some of the answers to these questions that come immediately to mind pertain to hypothesis testing rather than hypothesis formation. A good hypothesis, it might be argued, is one that is subsequently confirmed. But whether or not a confirmed hypothesis makes a positive contribution depends on the nature of the hypothesis and goals of the research. It is possible that a researcher will learn as much, and possibly even more, from findings that lead to rejection of a hypothesis. In any event, findings, whatever they may be, are valuable only to the extent that the hypothesis being tested is itself worthy of study.

Two important considerations, albeit somewhat obvious ones, are that a hypothesis should be non-trivial and non-obvious. If a proposition is trivial, suggesting a variable relationship with little or no significance, discovering whether and how the variables it brings together are related will not make a meaningful contribution to knowledge about the determinants and/or impact of the variance at the heart of the researcher’s concern. Few will be interested in findings, however rigorously derived, about a trivial proposition. The same is true of an obvious hypothesis, obvious being an attribute that makes a proposition trivial. As stated, these considerations are themselves somewhat obvious, barely deserving mention. Nevertheless, an investigator should self-consciously reflect on these criteria when formulating hypotheses. She should be sure that she is proposing variable relationships that are neither trivial nor obvious.

A third criterion, also somewhat obvious but nonetheless essential, has to do with the significance and salience of the variables being considered. Will findings from research about these variables be important and valuable, and perhaps also useful? If the primary variable of interest is a dependent variable, meaning that the primary goal of the research is to account for variance, then the significance and salience of the dependent variable will determine the value of the research. Similarly, if the primary variable of interest is an independent variable, meaning that the primary goal of the research is to determine and assess impact, then the significance and salience of the independent variable will determine the value of the research.

These three criteria—non-trivial, non-obvious, and variable importance and salience—are not very different from one another. They collectively mean that the researcher must be able to specify why and how the testing of her hypothesis, or hypotheses, will make a contribution of value. Perhaps her propositions are original or innovative; perhaps knowing whether they are true or false makes a difference or will be of practical benefit; perhaps her findings add something specific and identifiable to the body of existing scholarly literature on the subject. While calling attention to these three connected and overlapping criteria might seem unnecessary since they are indeed somewhat obvious, it remains the case that the value of a hypothesis, regardless of whether or not it is eventually confirmed, is itself important to consider, and an investigator should, therefore, know and be able to articulate the reasons and ways that consideration of her hypothesis, or hypotheses, will indeed be of value.

Hypothesizing the Structure of a Relationship

Relevant in the process of hypothesis formation are, as discussed, questions about the origins of hypotheses and the criteria by which the value of any particular hypothesis or set of hypotheses will be evaluated. Relevant, too, is consideration of the structure of a hypothesized variable relationship and the causal story to which that relationship is believed to call attention.

The point of departure in considering the structure of a hypothesized variable relationship is an understanding that such a relationship may or may not be linear. In a direct, or positive, linear relationship, each increase in the independent variable brings a constant increase in the dependent variable. In an inverse, or negative, linear relationship, each increase in the independent variable brings a constant decrease in the dependent variable. But these are only two of the many ways that an independent variable and a dependent variable may be related, or hypothesized to be related. This is easily illustrated by hypotheses in which level of education or age is the independent variable, and this is relevant in hypothesis formation because the investigator must be alert to and consider the possibility that the variables in which she is interested are in fact related in a non-linear way.

Consider, for example, the relationship between age and support for gender equality, the latter measured by an index based on several questions about the rights and behavior of women that are asked in Arab Barometer surveys. A researcher might expect, and might therefore want to hypothesize, that an increase in age brings increased support for, or alternatively increased opposition to, gender equality. But these are not the only possibilities. Likely, perhaps, is the possibility of a curvilinear relationship, in which case increases in age bring increases in support for gender equality until a person reaches a certain age, maybe 40, 45, or 50, after which additional increases in age bring decreases in support for gender equality. Or the researcher might hypothesize that the curve is in the opposite direction, that support for gender equality initially decreases as a function of age until a particular age is reached, after which additional increases in age bring an increase in support.

Of course, there are also other possibilities. In the case of education and gender equality, for example, increased education may initially have no impact on attitudes toward gender equality. Individuals who have not finished primary school, those who have finished primary school, and those who have gone somewhat beyond primary school and completed a middle school program may all have roughly the same attitudes toward gender equality. Thus, increases in education, within a certain range of educational levels, are not expected to bring an increase or a decrease in support for gender equality. But the level of support for gender equality among high school graduates may be higher and among university graduates may be higher still. Accordingly, in this hypothetical illustration, an increase in education does bring increased support for gender equality but only beginning after middle school.

A middle school level of education is a “floor” in this example. Education does not begin to make a difference until this floor is reached, and thereafter it does make a difference, with increases in education beyond middle school bringing increases in support for gender equality. Another possibility might be for middle school to be a “ceiling.” This would mean that increases in education through middle school would bring increases in support for gender equality, but the trend would not continue beyond middle school. In other words, level of education makes a difference and appears to have explanatory power only until, and so not after, this ceiling is reached. This latter pattern was found in the study of education and Palestinian protest activity discussed earlier. Increases in education through middle school brought increases in the likelihood that an individual would participate in demonstrations and protests of Israeli occupation. However, additional education beyond middle school was not associated with greater likelihood of taking part in protest activities.

This discussion of variation in the structure of a hypothesized relationship between two variables is certainly not exhaustive, and the examples themselves are straightforward and not very complicated. The purpose of the discussion is, therefore, to emphasize that an investigator must be open to and think through the possibility and plausibility of different kinds of relationships between her two variables, that is to say, relationships with different structures. Bivariate relationships with several different kinds of structures are depicted visually by the scatter plots in Fig. 3.4 .

These possibilities with respect to structure do not determine the value of a proposed hypothesis. As discussed earlier, the value of a proposed relationship depends first and foremost on the importance and salience of the variable of interest. Accordingly, a researcher should not assume that the value of a hypothesis varies as a function of the degree to which it posits a complicated variable relationship. More complicated hypotheses are not necessarily better or more correct. But while she should not strive for or give preference to variable relationships that are more complicated simply because they are more complicated, she should, again, be alert to the possibility that a more complicated pattern does a better job of describing the causal connection between the two variables in the place and time in which she is interested.

This brings the discussion of formulating hypotheses back to our earlier account of causal stories. In research concerned with explanation and causality, a hypothesis for the most part is a simplified stand-in for a causal story. It represents the causal story, as it were. Expressing this differently, the hypothesis states the causal story’s “bottom line;” it posits that the independent variable is a determinant of variance on the dependent variable, and it identifies the structure of the presumed relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable. But it does not describe the interaction between the two variables in a way that tells consumers of the study why the researcher believes that the relationship involves causality rather than an association with no causal implications. This is left to the causal story, which will offer a fuller account of the way the presumed cause impacts the presumed effect.

3.3 Describing and Visually Representing Bivariate Relationships

Once a researcher has collected or otherwise obtained data on the variables in a bivariate relationship she wishes to examine, her first step will be to describe the variance on each of the variables using the univariate statistics described in Chap. 2 . She will need to understand the distribution on each variable before she can understand how these variables vary in relation to one another. This is important whether she is interested in description or wishes to explore a bivariate causal story.

Once she has described each one of the variables, she can turn to the relationship between them. She can prepare and present a visual representation of this relationship, which is the subject of the present section. She can also use bivariate statistical tests to assess the strength and significance of the relationship, which is the subject of the next section of this chapter.

Contingency Tables

Contingency tables are used to display the relationship between two categorical variables. They are similar to the univariate frequency distributions described in Chap. 2 , the difference being that they juxtapose the two univariate distributions and display the interaction between them. Also called cross-tabulation tables, the cells of the table may present frequencies, row percentages, column percentages, and/or total percentages. Total frequencies and/or percentages are displayed in a total row and a total column, each one of which is the same as the univariate distribution of one of the variables taken alone.

Table 3.2 , based on Palestinian data from Wave V of the Arab Barometer, crosses gender and the average number of hours watching television each day. Frequencies are presented in the cells of the table. In the cell showing the number of Palestinian men who do not watch television at all, row percentage, column percentage, and total percentage are also presented. Note that total percentage is based on the 10 cells showing the two variables taken together, which are summed in the lower right-hand cell. Thus, total percent for this cell is 342/2488 = 13.7. Only frequencies are given in the other cells of the table; but in a full table, these four figures – frequency, row percent, column percent and total percent – would be given in every cell.

Exercise 3.3

Compute the row percentage, the column percentage, and the total percentage in the cell showing the number of Palestinian women who do not watch television at all.

Describe the relationship between gender and watching television among Palestinians that is shown in the table. Do the television watching habits of Palestinian men and women appear to be generally similar or fairly different? You might find it helpful to convert the frequencies in other cells to row or column percentages.

Stacked Column Charts and Grouped Bar Charts

Stacked column charts and grouped bar charts are used to visually describe how two categorical variables, or one categorical and one continuous variable, relate to one another. Much like contingency tables, they show the percentage or count of each category of one variable within each category of the second variable. This information is presented in columns stacked on each other or next to each other. The charts below show the number of male Palestinians and the number of female Palestinians who watch television for a given number of hours each day. Each chart presents the same information as the other chart and as the contingency table shown above (Fig. 3.1 ).

Stacked column charts and grouped bar charts comparing Palestinian men and Palestinian women on hours watching television

Box Plots and Box and Whisker Plots

Box plots, box and whisker plots, and other types of plots can also be used to show the relationship between one categorical variable and one continuous variable. They are particularly useful for showing how spread out the data are. Box plots show five important numbers in a variable’s distribution: the minimum value; the median; the maximum value; and the first and third quartiles (Q1 and Q2), which represent, respectively, the number below which are 25 percent of the distribution’s values and the number below which are 75 percent of the distribution’s values. The minimum value is sometimes called the lower extreme, the lower bound, or the lower hinge. The maximum value is sometimes called the upper extreme, the upper bound, or the upper hinge. The middle 50 percent of the distribution, the range between Q1 and Q3 that represents the “box,” constitutes the interquartile range (IQR). In box and whisker plots, the “whiskers” are the short perpendicular lines extending outside the upper and lower quartiles. They are included to indicate variability below Q1 and above Q3. Values are usually categorized as outliers if they are less than Q1 − IQR*1.5 or greater than Q3 + IQR*1.5. A visual explanation of a box and whisker plot is shown in Fig. 3.2a and an example of a box plot that uses actual data is shown in Fig. 3.2b .

The box plot in Fig. 3.2b uses Wave V Arab Barometer data from Tunisia and shows the relationship between age, a continuous variable, and interpersonal trust, a dichotomous categorical variable. The line representing the median value is shown in bold. Interpersonal trust, sometimes known as generalized trust, is an important personal value. Previous research has shown that social harmony and prospects for democracy are greater in societies in which most citizens believe that their fellow citizens for the most part are trustworthy. Although the interpersonal trust variable is dichotomous in Fig. 3.2b , the variance in interpersonal trust can also be measured by a set of ordered categories or a scale that yields a continuous measure, the latter not being suitable for presentation by a box plot. Figure 3.2b shows that the median age of Tunisians who are trusting is slightly higher than the median age of Tunisians who are mistrustful of other people. Notice also that the box plot for the mistrustful group has an outlier.

( a ) A box and whisker plot. ( b ) Box plot comparing the ages of trusting and mistrustful Tunisians in 2018

Line plots may be used to visualize the relationship between two continuous variables or a continuous variable and a categorical variable. They are often used when time, or a variable related to time, is one of the two variables. If a researcher wants to show whether and how a variable changes over time for more than one subgroup of the units about which she has data (looking at men and women separately, for example), she can include multiple lines on the same plot, with each line showing the pattern over time for a different subgroup. These lines will generally be distinguished from each other by color or pattern, with a legend provided for readers.

Line plots are a particularly good way to visualize a relationship if an investigator thinks that important events over time may have had a significant impact. The line plot in Fig. 3.3 shows the average support for gender equality among men and among women in Tunisia from 2013 to 2018. Support for gender equality is a scale based on four questions related to gender equality in the three waves of the Arab Barometer. An answer supportive of gender equality on a question adds +.5 to the scale and an answer unfavorable to gender equality adds −.5 to the scale. Accordingly, a scale score of 2 indicates maximum support for gender equality and a scale score of −2 indicates maximum opposition to gender equality.

Line plot showing level of support for gender equality among Tunisian women and men in 2013, 2016, and 2018

Scatter Plots

Scatter plots are used to visualize a bivariate relationship when both variables are numerical. The independent variable is put on the x-axis, the horizontal axis, and the dependent variable is put on the y-axis, the vertical axis. Each data point becomes a dot in the scatter plot’s two-dimensional field, with its precise location being the point at which its value on the x-axis intersects with its value on the y-axis. The scatter plot shows how the variables are related to one another, including with respect to linearity, direction, and other aspects of structure. The scatter plots in Fig. 3.4 illustrate a strong positive linear relationship, a moderately strong negative linear relationship, a strong non-linear relationship, and a pattern showing no relationship. Footnote 5 If the scatter plot displays no visible and clear pattern, as in the lower left hand plot shown in Fig. 3.4 , the scatter plot would indicate that the independent variable, by itself, has no meaningful impact on the dependent variable.

Scatter plots showing bivariate relationships with different structures

Scatter plots are also a good way to identify outliers—data points that do not follow a pattern that characterizes most of the data. These are also called non-scalar types. Figure 3.5 shows a scatter plot with outliers.

Outliers can be informative, making it possible, for example, to identify the attributes of cases for which the measures of one or both variables are unreliable and/or invalid. Nevertheless, the inclusion of outliers may not only distort the assessment of measures, raising unwarranted doubts about measures that are actually reliable and valid for the vast majority of cases, they may also bias bivariate statistics and make relationships seem weaker than they really are for most cases. For this reason, researchers sometimes remove outliers prior to testing a hypothesis. If one does this, it is important to have a clear definition of what is an outlier and to justify the removal of the outlier, both using the definition and perhaps through substantive analysis. There are several mathematical formulas for identifying outliers, and researchers should be aware of these formulas and their pros and cons if they plan to remove outliers.

If there are relatively few outliers, perhaps no more than 5–10 percent of the cases, it may be justifiable to remove them in order to better discern the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable. If outliers are much more numerous, however, it is probably because there is not a significant relationship between the two variables being considered. The researcher might in this case find it instructive to introduce a third variable and disaggregate the data. Disaggregation will be discussed in Chap. 4 .

A scatter plot with outliers marked in red

Exercise 3.4 Exploring Hypotheses through Visualizing Data: Exercise with the Arab Barometer Online Analysis Tool

Go to the Arab Barometer Online Analysis Tool ( https://www.arabbarometer.org/survey-data/data-analysis-tool/ )

Select Wave V and a country that interests you

Select “See Results”

Select “Social, Cultural and Religious topics”

Select “Religion: frequency: pray”

Questions: What does the distribution of this variable look like? How would you describe the variance?

Click on “Cross by,” then

Select “Show all variables”

Select “Kind of government preferable” and click

Select “Options,” then “Show % over Row total,” then “Apply”

Questions: Does there seem to be a relationship between religiosity and preference for democracy? If so, what might explain the relationship you observe—what is a plausible causal story? Is it consistent with the hypothesis you wrote for Exercise 3.1?

What other variables could be used to measure religiosity and preference for democracy? Explore your hypothesis using different items from the list of Arab Barometer variables

Do these distributions support the previous results you found? Do you learn anything additional about the relationship between religiosity and preference for democracy?

Now it is your turn to explore variables and variable relationships that interest you!

Pick two variables that interest you from the list of Arab Barometer variables. Are they continuous or categorical? Ordinal or nominal? (Hint: Most Arab Barometer variables are categorical, even if you might be tempted to think of them as continuous. For example, age is divided into the ordinal categories 18–29, 30–49, and 50 and more.)

Do you expect there to be a relationship between the two variables? If so, what do you think will be the structure of that relationship, and why?

Select the wave (year) and the country that interest you

Select one of your two variables of interest

Click on “Cross by,” and then select your second variable of interest.

On the left side of the page, you’ll see a contingency table. On the right side at the top, you’ll see several options to graphically display the relationship between your two variables. Which type of graph best represents the relationship between your two variables of interest?

Do the two variables seem to be independent of each other, or do you think there might be a relationship between them? Is the relationship you see similar to what you had expected

3.4 Probabilities and Type I and Type II Errors

As in visual presentations of bivariate relationships, selecting the appropriate measure of association or bivariate statistical test depends on the types of the two variables. The data on both variables may be categorical; the data on both may be continuous; or the data may be categorical on one variable and continuous on the other variable. These characteristics of the data will guide the way in which our presentation of these measures and tests is organized. Before briefly describing some specific measures of association and bivariate statistical tests, however, it is necessary to lay a foundation by introducing a number of terms and concepts. Relevant here are the distinction between population and sample and the notions of the null hypothesis, of Type I and Type II errors, and of probabilities and confidence intervals. As concepts, or abstractions, these notions may influence the way a researcher thinks about drawing conclusions about a hypothesis from qualitative data, as was discussed in Chap. 2 . In their precise meaning and application, however, these terms and concepts come into play when hypothesis testing involves the statistical analysis of quantitative data.

To begin, it is important to distinguish between, on the one hand, the population of units—individuals, countries, ethnic groups, political movements, or any other unit of analysis—in which the researcher is interested and about which she aspires to advance conclusions and, on the other hand, the units on which she has actually acquired the data to be analyzed. The latter, the units on which she actually has data, is her sample. In cases where the researcher has collected or obtained data on all of the units in which she is interested, there is no difference between the sample and the population, and drawing conclusions about the population based on the sample is straightforward. Most often, however, a researcher does not possess data on all of the units that make up the population in which she is interested, and so the possibility of error when making inferences about the population based on the analysis of data in the sample requires careful and deliberate consideration.

This concern for error is present regardless of the size of the sample and the way it was constructed. The likelihood of error declines as the size of the sample increases and thus comes closer to representing the full population. It also declines if the sample was constructed in accordance with random or other sampling procedures designed to maximize representation. It is useful to keep these criteria in mind when looking at, and perhaps downloading and using, Arab Barometer data. The Barometer’s website gives information about the construction of each sample. But while it is possible to reduce the likelihood of error when characterizing the population from findings based on the sample, it is not possible to eliminate entirely the possibility of erroneous inference. Accordingly, a researcher must endeavor to make the likelihood of this kind of error as small as possible and then decide if it is small enough to advance conclusions that apply to the population as well as the sample.

The null hypothesis, frequently designated as H0, is a statement to the effect that there is no meaningful and significant relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable in a hypothesis, or indeed between two variables even if the relationship between them has not been formally specified in a hypothesis and does not purport to be causal or explanatory. The null hypothesis may or may not be stated explicitly by an investigator, but it is nonetheless present in her thinking; it stands in opposition to the hypothesized variable relationship. In a point and counterpoint fashion, the hypothesis, H1, posits that the variables are significantly related, and the null hypothesis, H0, replies and says no, they are not significantly related. It further says that they are not related in any meaningful way, neither in the way proposed in H1 nor in any other way that could be proposed.

Based on her analysis, the researcher needs to determine whether her findings permit rejecting the null hypothesis and concluding that there is indeed a significant relationship between the variables in her hypothesis, concluding in effect that the research hypothesis, H1, has been confirmed. This is most relevant and important when the investigator is basing her analysis on some but not all of the units to which her hypothesis purports to apply—when she is analyzing the data in her sample but seeks to advance conclusions that apply to the population in which she is interested. The logic here is that the findings produced by an analysis of some of the data, the data she actually possesses, may be different than the findings her analysis would hypothetically produce were she able to use data from very many more, or ideally even all, of the units that make up her population of interest.

This means, of course, that there will be uncertainty as the researcher adjudicates between H0 and H1 on the basis of her data. An analysis of these data may suggest that there is a strong and significant relationship between the variables in H1. And the stronger the relationship, the more unlikely it is that the researcher’s sample is a subset of a population characterized by H0 and that, therefore, the researcher may consider H1 to have been confirmed. Yet, it remains at least possible that the researcher’s sample, although it provides strong support for H1, is actually a subset of a population characterized by the null hypothesis. This may be unlikely, but it is not impossible, and so, therefore, to consider H1 to have been confirmed is to run the risk, at least a small risk, of what is known as a Type I error. A Type I error is made when a researcher accepts a research hypothesis that is actually false, when she judges to be true a hypothesis that does not characterize the population of which her sample is a subset. Because of the possibility of a Type I error, even if quite unlikely, researchers will often write something like “We can reject the null hypothesis,” rather than “We can confirm our hypothesis.”

Another analysis related to voter turnout provides a ready illustration. In the Arab Barometer Wave V surveys in 12 Arab countries, Footnote 6 13,899 respondents answered a question about voting in the most recent parliamentary election. Of these, 46.6 percent said they had voted, and the remainder, 53.4 percent, said they had not voted in the last parliamentary election. Footnote 7 Seeking to identify some of the determinants of voting—the attitudes and experiences of an individual that increase the likelihood that she will vote, the researcher might hypothesize that a judgment that the country is going in the right direction will push toward voting. More formally:

H1. An individual who believes that her country is going in the right direction is more likely to vote in a national election than is an individual who believes her country is going in the wrong direction.

Arab Barometer surveys provide data with which to test this proposition, and in fact there is a difference associated with views about the direction in which the country is going. Among those who judged that their country is going in the right direction, 52.4 percent voted in the last parliamentary election. By contrast, among those who judged that their country is going in the wrong direction, only 43.8 percent voted in the last parliamentary election.

This illustrates the choice a researcher faces when deciding what to conclude from a study. Does the analysis of her data from a subset of her population of interest confirm or not confirm her hypothesis? In this example, based on Arab Barometer data, the findings are in the direction of her hypothesis, and differences in voting associated with views about the direction the country is going do not appear to be trivial. But are these differences big enough to justify the conclusion that judgements about the country’s path going forward are a determinant of voting, one among others of course, in the population from which her sample was drawn? In other words, although this relationship clearly characterizes the sample, it is unclear whether it characterizes the researcher’s population of interest, the population from which the sample was drawn.

Unless the researcher can gather data on the entire population of eligible voters, or at least almost all of this population, it is not possible to entirely eliminate uncertainty when the researcher makes inferences about the population of voters based on findings from the subset, or sample, of voters on which she has data. She can either conclude that her findings are sufficiently strong and clear to propose that the pattern she has observed characterizes the population as well, and that H1 is therefore confirmed; or she can conclude that her findings are not strong enough to make such an inference about the population, and that H1, therefore, is not confirmed. Either conclusion could be wrong, and so there is a chance of error no matter which conclusion the researcher advances.

The terms Type I error and Type II error are often used to designate the possible error associated with each of these inferences about the population based on the sample. Type I error refers to the rejection of a true null hypothesis. This means, in other words, that the investigator could be wrong if she concludes that her finding of a strong, or at least fairly strong, relationship between her variables characterizes Arab voters in the 12 countries in general, and if she thus judges H1 to have been confirmed when the population from which her sample was drawn is in fact characterized by H0. Type II error refers to acceptance of a false null hypothesis. This means, in other words, that the investigator could be wrong if she concludes that her finding of a somewhat weak relationship, or no relationship at all, between her variables characterizes Arab voters in the 12 countries in general, and that she thus judges H0 to be true when the population from which her sample was drawn is in fact characterized by H1.

In statistical analyses of quantitative data, decisions about whether to risk a Type I error or a Type II error are usually based on probabilities. More specifically, they are based on the probability of a researcher being wrong if she concludes that the variable relationship—or hypothesis in most cases—that characterizes her data, meaning her sample, also characterizes the population on which the researcher hopes her sample and data will shed light. To say this in yet another way, she computes the odds that her sample does not represent the population of which it is a subset; or more specifically still, she computes the odds that from a population that is characterized by the null hypothesis she could have obtained, by chance alone, a subset of the population, her sample, that is not characterized by the null hypothesis. The lower the odds, or probability, the more willing the researcher will be to risk a Type I error.

There are numerous statistical tests that are used to compute such probabilities. The nature of the data and the goals of the analysis will determine the specific test to be used in a particular situation. Most of these tests, frequently called tests of significance or tests of statistical significance, provide output in the form of probabilities, which always range from 0 to 1. The lower the value, meaning the closer to 0, the less likely it is that a researcher has collected and is working with data that produce findings that differ from what she would find were she to somehow have data on the entire population. Another way to think about this is the following:

If the researcher provisionally assumes that the population is characterized by the null hypothesis with respect to the variable relationship under study, what is the probability of obtaining from that population, by chance alone, a subset or sample that is not characterized by the null hypothesis but instead shows a strong relationship between the two variables;

The lower the probability value, meaning the closer to 0, the less likely it is that the researcher’s data, which support H1, have come from a population that is characterized by H0;

The lower the probability that her sample could have come from a population characterized by H0, the lower the possibility that the researcher will be wrong, that she will make a Type I error, if she rejects the null hypothesis and accepts that the population, as well as her sample, is characterized by H1;

When the probability value is low, the chance of actually making a Type I error is small. But while small, the possibility of an error cannot be entirely eliminated.

If it helps you to think about probability and Type I and Type II error, imagine that you will be flipping a coin 100 times and your goal is to determine whether the coin is unbiased, H0, or biased in favor of either heads or tails, H1. How many times more than 50 would heads have to come up before you would be comfortable concluding that the coin is in fact biased in favor of heads? Would 60 be enough? What about 65? To begin to answer these questions, you would want to know the odds of getting 60 or 65 heads from a coin that is actually unbiased, a coin that would come up heads and come up tails roughly the same number of times if it were flipped many more than 100 times, maybe 1000 times, maybe 10,000. With this many flips, would the ratio of heads to tails even out. The lower the odds, the less likely it is that the coin is unbiased. In this analogy, you can think of the mathematical calculations about an unbiased coin’s odds of getting heads as the population, and your actual flips of the coin as the sample.

But exactly how low does the probability of a Type I error have to be for a researcher to run the risk of rejecting H0 and accepting that her variables are indeed related? This depends, of course, on the implications of being wrong. If there are serious and harmful consequences of being wrong, of accepting a research hypothesis that is actually false, the researcher will reject H0 and accept H1 only if the odds of being wrong, of making a Type I error, are very low.

There are some widely used probability values, which define what are known as “confidence intervals,” that help researchers and those who read their reports to think about the likelihood that a Type I error is being made. In the social sciences, rejecting H0 and running the risk of a Type I error is usually thought to require a probability value of less than .05, written as p < .05. The less stringent value of p < .10 is sometimes accepted as sufficient for rejecting H0, although such a conclusion would be advanced with caution and when the consequences of a Type I error are not very harmful. Frequently considered safer, meaning that the likelihood of accepting a false hypothesis is lower, are p < .01 and p < .001. The next section introduces and briefly describes some of the bivariate statistics that may be used to calculate these probabilities.

3.5 Measures of Association and Bivariate Statistical Tests

The following section introduces some of the bivariate statistical tests that can be used to compute probabilities and test hypotheses. The accounts are not very detailed. They will provide only a general overview and refresher for readers who are already fairly familiar with bivariate statistics. Readers without this familiarity are encouraged to consult a statistics textbook, for which the accounts presented here will provide a useful guide. While the account below will emphasize calculating these test statistics by hand, it is also important to remember that they can be calculated with the assistance of statistical software as well. A discussion of statistical software is available in Appendix 4.

Parametric and Nonparametric Statistics

Parametric and nonparametric are two broad classifications of statistical procedures. A parameter in statistics refers to an attribute of a population. For example, the mean of a population is a parameter. Parametric statistical tests make certain assumptions about the shape of the distribution of values in a population from which a sample is drawn, generally that it is normally distributed, and about its parameters, that is to say the means and standard deviations of the assumed distributions. Nonparametric statistical procedures rely on no or very few assumptions about the shape or parameters of the distribution of the population from which the sample was drawn. Chi-squared is the only nonparametric statistical test among the tests described below.

Degrees of Freedom

Degrees of freedom (df) is the number of values in the calculation of a statistic that are free to vary. Statistical software programs usually give degrees of freedom in the output, so it is generally unnecessary to know the number of the degrees of freedom in advance. It is nonetheless useful to understand what degrees of freedom represent. Consistent with the definition above, it is the number of values that are not predetermined, and thus are free to vary, within the variables used in a statistical test.

This is illustrated by the contingency tables below, which are constructed to examine the relationship between two categorical variables. The marginal row and column totals are known since these are just the univariate distributions of each variable. df = 1 for Table 3.3a , which is a 4-cell table. You can enter any one value in any one cell, but thereafter the values of all the other three cells are determined. Only one number is not free to vary and thus not predetermined. df = 2 for Table 3.3b , which is a 6-cell table. You can enter any two values in any two cells, but thereafter the values of all the other cells are determined. Only two numbers are free to vary and thus not predetermined. For contingency tables, the formula for calculating df is:

Chi-Squared

Chi-squared, frequently written X 2 , is a statistical test used to determine whether two categorical variables are significantly related. As noted, it is a nonparametric test. The most common version of the chi-squared test is the Pearson chi-squared test, which gives a value for the chi-squared statistic and permits determining as well a probability value, or p-value. The magnitude of the statistic and of the probability value are inversely correlated; the higher the value of the chi-squared statistic, the lower the probability value, and thus the lower the risk of making a Type I error—of rejecting a true null hypothesis—when asserting that the two variables are strongly and significantly related.

The simplicity of the chi-squared statistic permits giving a little more detail in order to illustrate several points that apply to bivariate statistical tests in general. The formula for computing chi-squared is given below, with O being the observed (actual) frequency in each cell of a contingency table for two categorical variables and E being the frequency that would be expected in each cell if the two variables are not related. Put differently, the distribution of E values across the cells of the two-variable table constitutes the null hypothesis, and chi-squared provides a number that expresses the magnitude of the difference between an investigator’s actual observed values and the values of E.

The computation of chi-squared involves the following procedures, which are illustrated using the data in Table 3.4 .

The values of O in the cells of the table are based on the data collected by the investigator. For example, Table 3.4 shows that of the 200 women on whom she collected information, 85 are majoring in social science.

The value of E for each cell is computed by multiplying the marginal total of the column in which the cell is located by the marginal total of the row in which the cell is located divided by N, N being the total number of cases. For the female students majoring in social science in Table 3.4 , this is: 200 * 150/400 = 30,000/400 = 75. For the female students majoring in math and natural science in Table 3.4 , this is: 200 * 100/400 = 20,000/400 = 50.

The difference between the value of O and the value of E is computed for each cell using the formula for chi-squared. For the female students majoring in social science in Table 3.4 , this is: (85–75) 2 /75 = 10 2 /75 = 100/75 = 1.33. For the female students majoring in math and natural science, the value resulting from the application of the chi-squared is: (45–50) 2 /50 = 5 2 /75 = 25/75 = .33.

The values in each cell of the table resulting from the application of the chi-squared formula are summed (Σ). This chi-squared value expresses the magnitude of the difference between a distribution of values indicative of the null hypothesis and what the investigator actually found about the relationship between gender and field of study. In Table 3.4 , the cell for female students majoring in social science adds 1.33 to the sum of the values in the eight cells, the cell for female students majoring in math and natural science adds .33 to the sum, and so forth for the remaining six cells.

A final point to be noted, which applies to many other statistical tests as well, is that the application of chi-squared and other bivariate (and multivariate) statistical tests yields a value with which can be computed the probability that an observed pattern does not differ from the null hypothesis and that a Type I error will be made if the null hypothesis is rejected and the research hypothesis is judged to be true. The lower the probability, of course, the lower the likelihood of an error if the null hypothesis is rejected.

Prior to the advent of computer assisted statistical analysis, the value of the statistic and the number of degrees of freedom were used to find the probability value in a table of probability values in an appendix in most statistics books. At present, however, the probability value, or p-value, and also the degrees of freedom, are routinely given as part of the output when analysis is done by one of the available statistical software packages.

Table 3.5 shows the relationship between economic circumstance and trust in the government among 400 ordinary citizens in a hypothetical country. The observed data were collected to test the hypothesis that greater wealth pushes people toward greater trust and less wealth pushes people toward lesser trust. In the case of all three patterns, the probability that the null hypothesis is true is very low. All three patterns have the same high chi-squared value and low probability value. Thus, the chi-squared and p-values show only that the patterns all differ significantly from what would be expected were the null hypothesis true. They do not show whether the data support the hypothesized variable relationship or any other particular relationship.

As the three patterns in Table 3.5 show, variable relationships with very different structures can yield similar or even identical statistical test and probability values, and thus these tests provide only some of the information a researcher needs to draw conclusions about her hypothesis. To draw the right conclusion, it may also be necessary for the investigator to “look at” her data. For example, as Table 3.5 suggests, looking at a tabular or visual presentation of the data may also be needed to draw the proper conclusion about how two variables are related.

How would you describe the three patterns shown in the table, each of which differs significantly from the null hypothesis? Which pattern is consistent with the research hypothesis? How would you describe the other two patterns? Try to visualize a plot of each pattern.

Pearson Correlation Coefficient

The Pearson correlation coefficient, more formally known as the Pearson product-moment correlation, is a parametric measure of linear association. It gives a numerical representation of the strength and direction of the relationship between two continuous numerical variables. The coefficient, which is commonly represented as r , will have a value between −1 and 1. A value of 1 means that there is a perfect positive, or direct, linear relationship between the two variables; as one variable increases, the other variable consistently increases by some amount. A value of −1 means that there is a perfect negative, or inverse, linear relationship; as one variable increases, the other variable consistently decreases by some amount. A value of 0 means that there is no linear relationship; as one variable increases, the other variable neither consistently increases nor consistently decreases.

It is easy to think of relationships that might be assessed by a Pearson correlation coefficient. Consider, for example, the relationship between age and income and the proposition that as age increases, income consistently increases or consistently decreases as well. The closer a coefficient is to 1 or −1, the greater the likelihood that the data on which it is based are not the subset of a population in which age and income are unrelated, meaning that the population of interest is not characterized by the null hypothesis. Coefficients very close to 1 or −1 are rare; although it depends on the number of units on which the researcher has data and also on the nature of the variables. Coefficients higher than .3 or lower than −.03 are frequently high enough, in absolute terms, to yield a low probability value and justify rejecting the null hypothesis. The relationship in this case would be described as “statistically significant.”

Exercise 3.5

Estimating Correlation Coefficients from scatter plots

Look at the scatter plots in Fig. 3.4 and estimate the correlation coefficient that the bivariate relationship shown in each scatter plot would yield.

Explain the basis for each of your estimates of the correlation coefficient.

Spearman’s Rank-Order Correlation Coefficient

The Spearman’s rank-order correlation coefficient is a nonparametric version of the Pearson product-moment correlation . Spearman’s correlation coefficient, (ρ, also signified by r s ) measures the strength and direction of the association between two ranked variables.

Bivariate Regression

Bivariate regression is a parametric measure of association that, like correlation analysis, assesses the strength and direction of the relationship between two variables. Also, like correlation analysis, regression assumes linearity. It may give misleading results if used with variable relationships that are not linear.

Regression is a powerful statistic that is widely used in multivariate analyses. This includes ordinary least squares (OLS) regression, which requires that the dependent variable be continuous and assumes linearity; binary logistic regression, which may be used when the dependent variable is dichotomous; and ordinal logistic regression, which is used with ordinal dependent variables. The use of regression in multivariate analysis will be discussed in the next chapter. In bivariate analysis, regression analysis yields coefficients that indicate the strength and direction of the relationship between two variables. Researchers may opt to “standardize” these coefficients. Standardized coefficients from a bivariate regression are the same as the coefficients produced by Pearson product-moment correlation analysis.

The t-test, also sometimes called a “difference of means” test, is a parametric statistical test that compares the means of two variables and determines whether they are different enough from each other to reject the null hypothesis and risk a Type I error. The dependent variable in a t-test must be continuous or ordinal—otherwise the investigator cannot calculate a mean. The independent variable must be categorical since t-tests are used to compare two groups.

An example, drawing again on Arab Barometer data, tests the relationship between voting and support for democracy. The hypothesis might be that men and women who voted in the last parliamentary election are more likely than men and women who did not vote to believe that democracy is suitable for their country. Whether a person did or did not vote would be the categorical independent variable, and the dependent variable would be the response to a question like, “To what extent do you think democracy is suitable for your country?” The question about democracy asked respondents to situate their views on a 11-point scale, with 0 indicating completely unsuitable and 10 indicating completely suitable.

Focusing on Tunisia in 2018, Arab Barometer Wave V data show that the mean response on the 11-point suitability question is 5.11 for those who voted and 4.77 for those who did not vote. Is this difference of .34 large enough to be statistically significant? A t-test will determine the probability of getting a difference of this magnitude from a population of interest, most likely all Tunisians of voting age, in which there is no difference between voters and non-voters in views about the suitability of democracy for Tunisia. In this example, the t-test showed p < .086. With this p-value, which is higher than the generally accepted standard of .05, a researcher cannot with confidence reject the null hypotheses, and she is unable, therefore, to assert that the proposed relationship has been confirmed.

This question can also be explored at the country level of analysis with, for example, regime type as the independent variable. In this illustration, the hypothesis is that citizens of monarchies are more likely than citizens of republics to believe that democracy is suitable for their country. Of course, a researcher proposing this hypothesis would also advance an associated causal story that provides the rationale for the hypothesis and specifies what is really being tested. To test this proposition, an investigator might merge data from surveys in, say, three monarchies, perhaps Morocco, Jordan, and Kuwait, and then also merge data from surveys in three republics, perhaps Algeria, Egypt, and Iraq. A t-test would then be used to compare the means of people in republics and people in monarchies and give the p-value.

A similar test, the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, is a nonparametric test that does not require that the dependent variable be normally distributed.

Analysis of variance, or ANOVA, is closely related to the t-test. It may be used when the dependent variable is continuous and the independent variable is categorical. A one-way ANOVA compares the mean and variance values of a continuous dependent variable in two or more categories of a categorical independent variable in order to determine if the latter affects the former.

ANOVA calculates the F-ratio based on the variance between the groups and the variance within each group. The F-ratio can then be used to calculate a p-value. However, if there are more than two categories of the independent variable, the ANOVA test will not indicate which pairs of categories differ enough to be statistically significant, making it necessary, again, to look at the data in order to draw correct conclusions about the structure of the bivariate relationships. Two-way ANOVA is used when an investigator has more than two variables.

Table 3.6 presents a summary list of the visual representations and bivariate statistical tests that have been discussed. It reminds readers of the procedures that can be used when both variables are categorical, when both variables are numerical/continuous, and when one variable is categorical and one variable is numerical/continuous.

Bivariate Statistics and Causal Inference

It is important to remember that bivariate statistical tests only assess the association or correlation between two variables. The tests described above can help a researcher estimate how much confidence her hypothesis deserves and, more specifically, the probability that any significant variable relationships she has found characterize the larger population from which her data were drawn and about which she seeks to offer information and insight.

The finding that two variables in a hypothesized relationship are related to a statistically significant degree is not evidence that the relationship is causal, only that the independent variable is related to the dependent variable. The finding is consistent with the causal story that the hypothesis represents, and to that extent, it offers support for this story. Nevertheless, there are many reasons why an observed statistically significant relationship might be spurious. The correlation might, for example, reflect the influence of one or more other and uncontrolled variables. This will be discussed more fully in the next chapter. The point here is simply that bivariate statistics do not, by themselves, address the question of whether a statistically significant relationship between two variables is or is not a causal relationship.

Only an Introductory Overview

As has been emphasized throughout, this chapter seeks only to offer an introductory overview of the bivariate statistical tests that may be employed when an investigator seeks to assess the relationship between two variables. Additional information will be presented in Chap. 4 . The focus in Chap. 4 will be on multivariate analysis, on analyses involving three or more variables. In this case again, however, the chapter will provide only an introductory overview. The overviews in the present chapter and the next provide a foundation for understanding social statistics, for understanding what statistical analyses involve and what they seek to accomplish. This is important and valuable in and of itself. Nevertheless, researchers and would-be researchers who intend to incorporate statistical analyses into their investigations, perhaps to test hypotheses and decide whether to risk a Type I error or a Type II error, will need to build on this foundation and become familiar with the contents of texts on social statistics. If this guide offers a bird’s eye view, researchers who implement these techniques will also need to expose themselves to the view of the worm at least once.

Chapter 2 makes clear that the concept of variance is central and foundational for much and probably most data-based and quantitative social science research. Bivariate relationships, which are the focus of the present chapter, are building blocks that rest on this foundation. The goal of this kind of research is very often the discovery of causal relationships, relationships that explain rather than merely describe or predict. Such relationships are also frequently described as accounting for variance. This is the focus of Chap. 4 , and it means that there will be, first, a dependent variable, a variable that expresses and captures the variance to be explained, and then, second, an independent variable, and possibly more than one independent variable, that impacts the dependent variable and causes it to vary.

Bivariate relationships are at the center of this enterprise, establishing the empirical pathway leading from the variance discussed in Chap. 2 to the causality discussed in Chap. 4 . Finding that there is a significant relationship between two variables, a statistically significant relationship, is not sufficient to establish causality, to conclude with confidence that one of the variables impacts the other and causes it to vary. But such a finding is necessary.

The goal of social science inquiry that investigates the relationship between two variables is not always explanation. It might be simply to describe and map the way two variables interact with one another. And there is no reason to question the value of such research. But the goal of data-based social science research is very often explanation; and while the inter-relationships between more than two variables will almost always be needed to establish that a relationship is very likely to be causal, these inter-relationships can only be examined by empirics that begin with consideration of a bivariate relationship, a relationship with one variable that is a presumed cause and one variable that is a presumed effect.

Against this background, with the importance of two-variable relationships in mind, the present chapter offers a comprehensive overview of bivariate relationships, including but not only those that are hypothesized to be causally related. The chapter considers the origin and nature of hypotheses that posit a particular relationship between two variables, a causal relationship if the larger goal of the research is explanation and the delineation of a causal story to which the hypothesis calls attention. This chapter then considers how a bivariate relationship might be described and visually represented, and thereafter it discusses how to think about and determine whether the two variables actually are related.

Presenting tables and graphs to show how two variables are related and using bivariate statistics to assess the likelihood that an observed relationship differs significantly from the null hypothesis, the hypothesis of no relationship, will be sufficient if the goal of the research is to learn as much as possible about whether and how two variables are related. And there is plenty of excellent research that has this kind of description as its primary objective, that makes use for purposes of description of the concepts and procedures introduced in this chapter. But there is also plenty of research that seeks to explain, to account for variance, and for this research, use of these concepts and procedures is necessary but not sufficient. For this research, consideration of a two-variable relationship, the focus of the present chapter, is a necessary intermediate step on a pathway that leads from the observation of variance to explaining how and why that variance looks and behaves as it does.

Dana El Kurd. 2019. “Who Protests in Palestine? Mobilization Across Class Under the Palestinian Authority.” In Alaa Tartir and Timothy Seidel, eds. Palestine and Rule of Power: Local Dissent vs. International Governance . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Yael Zeira. 2019. The Revolution Within: State Institutions and Unarmed Resistance in Palestine . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Carolina de Miguel, Amaney A. Jamal, and Mark Tessler. 2015. “Elections in the Arab World: Why do citizens turn out?” Comparative Political Studies 48, (11): 1355–1388.

Question 1: Independent variable is religiosity; dependent variable is preference for democracy. Example of hypothesis for Question 1: H1. More religious individuals are more likely than less religious individuals to prefer democracy to other political systems. Question 2: Independent variable is preference for democracy; dependent variable is turning out to vote. Example of hypothesis for Question 2: H2. Individuals who prefer democracy to other political systems are more likely than individuals who do not prefer democracy to other political systems to turn out to vote.

Mike Yi. “A complete Guide to Scatter Plots,” posted October 16, 2019 and seen at https://chartio.com/learn/charts/what-is-a-scatter-plot/

The countries are Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Sudan, Tunisia, and Yemen. The Wave V surveys were conducted in 2018–2019.

Not considered in this illustration are the substantial cross-country differences in voter turnout. For example, 63.6 of the Lebanese respondents reported voting, whereas in Algeria the proportion who reported voting was only 20.3 percent. In addition to testing hypotheses about voting in which the individual is the unit of analysis, country could also be the unit of analysis, and hypotheses seeking to account for country-level variance in voting could be formulated and tested.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Political Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Mark Tessler

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Tessler, M. (2023). Bivariate Analysis: Associations, Hypotheses, and Causal Stories. In: Social Science Research in the Arab World and Beyond. SpringerBriefs in Sociology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13838-6_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13838-6_3

Published : 04 October 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-13837-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-13838-6

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Hypothesis Testing | A Step-by-Step Guide with Easy Examples

Published on November 8, 2019 by Rebecca Bevans . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics . It is most often used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses, that arise from theories.

There are 5 main steps in hypothesis testing:

• State your research hypothesis as a null hypothesis and alternate hypothesis (H o ) and (H a  or H 1 ).
• Collect data in a way designed to test the hypothesis.
• Perform an appropriate statistical test .
• Decide whether to reject or fail to reject your null hypothesis.
• Present the findings in your results and discussion section.

Though the specific details might vary, the procedure you will use when testing a hypothesis will always follow some version of these steps.

Table of contents

Step 1: state your null and alternate hypothesis, step 2: collect data, step 3: perform a statistical test, step 4: decide whether to reject or fail to reject your null hypothesis, step 5: present your findings, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about hypothesis testing.

After developing your initial research hypothesis (the prediction that you want to investigate), it is important to restate it as a null (H o ) and alternate (H a ) hypothesis so that you can test it mathematically.

The alternate hypothesis is usually your initial hypothesis that predicts a relationship between variables. The null hypothesis is a prediction of no relationship between the variables you are interested in.

• H 0 : Men are, on average, not taller than women. H a : Men are, on average, taller than women.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

For a statistical test to be valid , it is important to perform sampling and collect data in a way that is designed to test your hypothesis. If your data are not representative, then you cannot make statistical inferences about the population you are interested in.

There are a variety of statistical tests available, but they are all based on the comparison of within-group variance (how spread out the data is within a category) versus between-group variance (how different the categories are from one another).

If the between-group variance is large enough that there is little or no overlap between groups, then your statistical test will reflect that by showing a low p -value . This means it is unlikely that the differences between these groups came about by chance.

Alternatively, if there is high within-group variance and low between-group variance, then your statistical test will reflect that with a high p -value. This means it is likely that any difference you measure between groups is due to chance.

Your choice of statistical test will be based on the type of variables and the level of measurement of your collected data .

• an estimate of the difference in average height between the two groups.
• a p -value showing how likely you are to see this difference if the null hypothesis of no difference is true.

Based on the outcome of your statistical test, you will have to decide whether to reject or fail to reject your null hypothesis.

In most cases you will use the p -value generated by your statistical test to guide your decision. And in most cases, your predetermined level of significance for rejecting the null hypothesis will be 0.05 – that is, when there is a less than 5% chance that you would see these results if the null hypothesis were true.

In some cases, researchers choose a more conservative level of significance, such as 0.01 (1%). This minimizes the risk of incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis ( Type I error ).

The results of hypothesis testing will be presented in the results and discussion sections of your research paper , dissertation or thesis .

In the results section you should give a brief summary of the data and a summary of the results of your statistical test (for example, the estimated difference between group means and associated p -value). In the discussion , you can discuss whether your initial hypothesis was supported by your results or not.

In the formal language of hypothesis testing, we talk about rejecting or failing to reject the null hypothesis. You will probably be asked to do this in your statistics assignments.

However, when presenting research results in academic papers we rarely talk this way. Instead, we go back to our alternate hypothesis (in this case, the hypothesis that men are on average taller than women) and state whether the result of our test did or did not support the alternate hypothesis.

If your null hypothesis was rejected, this result is interpreted as “supported the alternate hypothesis.”

These are superficial differences; you can see that they mean the same thing.

You might notice that we don’t say that we reject or fail to reject the alternate hypothesis . This is because hypothesis testing is not designed to prove or disprove anything. It is only designed to test whether a pattern we measure could have arisen spuriously, or by chance.

If we reject the null hypothesis based on our research (i.e., we find that it is unlikely that the pattern arose by chance), then we can say our test lends support to our hypothesis . But if the pattern does not pass our decision rule, meaning that it could have arisen by chance, then we say the test is inconsistent with our hypothesis .

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

• Normal distribution
• Descriptive statistics
• Measures of central tendency
• Correlation coefficient

Methodology

• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Types of interviews
• Cohort study
• Thematic analysis

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Survivorship bias
• Availability heuristic
• Nonresponse bias
• Regression to the mean

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 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).

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Bevans, R. (2023, June 22). Hypothesis Testing | A Step-by-Step Guide with Easy Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 15, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/hypothesis-testing/

Is this article helpful?

Rebecca Bevans

Other students also liked, choosing the right statistical test | types & examples, understanding p values | definition and examples, what is your plagiarism score.