hypothesis of this research

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

The Craft of Writing a Strong Hypothesis

Table of Contents

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

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

What is a Hypothesis?

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

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

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

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

Different Types of Hypotheses‌

Types of hypotheses

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

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

1. Null hypothesis

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

2. Alternative hypothesis

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

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

3. Simple hypothesis

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

4. Complex hypothesis

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

5. Associative and casual hypothesis

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

6. Empirical hypothesis

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

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

7. Statistical hypothesis

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

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

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

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

Separating a Hypothesis from a Prediction

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, How to Write a Hypothesis

Quick tips on writing a hypothesis

1.  Be clear about your research question

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

2. Carry out a recce

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

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

3. Create a 3-dimensional hypothesis

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

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

4. Write the first draft

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

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

5. Proof your hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. what is the definition of hypothesis.

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

2. What is an example of hypothesis?

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

3. What is an example of null hypothesis?

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

4. What are the types of research?

• Fundamental research

• Applied research

• Qualitative research

• Quantitative research

• Mixed research

• Exploratory research

• Longitudinal research

• Cross-sectional research

• Field research

• Laboratory research

• Fixed research

• Flexible research

• Action research

• Policy research

• Classification research

• Comparative research

• Causal research

• Inductive research

• Deductive research

5. How to write a hypothesis?

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

• Avoid wordiness by keeping it simple and brief.

• Your hypothesis should contain observable and testable outcomes.

• Your hypothesis should be relevant to the research question.

6. What are the 2 types of hypothesis?

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

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

7. Difference between research question and research hypothesis?

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

8. What is plural for hypothesis?

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

9. What is the red queen hypothesis?

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

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

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

11. When to reject null hypothesis?

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

You might also like

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

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

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

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

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

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

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

Research Hypothesis 101

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

What is a hypothesis?

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

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

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

Hypothesis: sleep impacts academic performance.

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

But that’s not good enough…

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

What is a research hypothesis?

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

Let’s take a look at these more closely.

Need a helping hand?

Hypothesis Essential #1: Specificity & Clarity

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

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

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

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

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

Hypothesis Essential #2: Testability (Provability)

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

For example, consider the hypothesis we mentioned earlier:

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

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

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

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

Defining A Research Hypothesis

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

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

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

What about the null hypothesis?

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

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

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

And there you have it – hypotheses in a nutshell. 

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

Psst... there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

16 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

could you please elaborate it more

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

This is very helpful

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

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

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

this is very important note help me much more

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

• Privacy Policy

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

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Definition:

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

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

Types of Hypothesis

Types of Hypothesis are as follows:

Research Hypothesis

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

Null Hypothesis

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

Alternative Hypothesis

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

Directional Hypothesis

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

Non-directional Hypothesis

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

Statistical Hypothesis

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

Composite Hypothesis

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

Empirical Hypothesis

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

Simple Hypothesis

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

Complex Hypothesis

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

Applications of Hypothesis

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

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

How to write a Hypothesis

Here are the steps to follow when writing a hypothesis:

Identify the Research Question

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

Conduct a Literature Review

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

Determine the Variables

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

Formulate the Hypothesis

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

Write the Null Hypothesis

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

Refine the Hypothesis

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

Examples of Hypothesis

Here are a few examples of hypotheses in different fields:

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

Purpose of Hypothesis

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

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

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

When to use Hypothesis

Here are some common situations in which hypotheses are used:

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

Characteristics of Hypothesis

Here are some common characteristics of a hypothesis:

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

Advantages of Hypothesis

Hypotheses have several advantages in scientific research and experimentation:

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

Limitations of Hypothesis

Some Limitations of the Hypothesis are as follows:

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

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Topics – Ideas and Examples

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Significance of the Study – Examples and Writing...

Purpose of Research – Objectives and Applications

Implications in Research – Types, Examples and...

Dissertation – Format, Example and Template

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What is a Research Hypothesis: How to Write it, Types, and Examples

Any research begins with a research question and a research hypothesis . A research question alone may not suffice to design the experiment(s) needed to answer it. A hypothesis is central to the scientific method. But what is a hypothesis ? A hypothesis is a testable statement that proposes a possible explanation to a phenomenon, and it may include a prediction. Next, you may ask what is a research hypothesis ? Simply put, a research hypothesis is a prediction or educated guess about the relationship between the variables that you want to investigate.  

It is important to be thorough when developing your research hypothesis. Shortcomings in the framing of a hypothesis can affect the study design and the results. A better understanding of the research hypothesis definition and characteristics of a good hypothesis will make it easier for you to develop your own hypothesis for your research. Let’s dive in to know more about the types of research hypothesis , how to write a research hypothesis , and some research hypothesis examples .  

Table of Contents

What is a hypothesis ?  

A hypothesis is based on the existing body of knowledge in a study area. Framed before the data are collected, a hypothesis states the tentative relationship between independent and dependent variables, along with a prediction of the outcome.  

What is a research hypothesis ?  

Young researchers starting out their journey are usually brimming with questions like “ What is a hypothesis ?” “ What is a research hypothesis ?” “How can I write a good research hypothesis ?”   

A research hypothesis is a statement that proposes a possible explanation for an observable phenomenon or pattern. It guides the direction of a study and predicts the outcome of the investigation. A research hypothesis is testable, i.e., it can be supported or disproven through experimentation or observation.     

Characteristics of a good hypothesis  

Here are the characteristics of a good hypothesis :  

• Clearly formulated and free of language errors and ambiguity  
• Concise and not unnecessarily verbose  
• Has clearly defined variables  
• Testable and stated in a way that allows for it to be disproven  
• Can be tested using a research design that is feasible, ethical, and practical   
• Specific and relevant to the research problem  
• Rooted in a thorough literature search  
• Can generate new knowledge or understanding.  

How to create an effective research hypothesis  

A study begins with the formulation of a research question. A researcher then performs background research. This background information forms the basis for building a good research hypothesis . The researcher then performs experiments, collects, and analyzes the data, interprets the findings, and ultimately, determines if the findings support or negate the original hypothesis.  

Let’s look at each step for creating an effective, testable, and good research hypothesis :  

• Identify a research problem or question: Start by identifying a specific research problem.   
• Review the literature: Conduct an in-depth review of the existing literature related to the research problem to grasp the current knowledge and gaps in the field.   
• Formulate a clear and testable hypothesis : Based on the research question, use existing knowledge to form a clear and testable hypothesis . The hypothesis should state a predicted relationship between two or more variables that can be measured and manipulated. Improve the original draft till it is clear and meaningful.  
• State the null hypothesis: The null hypothesis is a statement that there is no relationship between the variables you are studying.   
• Define the population and sample: Clearly define the population you are studying and the sample you will be using for your research.  
• Select appropriate methods for testing the hypothesis: Select appropriate research methods, such as experiments, surveys, or observational studies, which will allow you to test your research hypothesis .  

Remember that creating a research hypothesis is an iterative process, i.e., you might have to revise it based on the data you collect. You may need to test and reject several hypotheses before answering the research problem.  

How to write a research hypothesis  

When you start writing a research hypothesis , you use an “if–then” statement format, which states the predicted relationship between two or more variables. Clearly identify the independent variables (the variables being changed) and the dependent variables (the variables being measured), as well as the population you are studying. Review and revise your hypothesis as needed.  

An example of a research hypothesis in this format is as follows:  

“ If [athletes] follow [cold water showers daily], then their [endurance] increases.”  

Population: athletes  

Independent variable: daily cold water showers  

Dependent variable: endurance  

You may have understood the characteristics of a good hypothesis . But note that a research hypothesis is not always confirmed; a researcher should be prepared to accept or reject the hypothesis based on the study findings.  

Research hypothesis checklist  

Following from above, here is a 10-point checklist for a good research hypothesis :  

• Testable: A research hypothesis should be able to be tested via experimentation or observation.  
• Specific: A research hypothesis should clearly state the relationship between the variables being studied.  
• Based on prior research: A research hypothesis should be based on existing knowledge and previous research in the field.  
• Falsifiable: A research hypothesis should be able to be disproven through testing.  
• Clear and concise: A research hypothesis should be stated in a clear and concise manner.  
• Logical: A research hypothesis should be logical and consistent with current understanding of the subject.  
• Relevant: A research hypothesis should be relevant to the research question and objectives.  
• Feasible: A research hypothesis should be feasible to test within the scope of the study.  
• Reflects the population: A research hypothesis should consider the population or sample being studied.  
• Uncomplicated: A good research hypothesis is written in a way that is easy for the target audience to understand.  

By following this research hypothesis checklist , you will be able to create a research hypothesis that is strong, well-constructed, and more likely to yield meaningful results.  

Types of research hypothesis  

Different types of research hypothesis are used in scientific research:  

1. Null hypothesis:

A null hypothesis states that there is no change in the dependent variable due to changes to the independent variable. This means that the results are due to chance and are not significant. A null hypothesis is denoted as H0 and is stated as the opposite of what the alternative hypothesis states.   

Example: “ The newly identified virus is not zoonotic .”  

2. Alternative hypothesis:

This states that there is a significant difference or relationship between the variables being studied. It is denoted as H1 or Ha and is usually accepted or rejected in favor of the null hypothesis.  

Example: “ The newly identified virus is zoonotic .”  

3. Directional hypothesis :

This specifies the direction of the relationship or difference between variables; therefore, it tends to use terms like increase, decrease, positive, negative, more, or less.   

Example: “ The inclusion of intervention X decreases infant mortality compared to the original treatment .”   

4. Non-directional hypothesis:

While it does not predict the exact direction or nature of the relationship between the two variables, a non-directional hypothesis states the existence of a relationship or difference between variables but not the direction, nature, or magnitude of the relationship. A non-directional hypothesis may be used when there is no underlying theory or when findings contradict previous research.  

Example, “ Cats and dogs differ in the amount of affection they express .”  

5. Simple hypothesis :

A simple hypothesis only predicts the relationship between one independent and another independent variable.  

Example: “ Applying sunscreen every day slows skin aging .”  

6 . Complex hypothesis :

A complex hypothesis states the relationship or difference between two or more independent and dependent variables.   

Example: “ Applying sunscreen every day slows skin aging, reduces sun burn, and reduces the chances of skin cancer .” (Here, the three dependent variables are slowing skin aging, reducing sun burn, and reducing the chances of skin cancer.)  

7. Associative hypothesis:  

An associative hypothesis states that a change in one variable results in the change of the other variable. The associative hypothesis defines interdependency between variables.  

Example: “ There is a positive association between physical activity levels and overall health .”  

8 . Causal hypothesis:

A causal hypothesis proposes a cause-and-effect interaction between variables.  

Example: “ Long-term alcohol use causes liver damage .”  

Note that some of the types of research hypothesis mentioned above might overlap. The types of hypothesis chosen will depend on the research question and the objective of the study.  

Research hypothesis examples  

Here are some good research hypothesis examples :  

“The use of a specific type of therapy will lead to a reduction in symptoms of depression in individuals with a history of major depressive disorder.”  

“Providing educational interventions on healthy eating habits will result in weight loss in overweight individuals.”  

“Plants that are exposed to certain types of music will grow taller than those that are not exposed to music.”  

“The use of the plant growth regulator X will lead to an increase in the number of flowers produced by plants.”  

Characteristics that make a research hypothesis weak are unclear variables, unoriginality, being too general or too vague, and being untestable. A weak hypothesis leads to weak research and improper methods.   

Some bad research hypothesis examples (and the reasons why they are “bad”) are as follows:  

“This study will show that treatment X is better than any other treatment . ” (This statement is not testable, too broad, and does not consider other treatments that may be effective.)  

“This study will prove that this type of therapy is effective for all mental disorders . ” (This statement is too broad and not testable as mental disorders are complex and different disorders may respond differently to different types of therapy.)  

“Plants can communicate with each other through telepathy . ” (This statement is not testable and lacks a scientific basis.)  

Importance of testable hypothesis  

If a research hypothesis is not testable, the results will not prove or disprove anything meaningful. The conclusions will be vague at best. A testable hypothesis helps a researcher focus on the study outcome and understand the implication of the question and the different variables involved. A testable hypothesis helps a researcher make precise predictions based on prior research.  

To be considered testable, there must be a way to prove that the hypothesis is true or false; further, the results of the hypothesis must be reproducible.  

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on research hypothesis  

1. What is the difference between research question and research hypothesis ?  

A research question defines the problem and helps outline the study objective(s). It is an open-ended statement that is exploratory or probing in nature. Therefore, it does not make predictions or assumptions. It helps a researcher identify what information to collect. A research hypothesis , however, is a specific, testable prediction about the relationship between variables. Accordingly, it guides the study design and data analysis approach.

2. When to reject null hypothesis ?

A null hypothesis should be rejected when the evidence from a statistical test shows that it is unlikely to be true. This happens when the test statistic (e.g., p -value) is less than the defined significance level (e.g., 0.05). Rejecting the null hypothesis does not necessarily mean that the alternative hypothesis is true; it simply means that the evidence found is not compatible with the null hypothesis.  

3. How can I be sure my hypothesis is testable?  

A testable hypothesis should be specific and measurable, and it should state a clear relationship between variables that can be tested with data. To ensure that your hypothesis is testable, consider the following:  

• Clearly define the key variables in your hypothesis. You should be able to measure and manipulate these variables in a way that allows you to test the hypothesis.  
• The hypothesis should predict a specific outcome or relationship between variables that can be measured or quantified.   
• You should be able to collect the necessary data within the constraints of your study.  
• It should be possible for other researchers to replicate your study, using the same methods and variables.   
• Your hypothesis should be testable by using appropriate statistical analysis techniques, so you can draw conclusions, and make inferences about the population from the sample data.  
• The hypothesis should be able to be disproven or rejected through the collection of data.  

4. How do I revise my research hypothesis if my data does not support it?  

If your data does not support your research hypothesis , you will need to revise it or develop a new one. You should examine your data carefully and identify any patterns or anomalies, re-examine your research question, and/or revisit your theory to look for any alternative explanations for your results. Based on your review of the data, literature, and theories, modify your research hypothesis to better align it with the results you obtained. Use your revised hypothesis to guide your research design and data collection. It is important to remain objective throughout the process.  

5. I am performing exploratory research. Do I need to formulate a research hypothesis?  

As opposed to “confirmatory” research, where a researcher has some idea about the relationship between the variables under investigation, exploratory research (or hypothesis-generating research) looks into a completely new topic about which limited information is available. Therefore, the researcher will not have any prior hypotheses. In such cases, a researcher will need to develop a post-hoc hypothesis. A post-hoc research hypothesis is generated after these results are known.  

6. How is a research hypothesis different from a research question?

A research question is an inquiry about a specific topic or phenomenon, typically expressed as a question. It seeks to explore and understand a particular aspect of the research subject. In contrast, a research hypothesis is a specific statement or prediction that suggests an expected relationship between variables. It is formulated based on existing knowledge or theories and guides the research design and data analysis.

7. Can a research hypothesis change during the research process?

Yes, research hypotheses can change during the research process. As researchers collect and analyze data, new insights and information may emerge that require modification or refinement of the initial hypotheses. This can be due to unexpected findings, limitations in the original hypotheses, or the need to explore additional dimensions of the research topic. Flexibility is crucial in research, allowing for adaptation and adjustment of hypotheses to align with the evolving understanding of the subject matter.

8. How many hypotheses should be included in a research study?

The number of research hypotheses in a research study varies depending on the nature and scope of the research. It is not necessary to have multiple hypotheses in every study. Some studies may have only one primary hypothesis, while others may have several related hypotheses. The number of hypotheses should be determined based on the research objectives, research questions, and the complexity of the research topic. It is important to ensure that the hypotheses are focused, testable, and directly related to the research aims.

9. Can research hypotheses be used in qualitative research?

Yes, research hypotheses can be used in qualitative research, although they are more commonly associated with quantitative research. In qualitative research, hypotheses may be formulated as tentative or exploratory statements that guide the investigation. Instead of testing hypotheses through statistical analysis, qualitative researchers may use the hypotheses to guide data collection and analysis, seeking to uncover patterns, themes, or relationships within the qualitative data. The emphasis in qualitative research is often on generating insights and understanding rather than confirming or rejecting specific research hypotheses through statistical testing.

Researcher.Life is a subscription-based platform that unifies the best AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline every step of a researcher’s journey. The Researcher.Life All Access Pack is a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI writing assistant, literature recommender, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional publication services from Editage.  

Based on 21+ years of experience in academia, Researcher.Life All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place –  Get All Access now starting at just $17 a month !    

Related Posts

Thesis Defense: How to Ace this Crucial Step

What is Independent Publishing in Academia?

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write a Great Hypothesis

Hypothesis Definition, Format, Examples, and Tips

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

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

Verywell / Alex Dos Diaz

• The Scientific Method

Hypothesis Format

Falsifiability of a hypothesis.

• Operationalization

Hypothesis Types

Hypotheses examples.

• Collecting Data

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

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

At a Glance

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

The Hypothesis in the Scientific Method

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elements of a Good Hypothesis

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

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

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

How to Formulate a Good Hypothesis

To form a hypothesis, you should take these steps:

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

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

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

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

The Importance of Operational Definitions

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

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

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

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

Replicability

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

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

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

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

Hypothesis Checklist

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

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

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

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

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

A few examples of simple hypotheses:

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

Examples of a complex hypothesis include:

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

Examples of a null hypothesis include:

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

Examples of an alternative hypothesis:

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

Collecting Data on Your Hypothesis

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

Descriptive Research Methods

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

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

Experimental Research Methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples

Published on 6 May 2022 by Shona McCombes .

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

Table of contents

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

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

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

Variables in hypotheses

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Step 1: ask a question.

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

Step 2: Do some preliminary research

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

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

Step 3: Formulate your hypothesis

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

Step 4: Refine your hypothesis

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

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

Step 5: Phrase your hypothesis in three ways

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

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

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

Step 6. Write a null hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, May 06). How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 24 June 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/hypothesis-writing/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

Research Hypothesis In Psychology: Types, & Examples

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

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

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

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

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

On This Page:

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

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

Some key points about hypotheses:

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

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

Types of Research Hypotheses

Alternative hypothesis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Null Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

Nondirectional Hypothesis

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

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

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

Directional Hypothesis

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

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

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

Falsifiability

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

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

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

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

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

Can a Hypothesis be Proven?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to Write a Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

More Examples

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

Related Articles

Research Methodology

Conversation Analysis

Discourse Analysis

Phenomenology In Qualitative Research

Ethnography In Qualitative Research

Narrative Analysis In Qualitative Research

Thematic Analysis: A Step by Step Guide

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

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

Home Market Research

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

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

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

What is a Research Hypothesis?

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

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

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

Importance of Hypothesis in Research

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

• A research hypothesis helps test theories.

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

• It serves as a great platform for investigation activities.

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

• Hypothesis guides the research work or study.

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

• Hypothesis sometimes suggests theories.

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

• It helps in knowing the data needs.

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

• The hypothesis explains social phenomena.

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

• Hypothesis provides a relationship between phenomena for empirical Testing.

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

• It helps in knowing the most suitable analysis technique.

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

Characteristics of a Good Research Hypothesis

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

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

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

Types of Research Hypotheses

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

01. Null Hypothesis

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

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

02. Alternative Hypothesis

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

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

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

03. Directional Hypothesis

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

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

04. Non-directional Hypothesis

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

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

05. Simple Hypothesis

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

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

06. Complex Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

07. Associative Hypothesis

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

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

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

08. Causal Hypothesis

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

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

09. Empirical Hypothesis

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

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

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

10. Statistical Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

How to Develop a Research Hypotheses?

Step 1: identify your research problem or topic..

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

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

Step 2: Conduct a literature review

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

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

Step 3: Formulate your research question

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

Step 4: Identify variables

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

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

Step 5: State the Null hypothesis

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

Step 6: Select appropriate methods for testing the hypothesis

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

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

Testing and Evaluating Hypotheses

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

• State your research hypothesis.

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

• Collect data strategically.

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

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

• Perform an appropriate statistical test.

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

• Decide if your idea was right or wrong.

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

• Share what you found.

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

The Role of QuestionPro to Develop a Good Research Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

LEARN MORE         FREE TRIAL

MORE LIKE THIS

Feedback Loop: What It Is, Types & How It Works?

Jun 21, 2024

QuestionPro Thrive: A Space to Visualize & Share the Future of Technology

Jun 18, 2024

Relationship NPS Fails to Understand Customer Experiences — Tuesday CX

CX Platform: Top 13 CX Platforms to Drive Customer Success

Jun 17, 2024

Other categories

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

Verify originality of an essay

Get ideas for your paper

Find top study documents

How to Write a Hypothesis for a Research Paper: Best Hacks and Examples

Updated 11 Mar 2024

The narrative of a research study commences with the formulation of a question. Inquisitive researchers worldwide are constantly posing questions and crafting research hypotheses. The effectiveness of a paper’s conclusion hinges on the quality of every research element. From this guide, you’ll learn how to write a hypothesis for a research paper and find examples that can assist you in grasping the process of crafting a strong text. We aim to clarify the definition and characteristics of a research hypothesis and guide researchers in formulating one effectively.

What is a research hypothesis?

It is a tentative answer to a research question that has not been tested yet. It should be based on established theories and knowledge and be testable through scientific methods like experiments and data analysis. 

To understand a hypothesis definition and its purpose, one must analyze a scientist's steps when doing research. To address a particular issue, the initial step involves identifying the research question, conducting a preliminary study, and then proceeding to answer the question by conducting experiments and analyzing the observed outcomes. Still, before embarking on the experimental phase, it’s essential to determine the expected results. At this stage, researchers make an informed estimation and formulate a supposition that they aim to confirm or disprove throughout their study.

The essential characteristics of a hypothesis 

Now that you have a brief understanding of what a hypothesis in a research paper  is, let’s examine its key defining characteristics that contribute to its effectiveness:

• Clear and specific: A good hypothesis is clear, concise, and specific in its formulation. It precisely states the relationship or expected outcome being investigated.
• Testable: It is testable, meaning it can be empirically examined through observations, experiments, or data analysis. Gathering evidence to support or refute the researcher’s guess should be possible.
• Grounded in existing knowledge: A good hypothesis in a research paper is based on existing theories, concepts, or empirical evidence. It demonstrates a solid understanding of the relevant literature and builds upon prior knowledge in the field.
• Falsifiable: It can be potentially proven false. This characteristic allows obtaining data that contradicts the primary assumption, enabling meaningful scientific inquiry.
• Logical and plausible: A supposition in research is logically reasoned and plausible. It should align with known facts and be supported by sound reasoning and evidence.
• Relevant and significant: It addresses a meaningful research question and has implications for the field. It should contribute to the existing knowledge base and have practical or theoretical significance.
• Limited in scope: It is focused and limited in scope. It should address a specific aspect or relationship rather than attempting to explain or predict everything in a broad context.

By embodying these characteristics, a good hypothesis provides a solid foundation for research, guiding the study’s design, data collection, and analysis, ultimately contributing to the generation of valuable scientific knowledge.

What are the sources for building a hypothesis? 

There are several potential sources for developing a good research paper hypothesis. Let’s consider their details and examples:

• Scientific theories

Hypotheses can stem from existing scientific theories. Suppose we have an established theory in psychology that suggests a positive correlation between sleep quality and cognitive performance. Based on this theory, we can create a statement: 

“If individuals experience better sleep quality, then their cognitive performance will improve compared to those with poorer sleep quality.”

• Previous studies and experiences

Observations from past studies and current experiences can contribute to formulating suppositions. Let’s say previous studies have shown that a particular herb has anti-inflammatory properties. Building upon this finding, we can formulate the following: 

“If individuals consume the herb extract, then their inflammation levels will decrease compared to a control group.”

• Similarities among phenomena

Resemblances between different phenomena can inspire hypotheses. Consider a study investigating the effects of exercise on mood. Drawing an analogy from previous research showing that outdoor nature exposure improves mood, a scientist can formulate a guess: 

“If individuals engage in outdoor exercise, then their mood will improve compared to those engaging in indoor exercise.”

• Empirical observations

Direct observations of phenomena or patterns in the real world can spark the development of ideas. Suppose a researcher observes that learners who study in a quiet environment tend to perform better on exams. This observation can lead to the next statement: 

“If learners study in a quiet environment, then their exam scores will be higher compared to those who study in a noisy environment.”

Transform AI drafts with human editing!

Bring a human touch to your AI-generated drafts. Our expert editors refine your content for just $7/page.

Types of research hypotheses 

They can be classified into one or more of the seven primary categories, depending on the nature of your investigation, a chosen research methodology , and anticipated findings. These categories are not mutually exclusive, meaning a single supposition can belong to multiple types.

• A simple hypothesis is based on the relationship between two variables: one independent and one dependent. Let’s see a hypothesis example:

“Increased study time leads to improved test scores.”

• A complex approach involves the relationship between numerous variables (more than two), e.g., two dependent variables and one independent, or vice versa.

“Both exercise frequency and diet quality have a combined effect on weight loss.”

• A null hypothesis suggests no relationship between variables.

“There is no significant difference in anxiety levels between Group A and Group B.”

• An alternative hypothesis is used alongside a null one, stating the opposite and asserting that only one of the two ideas can be true.

“The new drug treatment reduces symptoms of depression more effectively than the current standard treatment.”

• A logical approach relies on a relationship between variables based on reasoning or deduction, lacking actual data or evidence.

“If students receive regular feedback on their assignments, their academic performance will improve.”

• An empirical (“working”) hypothesis is currently being tested and relies on concrete data.

“Increasing the temperature will accelerate the rate of the chemical reaction.”

• A statistical approach involves testing a population sample and using statistical evidence to conclude about the whole population. This method tests only a portion of the population and generalizes based on existing data.

“Based on the sample data, there is a significant correlation between sleep duration and memory retention in the population.”

How to write a hypothesis for a research paper step-by-step

• Search for answers to your questions.  Start by questioning the world around you, exploring why things are the way they are and what causes the phenomena you observe. Follow your curiosity and choose a research topic that genuinely interests you.
• Do preliminary research.  Gather background information for your outline, depending on the scope of your research. This may involve reading books or performing quick web searches. Focus on gathering the necessary information to prove or disprove your idea.
• Determine variables.  Define the independent and dependent variables for your research. Consider the factors you have control over and ensure they align with your experiment’s limitations.
• Formulate an if-then statement.  Create your guess using an if-then format, illustrating the cause-and-effect relationship you intend to test. For example, “If we do morning exercise, then we’ll be healthier.”
• Gather supportive data.  Conduct experiments to gather data that maintains your idea. Remember, even if your research disproves your supposition, it contributes to the scientific process.
• Write confidently.  Finally, document your findings in your work for others to access. Writing a thesis requires distinct skills separate from conducting experiments.

Tips on creating a flawless research paper hypothesis

• Be realistic and feasible: Consider the practicality and limitations of your study. Ensure that your hypothesis is realistic and can be tested within the constraints of your available resources, time, and ethical considerations.
• Avoid value judgments: Be neutral and objective. Avoid including personal beliefs, value judgments, or subjective opinions. Stick to empirical statements based on evidence.
• Be concise: Aim for a concise and focused hypothesis. Avoid unnecessary complexity or unnecessary elaboration. Ensure it is succinctly stated in a single or a few sentences.
• Revise and refine: Continuously revise and refine your content as you gather more information and insights throughout your research process. Be open to modifying or adjusting your hypothesis based on new evidence or unexpected findings.

Some examples to inspire you

By following our guide and tips, you can easily create well-formed hypotheses. To help you get started, we have curated a list of research questions and relevant hypothesis examples.

Research question: Does regular exercise improve cognitive function in older adults?

Hypothesis: If older adults exercise regularly, their cognitive function will improve compared to sedentary ones.

Null hypothesis : No significant difference in cognitive function exists between older adults who exercise regularly and those who lead a sedentary lifestyle.

Research question: Does caffeine consumption affect sleep quality?

Hypothesis: If individuals consume high amounts of caffeine before bedtime, their sleep quality will be negatively impacted compared to those who consume low or no caffeine.

Null hypothesis : There is no significant difference in sleep quality between individuals who consume high amounts of caffeine before bedtime and those who consume low or no caffeine.

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback.

Written by Steven Robinson

Steven Robinson is an academic writing expert with a degree in English literature. His expertise, patient approach, and support empower students to express ideas clearly. On EduBirdie's blog, he provides valuable writing guides on essays, research papers, and other intriguing topics. Enjoys chess in free time.

Related Blog Posts

Learn how to write an introduction for a research paper.

Though introduction to any writing is frequently associated with beginning, it's not that simple for an introduction to a research paper. Here you ...

How to Write a Research Question: Common Types and Winning Examples

The starting point for any investigation is a research question. Still, formulating valid and relevant questions can be challenging for many writer...

How to Structure a Research Paper: Meaningful Step-by-step Guide

Are you struggling to write paper that effectively contributes to your field? You’re at the right place! A properly structured research paper lets ...

Join our 150K of happy users

• Get original papers written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

• How it works

How to Write a Hypothesis – Steps & Tips

Published by Alaxendra Bets at August 14th, 2021 , Revised On October 26, 2023

What is a Research Hypothesis?

You can test a research statement with the help of experimental or theoretical research, known as a hypothesis.

If you want to find out the similarities, differences, and relationships between variables, you must write a testable hypothesis before compiling the data, performing analysis, and generating results to complete.

The data analysis and findings will help you test the hypothesis and see whether it is true or false. Here is all you need to know about how to write a hypothesis for a  dissertation .

Research Hypothesis Definition

Not sure what the meaning of the research hypothesis is?

A research hypothesis predicts an answer to the research question  based on existing theoretical knowledge or experimental data.

Some studies may have multiple hypothesis statements depending on the research question(s).  A research hypothesis must be based on formulas, facts, and theories. It should be testable by data analysis, observations, experiments, or other scientific methodologies that can refute or support the statement.

Variables in Hypothesis

Developing a hypothesis is easy. Most research studies have two or more variables in the hypothesis, particularly studies involving correlational and experimental research. The researcher can control or change the independent variable(s) while measuring and observing the independent variable(s).

“How long a student sleeps affects test scores.”

In the above statement, the dependent variable is the test score, while the independent variable is the length of time spent in sleep. Developing a hypothesis will be easy if you know your research’s dependent and independent variables.

Once you have developed a thesis statement, questions such as how to write a hypothesis for the dissertation and how to test a research hypothesis become pretty straightforward.

Looking for dissertation help?

Researchprospect to the rescue then.

We have expert writers on our team who are skilled at helping students with quantitative dissertations across a variety of STEM disciplines. Guaranteeing 100% satisfaction!

Step-by-Step Guide on How to Write a Hypothesis

Here are the steps involved in how to write a hypothesis for a dissertation.

Step 1: Start with a Research Question

• Begin by asking a specific question about a topic of interest.
• This question should be clear, concise, and researchable.

Example: Does exposure to sunlight affect plant growth?

Step 2: Do Preliminary Research

• Before formulating a hypothesis, conduct background research to understand existing knowledge on the topic.
• Familiarise yourself with prior studies, theories, or observations related to the research question.

Step 3: Define Variables

• Independent Variable (IV): The factor that you change or manipulate in an experiment.
• Dependent Variable (DV): The factor that you measure.

Example: IV: Amount of sunlight exposure (e.g., 2 hours/day, 4 hours/day, 8 hours/day) DV: Plant growth (e.g., height in centimetres)

Step 4: Formulate the Hypothesis

• A hypothesis is a statement that predicts the relationship between variables.
• It is often written as an “if-then” statement.

Example: If plants receive more sunlight, then they will grow taller.

Step 5: Ensure it is Testable

A good hypothesis is empirically testable. This means you should be able to design an experiment or observation to test its validity.

Example: You can set up an experiment where plants are exposed to varying amounts of sunlight and then measure their growth over a period of time.

Step 6: Consider Potential Confounding Variables

• Confounding variables are factors other than the independent variable that might affect the outcome.
• It is important to identify these to ensure that they do not skew your results.

Example: Soil quality, water frequency, or type of plant can all affect growth. Consider keeping these constant in your experiment.

Step 7: Write the Null Hypothesis

• The null hypothesis is a statement that there is no effect or no relationship between the variables.
• It is what you aim to disprove or reject through your research.

Example: There is no difference in plant growth regardless of the amount of sunlight exposure.

Step 8: Test your Hypothesis

Design an experiment or conduct observations to test your hypothesis.

Example: Grow three sets of plants: one set exposed to 2 hours of sunlight daily, another exposed to 4 hours, and a third exposed to 8 hours. Measure and compare their growth after a set period.

Step 9: Analyse the Results

After testing, review your data to determine if it supports your hypothesis.

Step 10: Draw Conclusions

• Based on your findings, determine whether you can accept or reject the hypothesis.
• Remember, even if you reject your hypothesis, it’s a valuable result. It can guide future research and refine questions.

Three Ways to Phrase a Hypothesis

Try to use “if”… and “then”… to identify the variables. The independent variable should be present in the first part of the hypothesis, while the dependent variable will form the second part of the statement. Consider understanding the below research hypothesis example to create a specific, clear, and concise research hypothesis;

If an obese lady starts attending Zomba fitness classes, her health will improve.

In academic research, you can write the predicted variable relationship directly because most research studies correlate terms.

The number of Zomba fitness classes attended by the obese lady has a positive effect on health.

If your research compares two groups, then you can develop a hypothesis statement on their differences.

An obese lady who attended most Zumba fitness classes will have better health than those who attended a few.

How to Write a Null Hypothesis

If a statistical analysis is involved in your research, then you must create a null hypothesis. If you find any relationship between the variables, then the null hypothesis will be the default position that there is no relationship between them. H0 is the symbol for the null hypothesis, while the hypothesis is represented as H1. The null hypothesis will also answer your question, “How to test the research hypothesis in the dissertation.”

H0: The number of Zumba fitness classes attended by the obese lady does not affect her health.

H1: The number of Zumba fitness classes attended by obese lady positively affects health.

Also see:  Your Dissertation in Education

Hypothesis Examples

Research Question: Does the amount of sunlight a plant receives affect its growth? Hypothesis: Plants that receive more sunlight will grow taller than plants that receive less sunlight.

Research Question: Do students who eat breakfast perform better in school exams than those who don’t? Hypothesis: Students who eat a morning breakfast will score higher on school exams compared to students who skip breakfast.

Research Question: Does listening to music while studying impact a student’s ability to retain information? Hypothesis 1 (Directional): Students who listen to music while studying will retain less information than those who study in silence. Hypothesis 2 (Non-directional): There will be a difference in information retention between students who listen to music while studying and those who study in silence.

How can ResearchProspect Help?

If you are unsure about how to rest a research hypothesis in a dissertation or simply unsure about how to develop a hypothesis for your research, then you can take advantage of our dissertation services which cover every tiny aspect of a dissertation project you might need help with including but not limited to setting up a hypothesis and research questions,  help with individual chapters ,  full dissertation writing ,  statistical analysis , and much more.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the 5 rules for writing a good hypothesis.

• Clear Statement: State a clear relationship between variables.
• Testable: Ensure it can be investigated and measured.
• Specific: Avoid vague terms, be precise in predictions.
• Falsifiable: Design to allow potential disproof.
• Relevant: Address research question and align with existing knowledge.

What is a hypothesis in simple words?

A hypothesis is an educated guess or prediction about something that can be tested. It is a statement that suggests a possible explanation for an event or phenomenon based on prior knowledge or observation. Scientists use hypotheses as a starting point for experiments to discover if they are true or false.

What is the hypothesis and examples?

A hypothesis is a testable prediction or explanation for an observation or phenomenon. For example, if plants are given sunlight, then they will grow. In this case, the hypothesis suggests that sunlight has a positive effect on plant growth. It can be tested by experimenting with plants in varying light conditions.

What is the hypothesis in research definition?

A hypothesis in research is a clear, testable statement predicting the possible outcome of a study based on prior knowledge and observation. It serves as the foundation for conducting experiments or investigations. Researchers test the validity of the hypothesis to draw conclusions and advance knowledge in a particular field.

Why is it called a hypothesis?

The term “hypothesis” originates from the Greek word “hypothesis,” which means “base” or “foundation.” It’s used to describe a foundational statement or proposition that can be tested. In scientific contexts, it denotes a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, serving as a starting point for investigation or experimentation.

You May Also Like

How to write a hypothesis for dissertation,? A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested with the help of experimental or theoretical research.

This article is a step-by-step guide to how to write statement of a problem in research. The research problem will be half-solved by defining it correctly.

Here we explore what is research problem in dissertation with research problem examples to help you understand how and when to write a research problem.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

How to Write a Research Hypothesis

• Research Process
• Peer Review

Since grade school, we've all been familiar with hypotheses. The hypothesis is an essential step of the scientific method. But what makes an effective research hypothesis, how do you create one, and what types of hypotheses are there? We answer these questions and more.

Updated on April 27, 2022

What is a research hypothesis?

General hypothesis.

Since grade school, we've all been familiar with the term “hypothesis.” A hypothesis is a fact-based guess or prediction that has not been proven. It is an essential step of the scientific method. The hypothesis of a study is a drive for experimentation to either prove the hypothesis or dispute it.

Research Hypothesis

A research hypothesis is more specific than a general hypothesis. It is an educated, expected prediction of the outcome of a study that is testable.

What makes an effective research hypothesis?

A good research hypothesis is a clear statement of the relationship between a dependent variable(s) and independent variable(s) relevant to the study that can be disproven.

Research hypothesis checklist

Once you've written a possible hypothesis, make sure it checks the following boxes:

• It must be testable: You need a means to prove your hypothesis. If you can't test it, it's not a hypothesis.
• It must include a dependent and independent variable: At least one independent variable ( cause ) and one dependent variable ( effect ) must be included.
• The language must be easy to understand: Be as clear and concise as possible. Nothing should be left to interpretation.
• It must be relevant to your research topic: You probably shouldn't be talking about cats and dogs if your research topic is outer space. Stay relevant to your topic.

How to create an effective research hypothesis

Pose it as a question first.

Start your research hypothesis from a journalistic approach. Ask one of the five W's: Who, what, when, where, or why.

A possible initial question could be: Why is the sky blue?

Do the preliminary research

Once you have a question in mind, read research around your topic. Collect research from academic journals.

If you're looking for information about the sky and why it is blue, research information about the atmosphere, weather, space, the sun, etc.

Write a draft hypothesis

Once you're comfortable with your subject and have preliminary knowledge, create a working hypothesis. Don't stress much over this. Your first hypothesis is not permanent. Look at it as a draft.

Your first draft of a hypothesis could be: Certain molecules in the Earth's atmosphere are responsive to the sky being the color blue.

Make your working draft perfect

Take your working hypothesis and make it perfect. Narrow it down to include only the information listed in the “Research hypothesis checklist” above.

Now that you've written your working hypothesis, narrow it down. Your new hypothesis could be: Light from the sun hitting oxygen molecules in the sky makes the color of the sky appear blue.

Write a null hypothesis

Your null hypothesis should be the opposite of your research hypothesis. It should be able to be disproven by your research.

In this example, your null hypothesis would be: Light from the sun hitting oxygen molecules in the sky does not make the color of the sky appear blue.

Why is it important to have a clear, testable hypothesis?

One of the main reasons a manuscript can be rejected from a journal is because of a weak hypothesis. “Poor hypothesis, study design, methodology, and improper use of statistics are other reasons for rejection of a manuscript,” says Dr. Ish Kumar Dhammi and Dr. Rehan-Ul-Haq in Indian Journal of Orthopaedics.

According to Dr. James M. Provenzale in American Journal of Roentgenology , “The clear declaration of a research question (or hypothesis) in the Introduction is critical for reviewers to understand the intent of the research study. It is best to clearly state the study goal in plain language (for example, “We set out to determine whether condition x produces condition y.”) An insufficient problem statement is one of the more common reasons for manuscript rejection.”

Characteristics that make a hypothesis weak include:

• Unclear variables
• Unoriginality
• Too general
• Too specific

A weak hypothesis leads to weak research and methods . The goal of a paper is to prove or disprove a hypothesis - or to prove or disprove a null hypothesis. If the hypothesis is not a dependent variable of what is being studied, the paper's methods should come into question.

A strong hypothesis is essential to the scientific method. A hypothesis states an assumed relationship between at least two variables and the experiment then proves or disproves that relationship with statistical significance. Without a proven and reproducible relationship, the paper feeds into the reproducibility crisis. Learn more about writing for reproducibility .

In a study published in The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India by Dr. Suvarna Satish Khadilkar, she reviewed 400 rejected manuscripts to see why they were rejected. Her studies revealed that poor methodology was a top reason for the submission having a final disposition of rejection.

Aside from publication chances, Dr. Gareth Dyke believes a clear hypothesis helps efficiency.

“Developing a clear and testable hypothesis for your research project means that you will not waste time, energy, and money with your work,” said Dyke. “Refining a hypothesis that is both meaningful, interesting, attainable, and testable is the goal of all effective research.”

Types of research hypotheses

There can be overlap in these types of hypotheses.

Simple hypothesis

A simple hypothesis is a hypothesis at its most basic form. It shows the relationship of one independent and one independent variable.

Example: Drinking soda (independent variable) every day leads to obesity (dependent variable).

Complex hypothesis

A complex hypothesis shows the relationship of two or more independent and dependent variables.

Example: Drinking soda (independent variable) every day leads to obesity (dependent variable) and heart disease (dependent variable).

Directional hypothesis

A directional hypothesis guesses which way the results of an experiment will go. It uses words like increase, decrease, higher, lower, positive, negative, more, or less. It is also frequently used in statistics.

Example: Humans exposed to radiation have a higher risk of cancer than humans not exposed to radiation.

Non-directional hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis says there will be an effect on the dependent variable, but it does not say which direction.

Associative hypothesis

An associative hypothesis says that when one variable changes, so does the other variable.

Alternative hypothesis

An alternative hypothesis states that the variables have a relationship.

• The opposite of a null hypothesis

Example: An apple a day keeps the doctor away.

Null hypothesis

A null hypothesis states that there is no relationship between the two variables. It is posed as the opposite of what the alternative hypothesis states.

Researchers use a null hypothesis to work to be able to reject it. A null hypothesis:

• Can never be proven
• Can only be rejected
• Is the opposite of an alternative hypothesis

Example: An apple a day does not keep the doctor away.

Logical hypothesis

A logical hypothesis is a suggested explanation while using limited evidence.

Example: Bats can navigate in the dark better than tigers.

In this hypothesis, the researcher knows that tigers cannot see in the dark, and bats mostly live in darkness.

Empirical hypothesis

An empirical hypothesis is also called a “working hypothesis.” It uses the trial and error method and changes around the independent variables.

• An apple a day keeps the doctor away.
• Two apples a day keep the doctor away.
• Three apples a day keep the doctor away.

In this case, the research changes the hypothesis as the researcher learns more about his/her research.

Statistical hypothesis

A statistical hypothesis is a look of a part of a population or statistical model. This type of hypothesis is especially useful if you are making a statement about a large population. Instead of having to test the entire population of Illinois, you could just use a smaller sample of people who live there.

Example: 70% of people who live in Illinois are iron deficient.

Causal hypothesis

A causal hypothesis states that the independent variable will have an effect on the dependent variable.

Example: Using tobacco products causes cancer.

Final thoughts

Make sure your research is error-free before you send it to your preferred journal . Check our our English Editing services to avoid your chances of desk rejection.

Jonny Rhein, BA

See our "Privacy Policy"

How to write a research hypothesis

Last updated

19 January 2023

Reviewed by

Miroslav Damyanov

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

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

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

I nteresting

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

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

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

Make research less tedious

Dovetail streamlines research to help you uncover and share actionable insights

• Types of research hypotheses

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

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

Null hypothesis

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

Alternative hypothesis

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

Simple hypothesis

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

Complex hypothesis

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

Directional hypothesis

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

Non-directional hypothesis

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

Associative hypothesis

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

Logical hypothesis

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

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

Empirical hypothesis

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

Statistical hypothesis

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

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

Causal hypothesis

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

Descriptive hypothesis

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

• What makes an effective research hypothesis?

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

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

Hypothesis Essential #1: Specificity & Clarity

Hypothesis Essential #2: Testability (Provability)

• How to develop a good research hypothesis

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

the parameter you'll test

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

the hypothesized parameter value

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

Single mean (μ)

Paired means (μd)

Single proportion (p)

Difference between two independent means (μ1−μ2)

Difference between two proportions (p1−p2)

Simple linear regression slope (β)

Correlation (ρ)

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

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

• What is the correct format for writing a hypothesis?

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

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

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

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

• What are the five steps of a hypothesis?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the Red Queen hypothesis?

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

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

• Getting started with your research

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

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 18 April 2023

Last updated: 27 February 2023

Last updated: 6 February 2023

Last updated: 15 January 2024

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 5 February 2023

Last updated: 16 April 2023

Last updated: 7 March 2023

Last updated: 9 March 2023

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next.

Users report unexpectedly high data usage, especially during streaming sessions.

Users find it hard to navigate from the home page to relevant playlists in the app.

It would be great to have a sleep timer feature, especially for bedtime listening.

I need better filters to find the songs or artists I’m looking for.

Log in or sign up

Get started for free

How to Develop a Good Research Hypothesis

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

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

Table of Contents

What is Hypothesis?

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

What is a Research Hypothesis?

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

Characteristics of a Good Research Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Educational Hub

How to formulate a research hypothesis.

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

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

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

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

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

3. Define the variables

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

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

4. Scrutinize the hypothesis

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

Types of Research Hypothesis

The types of research hypothesis are stated below:

1. Simple Hypothesis

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

2. Complex Hypothesis

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

3. Directional Hypothesis

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

4. Non-directional Hypothesis

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

5. Associative and Causal Hypothesis

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

6. Null Hypothesis

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

7. Alternative Hypothesis

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

Research Hypothesis Examples of Independent and Dependent Variables

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

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

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

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

Importance of a Testable Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks a lot for your valuable guidance.

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

Useful piece!

This is awesome.Wow.

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

Nicely explained

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

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

clear and concise. thanks.

So Good so Amazing

Good to learn

Thanks a lot for explaining to my level of understanding

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

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

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

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

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

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

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

• Industry News

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

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

• Career Corner

Unlocking the Power of Networking in Academic Conferences

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

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

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

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

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

How to Design Effective Research Questionnaires for Robust Findings

Sign-up to read more

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

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

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

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

What would be most effective in reducing research misconduct?

• Thesis Action Plan New
• Academic Project Planner

Literature Navigator

Thesis dialogue blueprint, writing wizard's template, research proposal compass.

• Why students love us
• Why professors love us
• Rebels Blog (Free)
• Why we are different
• All Products
• Coming Soon

Exploring Research Question and Hypothesis Examples: A Comprehensive Guide

This comprehensive guide explores the intricacies of formulating research questions and hypotheses across various academic disciplines. By delving into examples and methodological approaches, the article aims to provide scholars and researchers with the tools necessary to develop robust and effective research frameworks. Understanding and crafting well-formed research questions and hypotheses are pivotal in conducting meaningful research that can significantly contribute to knowledge within a field.

Key Takeaways

• Understand the fundamental differences and connections between research questions and hypotheses.
• Learn how to craft effective and precise research questions that guide the research process.
• Explore various types of hypotheses and methods for testing and refining them.
• Examine practical examples of research questions and hypotheses across multiple disciplines.
• Gain insights into the impact of well-constructed research questions and hypotheses on research outcomes, academic publishing, and grant applications.

Understanding the Fundamentals of Research Questions and Hypotheses

Defining research questions.

Research questions are the backbone of any scholarly inquiry, guiding you through the exploration of your chosen topic. They help you focus your study and determine the direction of your research. A well-crafted research question should be clear, focused, and answerable within the constraints of your study.

Characteristics of a Strong Hypothesis

A strong hypothesis provides a specific, testable prediction about the expected outcomes of your research. It is not merely a guess but is grounded in existing literature and theory. To develop a robust hypothesis, consider the variables involved and ensure that it is feasible to test them within your study's design.

Interrelation Between Research Questions and Hypotheses

Understanding the interrelation between research questions and hypotheses is crucial for structuring your research effectively. Your hypothesis should directly address the gap in the literature highlighted by your research question, providing a clear pathway for investigation. This alignment ensures that your study can contribute valuable insights to your field.

Crafting Effective Research Questions

Identifying the purpose.

To craft an effective research question , you must first identify the purpose of your study. This involves understanding what you aim to discover or elucidate through your research. Ask yourself what the core of your inquiry is and what outcomes you hope to achieve. This clarity will guide your entire research process, ensuring that your question is not only relevant but also deeply rooted in your specific academic or practical goals.

Scope and Limitations

It's crucial to define the scope and limitations of your research early on. This helps in setting realistic boundaries and expectations for your study. Consider factors such as time, resources, and the breadth of the subject area. Narrowing down your focus to a manageable scope can prevent the common pitfall of an overly broad or vague question, which can dilute the impact of your findings.

Formulating Questions that Drive Inquiry

The final step in crafting your research question is formulating it in a way that drives inquiry. This means your question should be clear, concise, and structured to prompt detailed investigation and critical analysis. It should challenge existing knowledge and push the boundaries of what is already known. Utilizing strategies like the Thesis Dialogue Blueprint or the Research Proposal Compass can be instrumental in refining your question to ensure it is both innovative and feasible.

Developing Hypotheses in Research

From research questions to hypotheses.

When you transition from research questions to hypotheses, you are essentially moving from what you want to know to what you predict will happen. This shift involves formulating a specific, testable prediction that directly stems from your initial question. Ensure your hypothesis is directly linked to and derived from your research question to maintain a coherent research strategy.

Types of Hypotheses

There are several types of hypotheses you might encounter, including simple, complex, directional, nondirectional, associative, causal, null, and alternative. Each type serves a different purpose and is chosen based on the specifics of the research question and the nature of the study. For instance, a null hypothesis might be used to test the effectiveness of a new teaching method compared to the standard.

Testing and Refining Hypotheses

Testing your hypothesis is a critical step in the research process. This phase involves collecting data, conducting experiments, or utilizing other research methods to determine the validity of your hypothesis. After testing, you may find that your hypothesis needs refining or even reformation based on the outcomes. This iterative process is essential for narrowing down the most accurate explanation or prediction for your research question.

Examples of Research Questions in Various Disciplines

Humanities and social sciences.

In the realm of Humanities and Social Sciences, research questions often explore cultural, social, historical, or philosophical aspects. How does gender representation in 20th-century American literature reflect broader social changes? This question not only seeks to uncover specific literary trends but also ties them to societal shifts, offering a rich field for analysis.

Natural Sciences

Research questions in the Natural Sciences are typically aimed at understanding natural phenomena or solving specific scientific problems. A common question might be, What are the effects of plastic pollutants on marine biodiversity? This inquiry highlights the environmental concerns and seeks empirical data to understand the impact.

Applied Sciences

In Applied Sciences, the focus is often on improving technology or engineering solutions. A pertinent question could be, How can renewable energy sources be integrated into existing power grids? This question addresses the practical challenges and potential innovations in energy systems, crucial for advancing sustainable technologies.

Analyzing Hypothesis Examples Across Fields

Case studies in psychology.

In psychology, hypotheses often explore the causal relationships between cognitive functions and behaviors. Consider how a hypothesis might predict the impact of stress on memory recall . By examining various case studies, you can see how hypotheses are specifically tailored to address intricate psychological phenomena.

Experimental Research in Biology

Biology experiments frequently test hypotheses about physiological processes or genetic information. For instance, a hypothesis might propose that a specific gene influences plant growth rates. Through rigorous testing, these hypotheses contribute significantly to our understanding of biological systems.

Field Studies in Environmental Science

Field studies in environmental science provide a rich ground for testing hypotheses related to ecosystem dynamics and conservation strategies. A common hypothesis might explore the effects of human activity on biodiversity. These studies often involve complex data collection and analysis, highlighting the interrelation between empirical evidence and theoretical predictions.

Methodological Approaches to Formulating Hypotheses

Quantitative vs. qualitative research.

When you embark on hypothesis formulation, understanding the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research methodologies is crucial. Quantitative research focuses on numerical data and statistical analysis, ideal for hypotheses that require measurable evidence. In contrast, qualitative research delves into thematic and descriptive data, providing depth and context to hypotheses that explore behaviors, perceptions, and experiences.

The Role of Theoretical Frameworks

Theoretical frameworks serve as the backbone for developing robust hypotheses. They provide a structured way to align your hypothesis with existing knowledge. By integrating theories and models relevant to your study, you ensure that your hypothesis has a solid foundation and aligns with established academic thought.

Utilizing Existing Literature to Form Hypotheses

A thorough review of existing literature is indispensable for crafting a well-informed hypothesis. This process not only highlights gaps in current research but also allows you to build on the work of others. By synthesizing findings from previous studies, you can formulate hypotheses that are both innovative and grounded in academic precedent.

Evaluating the Impact of Well-Formed Research Questions and Hypotheses

On research outcomes.

Understanding the impact of well-formed research questions and hypotheses on research outcomes is crucial. Well-crafted questions and hypotheses serve as a framework that guides the entire research process , ensuring that the study remains focused and relevant. They help in defining the scope of the study and in identifying the variables that need to be measured, thus directly influencing the validity and reliability of the research findings.

In Academic Publishing

The role of well-defined research questions and hypotheses extends beyond the research process into the realm of academic publishing. A clear hypothesis provides a strong foundation for the research paper, enhancing its chances of acceptance in prestigious journals. The clarity and direction afforded by a solid hypothesis make the research more appealing to a scholarly audience, potentially increasing citation rates and academic recognition.

In Grant Applications

When applying for research grants, the clarity of your research questions and hypotheses can significantly impact the decision-making process of funding bodies. A well-articulated hypothesis demonstrates a clear vision and a structured approach to addressing a specific issue, which can be crucial in securing funding. Grant reviewers often look for proposals that promise substantial contributions to the field, and a strong hypothesis can be a key factor in showcasing the potential impact of your research.

In our latest article, 'Evaluating the Impact of Well-Formed Research Questions and Hypotheses,' we delve into the crucial role that precise questions and hypotheses play in academic research. Understanding this can significantly enhance your thesis writing process. For a deeper exploration and practical tools to apply these concepts, visit our website and discover how our Thesis Action Plan can transform your academic journey. Don't miss out on our special offers tailored just for you!

In this comprehensive guide, we have explored various examples of research questions and hypotheses, shedding light on their significance and application in academic research. Understanding the distinction between a research question and a hypothesis, as well as knowing how to effectively formulate them, is crucial for conducting methodical and impactful studies. By examining different scenarios and examples, this guide aims to equip researchers with the knowledge to craft well-defined research questions and hypotheses that can drive meaningful investigations and contribute to the broader field of knowledge. As we continue to delve into the intricacies of research design, it is our hope that this guide serves as a valuable resource for both novice and experienced researchers in their scholarly endeavors.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a research question.

A research question is a clearly defined query that guides a scientific or academic study. It sets the scope and focus of the research by asking about a specific phenomenon or issue.

How does a hypothesis differ from a research question?

A hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction about what will happen in a study based on prior knowledge or theory, while a research question is an open query that guides the direction of the investigation.

What are the characteristics of a strong hypothesis?

A strong hypothesis is clear, testable, based on existing knowledge, and it states an expected relationship between variables.

How can research questions and hypotheses interrelate?

Research questions define the scope of inquiry, while hypotheses provide a specific prediction about the expected outcomes that can be tested through research methods.

What should be considered when formulating a research question?

When formulating a research question, consider clarity, focus, relevance, and the feasibility of answering the question through available research methods.

Why is it important to have a well-formed hypothesis?

A well-formed hypothesis directs the research process, allows for clear testing of assumptions, and helps in drawing meaningful conclusions that can contribute to the body of knowledge.

Top Strategies on How to Write the Best Dissertation

How to write a master thesis proposal: a step-by-step guide, how to prepare a thesis proposal: essential steps and advice, master thesis help: tips and resources for students, how do you write an hypothesis common mistakes to avoid.

How to Write a Thesis Fast: Tips and Strategies for Success

The Note-Taking Debate: Pros and Cons of Digital and Analog Methods

Maximize Your Academic Excellence with These 9 Evening Habits for Quality Sleep

Stress Less: Boosting Student Well-being with Mindfulness

From Discussion to Distinction: The Key Aspects of Theoretical Contributions

Thesis Action Plan

• Rebels Blog
• Blog Articles
• Terms and Conditions
• Payment and Shipping Terms
• Privacy Policy
• Return Policy

© 2024 Research Rebels, All rights reserved.

Your cart is currently empty.

Frequently asked questions

What is a hypothesis.

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).

Frequently asked questions: Methodology

Attrition refers to participants leaving a study. It always happens to some extent—for example, in randomized controlled trials for medical research.

Differential attrition occurs when attrition or dropout rates differ systematically between the intervention and the control group . As a result, the characteristics of the participants who drop out differ from the characteristics of those who stay in the study. Because of this, study results may be biased .

Action research is conducted in order to solve a particular issue immediately, while case studies are often conducted over a longer period of time and focus more on observing and analyzing a particular ongoing phenomenon.

Action research is focused on solving a problem or informing individual and community-based knowledge in a way that impacts teaching, learning, and other related processes. It is less focused on contributing theoretical input, instead producing actionable input.

Action research is particularly popular with educators as a form of systematic inquiry because it prioritizes reflection and bridges the gap between theory and practice. Educators are able to simultaneously investigate an issue as they solve it, and the method is very iterative and flexible.

A cycle of inquiry is another name for action research . It is usually visualized in a spiral shape following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”

To make quantitative observations , you need to use instruments that are capable of measuring the quantity you want to observe. For example, you might use a ruler to measure the length of an object or a thermometer to measure its temperature.

Criterion validity and construct validity are both types of measurement validity . In other words, they both show you how accurately a method measures something.

While construct validity is the degree to which a test or other measurement method measures what it claims to measure, criterion validity is the degree to which a test can predictively (in the future) or concurrently (in the present) measure something.

Construct validity is often considered the overarching type of measurement validity . You need to have face validity , content validity , and criterion validity in order to achieve construct validity.

Convergent validity and discriminant validity are both subtypes of construct validity . Together, they help you evaluate whether a test measures the concept it was designed to measure.

• Convergent validity indicates whether a test that is designed to measure a particular construct correlates with other tests that assess the same or similar construct.
• Discriminant validity indicates whether two tests that should not be highly related to each other are indeed not related. This type of validity is also called divergent validity .

You need to assess both in order to demonstrate construct validity. Neither one alone is sufficient for establishing construct validity.

• Discriminant validity indicates whether two tests that should not be highly related to each other are indeed not related

Content validity shows you how accurately a test or other measurement method taps  into the various aspects of the specific construct you are researching.

In other words, it helps you answer the question: “does the test measure all aspects of the construct I want to measure?” If it does, then the test has high content validity.

The higher the content validity, the more accurate the measurement of the construct.

If the test fails to include parts of the construct, or irrelevant parts are included, the validity of the instrument is threatened, which brings your results into question.

Face validity and content validity are similar in that they both evaluate how suitable the content of a test is. The difference is that face validity is subjective, and assesses content at surface level.

When a test has strong face validity, anyone would agree that the test’s questions appear to measure what they are intended to measure.

For example, looking at a 4th grade math test consisting of problems in which students have to add and multiply, most people would agree that it has strong face validity (i.e., it looks like a math test).

On the other hand, content validity evaluates how well a test represents all the aspects of a topic. Assessing content validity is more systematic and relies on expert evaluation. of each question, analyzing whether each one covers the aspects that the test was designed to cover.

A 4th grade math test would have high content validity if it covered all the skills taught in that grade. Experts(in this case, math teachers), would have to evaluate the content validity by comparing the test to the learning objectives.

Snowball sampling is a non-probability sampling method . Unlike probability sampling (which involves some form of random selection ), the initial individuals selected to be studied are the ones who recruit new participants.

Because not every member of the target population has an equal chance of being recruited into the sample, selection in snowball sampling is non-random.

Snowball sampling is a non-probability sampling method , where there is not an equal chance for every member of the population to be included in the sample .

This means that you cannot use inferential statistics and make generalizations —often the goal of quantitative research . As such, a snowball sample is not representative of the target population and is usually a better fit for qualitative research .

Snowball sampling relies on the use of referrals. Here, the researcher recruits one or more initial participants, who then recruit the next ones.

Participants share similar characteristics and/or know each other. Because of this, not every member of the population has an equal chance of being included in the sample, giving rise to sampling bias .

Snowball sampling is best used in the following cases:

• If there is no sampling frame available (e.g., people with a rare disease)
• If the population of interest is hard to access or locate (e.g., people experiencing homelessness)
• If the research focuses on a sensitive topic (e.g., extramarital affairs)

The reproducibility and replicability of a study can be ensured by writing a transparent, detailed method section and using clear, unambiguous language.

Reproducibility and replicability are related terms.

• Reproducing research entails reanalyzing the existing data in the same manner.
• Replicating (or repeating ) the research entails reconducting the entire analysis, including the collection of new data . 
• A successful reproduction shows that the data analyses were conducted in a fair and honest manner.
• A successful replication shows that the reliability of the results is high.

Stratified sampling and quota sampling both involve dividing the population into subgroups and selecting units from each subgroup. The purpose in both cases is to select a representative sample and/or to allow comparisons between subgroups.

The main difference is that in stratified sampling, you draw a random sample from each subgroup ( probability sampling ). In quota sampling you select a predetermined number or proportion of units, in a non-random manner ( non-probability sampling ).

Purposive and convenience sampling are both sampling methods that are typically used in qualitative data collection.

A convenience sample is drawn from a source that is conveniently accessible to the researcher. Convenience sampling does not distinguish characteristics among the participants. On the other hand, purposive sampling focuses on selecting participants possessing characteristics associated with the research study.

The findings of studies based on either convenience or purposive sampling can only be generalized to the (sub)population from which the sample is drawn, and not to the entire population.

Random sampling or probability sampling is based on random selection. This means that each unit has an equal chance (i.e., equal probability) of being included in the sample.

On the other hand, convenience sampling involves stopping people at random, which means that not everyone has an equal chance of being selected depending on the place, time, or day you are collecting your data.

Convenience sampling and quota sampling are both non-probability sampling methods. They both use non-random criteria like availability, geographical proximity, or expert knowledge to recruit study participants.

However, in convenience sampling, you continue to sample units or cases until you reach the required sample size.

In quota sampling, you first need to divide your population of interest into subgroups (strata) and estimate their proportions (quota) in the population. Then you can start your data collection, using convenience sampling to recruit participants, until the proportions in each subgroup coincide with the estimated proportions in the population.

A sampling frame is a list of every member in the entire population . It is important that the sampling frame is as complete as possible, so that your sample accurately reflects your population.

Stratified and cluster sampling may look similar, but bear in mind that groups created in cluster sampling are heterogeneous , so the individual characteristics in the cluster vary. In contrast, groups created in stratified sampling are homogeneous , as units share characteristics.

Relatedly, in cluster sampling you randomly select entire groups and include all units of each group in your sample. However, in stratified sampling, you select some units of all groups and include them in your sample. In this way, both methods can ensure that your sample is representative of the target population .

A systematic review is secondary research because it uses existing research. You don’t collect new data yourself.

The key difference between observational studies and experimental designs is that a well-done observational study does not influence the responses of participants, while experiments do have some sort of treatment condition applied to at least some participants by random assignment .

An observational study is a great choice for you if your research question is based purely on observations. If there are ethical, logistical, or practical concerns that prevent you from conducting a traditional experiment , an observational study may be a good choice. In an observational study, there is no interference or manipulation of the research subjects, as well as no control or treatment groups .

It’s often best to ask a variety of people to review your measurements. You can ask experts, such as other researchers, or laypeople, such as potential participants, to judge the face validity of tests.

While experts have a deep understanding of research methods , the people you’re studying can provide you with valuable insights you may have missed otherwise.

Face validity is important because it’s a simple first step to measuring the overall validity of a test or technique. It’s a relatively intuitive, quick, and easy way to start checking whether a new measure seems useful at first glance.

Good face validity means that anyone who reviews your measure says that it seems to be measuring what it’s supposed to. With poor face validity, someone reviewing your measure may be left confused about what you’re measuring and why you’re using this method.

Face validity is about whether a test appears to measure what it’s supposed to measure. This type of validity is concerned with whether a measure seems relevant and appropriate for what it’s assessing only on the surface.

Statistical analyses are often applied to test validity with data from your measures. You test convergent validity and discriminant validity with correlations to see if results from your test are positively or negatively related to those of other established tests.

You can also use regression analyses to assess whether your measure is actually predictive of outcomes that you expect it to predict theoretically. A regression analysis that supports your expectations strengthens your claim of construct validity .

When designing or evaluating a measure, construct validity helps you ensure you’re actually measuring the construct you’re interested in. If you don’t have construct validity, you may inadvertently measure unrelated or distinct constructs and lose precision in your research.

Construct validity is often considered the overarching type of measurement validity ,  because it covers all of the other types. You need to have face validity , content validity , and criterion validity to achieve construct validity.

Construct validity is about how well a test measures the concept it was designed to evaluate. It’s one of four types of measurement validity , which includes construct validity, face validity , and criterion validity.

There are two subtypes of construct validity.

• Convergent validity : The extent to which your measure corresponds to measures of related constructs
• Discriminant validity : The extent to which your measure is unrelated or negatively related to measures of distinct constructs

Naturalistic observation is a valuable tool because of its flexibility, external validity , and suitability for topics that can’t be studied in a lab setting.

The downsides of naturalistic observation include its lack of scientific control , ethical considerations , and potential for bias from observers and subjects.

Naturalistic observation is a qualitative research method where you record the behaviors of your research subjects in real world settings. You avoid interfering or influencing anything in a naturalistic observation.

You can think of naturalistic observation as “people watching” with a purpose.

A dependent variable is what changes as a result of the independent variable manipulation in experiments . It’s what you’re interested in measuring, and it “depends” on your independent variable.

In statistics, dependent variables are also called:

• Response variables (they respond to a change in another variable)
• Outcome variables (they represent the outcome you want to measure)
• Left-hand-side variables (they appear on the left-hand side of a regression equation)

An independent variable is the variable you manipulate, control, or vary in an experimental study to explore its effects. It’s called “independent” because it’s not influenced by any other variables in the study.

Independent variables are also called:

• Explanatory variables (they explain an event or outcome)
• Predictor variables (they can be used to predict the value of a dependent variable)
• Right-hand-side variables (they appear on the right-hand side of a regression equation).

As a rule of thumb, questions related to thoughts, beliefs, and feelings work well in focus groups. Take your time formulating strong questions, paying special attention to phrasing. Be careful to avoid leading questions , which can bias your responses.

Overall, your focus group questions should be:

• Open-ended and flexible
• Impossible to answer with “yes” or “no” (questions that start with “why” or “how” are often best)
• Unambiguous, getting straight to the point while still stimulating discussion
• Unbiased and neutral

A structured interview is a data collection method that relies on asking questions in a set order to collect data on a topic. They are often quantitative in nature. Structured interviews are best used when: 

• You already have a very clear understanding of your topic. Perhaps significant research has already been conducted, or you have done some prior research yourself, but you already possess a baseline for designing strong structured questions.
• You are constrained in terms of time or resources and need to analyze your data quickly and efficiently.
• Your research question depends on strong parity between participants, with environmental conditions held constant.

More flexible interview options include semi-structured interviews , unstructured interviews , and focus groups .

Social desirability bias is the tendency for interview participants to give responses that will be viewed favorably by the interviewer or other participants. It occurs in all types of interviews and surveys , but is most common in semi-structured interviews , unstructured interviews , and focus groups .

Social desirability bias can be mitigated by ensuring participants feel at ease and comfortable sharing their views. Make sure to pay attention to your own body language and any physical or verbal cues, such as nodding or widening your eyes.

This type of bias can also occur in observations if the participants know they’re being observed. They might alter their behavior accordingly.

The interviewer effect is a type of bias that emerges when a characteristic of an interviewer (race, age, gender identity, etc.) influences the responses given by the interviewee.

There is a risk of an interviewer effect in all types of interviews , but it can be mitigated by writing really high-quality interview questions.

A semi-structured interview is a blend of structured and unstructured types of interviews. Semi-structured interviews are best used when:

• You have prior interview experience. Spontaneous questions are deceptively challenging, and it’s easy to accidentally ask a leading question or make a participant uncomfortable.
• Your research question is exploratory in nature. Participant answers can guide future research questions and help you develop a more robust knowledge base for future research.

An unstructured interview is the most flexible type of interview, but it is not always the best fit for your research topic.

Unstructured interviews are best used when:

• You are an experienced interviewer and have a very strong background in your research topic, since it is challenging to ask spontaneous, colloquial questions.
• Your research question is exploratory in nature. While you may have developed hypotheses, you are open to discovering new or shifting viewpoints through the interview process.
• You are seeking descriptive data, and are ready to ask questions that will deepen and contextualize your initial thoughts and hypotheses.
• Your research depends on forming connections with your participants and making them feel comfortable revealing deeper emotions, lived experiences, or thoughts.

The four most common types of interviews are:

• Structured interviews : The questions are predetermined in both topic and order. 
• Semi-structured interviews : A few questions are predetermined, but other questions aren’t planned.
• Unstructured interviews : None of the questions are predetermined.
• Focus group interviews : The questions are presented to a group instead of one individual.

Deductive reasoning is commonly used in scientific research, and it’s especially associated with quantitative research .

In research, you might have come across something called the hypothetico-deductive method . It’s the scientific method of testing hypotheses to check whether your predictions are substantiated by real-world data.

Deductive reasoning is a logical approach where you progress from general ideas to specific conclusions. It’s often contrasted with inductive reasoning , where you start with specific observations and form general conclusions.

Deductive reasoning is also called deductive logic.

There are many different types of inductive reasoning that people use formally or informally.

Here are a few common types:

• Inductive generalization : You use observations about a sample to come to a conclusion about the population it came from.
• Statistical generalization: You use specific numbers about samples to make statements about populations.
• Causal reasoning: You make cause-and-effect links between different things.
• Sign reasoning: You make a conclusion about a correlational relationship between different things.
• Analogical reasoning: You make a conclusion about something based on its similarities to something else.

Inductive reasoning is a bottom-up approach, while deductive reasoning is top-down.

Inductive reasoning takes you from the specific to the general, while in deductive reasoning, you make inferences by going from general premises to specific conclusions.

In inductive research , you start by making observations or gathering data. Then, you take a broad scan of your data and search for patterns. Finally, you make general conclusions that you might incorporate into theories.

Inductive reasoning is a method of drawing conclusions by going from the specific to the general. It’s usually contrasted with deductive reasoning, where you proceed from general information to specific conclusions.

Inductive reasoning is also called inductive logic or bottom-up reasoning.

Triangulation can help:

• Reduce research bias that comes from using a single method, theory, or investigator
• Enhance validity by approaching the same topic with different tools
• Establish credibility by giving you a complete picture of the research problem

But triangulation can also pose problems:

• It’s time-consuming and labor-intensive, often involving an interdisciplinary team.
• Your results may be inconsistent or even contradictory.

There are four main types of triangulation :

• Data triangulation : Using data from different times, spaces, and people
• Investigator triangulation : Involving multiple researchers in collecting or analyzing data
• Theory triangulation : Using varying theoretical perspectives in your research
• Methodological triangulation : Using different methodologies to approach the same topic

Many academic fields use peer review , largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the published manuscript.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure. 

Peer assessment is often used in the classroom as a pedagogical tool. Both receiving feedback and providing it are thought to enhance the learning process, helping students think critically and collaboratively.

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. It also represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field. It acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to this stringent process they go through before publication.

In general, the peer review process follows the following steps: 

• First, the author submits the manuscript to the editor.
• Reject the manuscript and send it back to author, or 
• Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s) 
• Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made. 
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits, and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

Exploratory research is often used when the issue you’re studying is new or when the data collection process is challenging for some reason.

You can use exploratory research if you have a general idea or a specific question that you want to study but there is no preexisting knowledge or paradigm with which to study it.

Exploratory research is a methodology approach that explores research questions that have not previously been studied in depth. It is often used when the issue you’re studying is new, or the data collection process is challenging in some way.

Explanatory research is used to investigate how or why a phenomenon occurs. Therefore, this type of research is often one of the first stages in the research process , serving as a jumping-off point for future research.

Exploratory research aims to explore the main aspects of an under-researched problem, while explanatory research aims to explain the causes and consequences of a well-defined problem.

Explanatory research is a research method used to investigate how or why something occurs when only a small amount of information is available pertaining to that topic. It can help you increase your understanding of a given topic.

Clean data are valid, accurate, complete, consistent, unique, and uniform. Dirty data include inconsistencies and errors.

Dirty data can come from any part of the research process, including poor research design , inappropriate measurement materials, or flawed data entry.

Data cleaning takes place between data collection and data analyses. But you can use some methods even before collecting data.

For clean data, you should start by designing measures that collect valid data. Data validation at the time of data entry or collection helps you minimize the amount of data cleaning you’ll need to do.

After data collection, you can use data standardization and data transformation to clean your data. You’ll also deal with any missing values, outliers, and duplicate values.

Every dataset requires different techniques to clean dirty data , but you need to address these issues in a systematic way. You focus on finding and resolving data points that don’t agree or fit with the rest of your dataset.

These data might be missing values, outliers, duplicate values, incorrectly formatted, or irrelevant. You’ll start with screening and diagnosing your data. Then, you’ll often standardize and accept or remove data to make your dataset consistent and valid.

Data cleaning is necessary for valid and appropriate analyses. Dirty data contain inconsistencies or errors , but cleaning your data helps you minimize or resolve these.

Without data cleaning, you could end up with a Type I or II error in your conclusion. These types of erroneous conclusions can be practically significant with important consequences, because they lead to misplaced investments or missed opportunities.

Data cleaning involves spotting and resolving potential data inconsistencies or errors to improve your data quality. An error is any value (e.g., recorded weight) that doesn’t reflect the true value (e.g., actual weight) of something that’s being measured.

In this process, you review, analyze, detect, modify, or remove “dirty” data to make your dataset “clean.” Data cleaning is also called data cleansing or data scrubbing.

Research misconduct means making up or falsifying data, manipulating data analyses, or misrepresenting results in research reports. It’s a form of academic fraud.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement but a serious ethical failure.

Anonymity means you don’t know who the participants are, while confidentiality means you know who they are but remove identifying information from your research report. Both are important ethical considerations .

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, or videos.

You can keep data confidential by using aggregate information in your research report, so that you only refer to groups of participants rather than individuals.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe.

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. These principles include voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, potential for harm, and results communication.

Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from others .

These considerations protect the rights of research participants, enhance research validity , and maintain scientific integrity.

In multistage sampling , you can use probability or non-probability sampling methods .

For a probability sample, you have to conduct probability sampling at every stage.

You can mix it up by using simple random sampling , systematic sampling , or stratified sampling to select units at different stages, depending on what is applicable and relevant to your study.

Multistage sampling can simplify data collection when you have large, geographically spread samples, and you can obtain a probability sample without a complete sampling frame.

But multistage sampling may not lead to a representative sample, and larger samples are needed for multistage samples to achieve the statistical properties of simple random samples .

These are four of the most common mixed methods designs :

• Convergent parallel: Quantitative and qualitative data are collected at the same time and analyzed separately. After both analyses are complete, compare your results to draw overall conclusions. 
• Embedded: Quantitative and qualitative data are collected at the same time, but within a larger quantitative or qualitative design. One type of data is secondary to the other.
• Explanatory sequential: Quantitative data is collected and analyzed first, followed by qualitative data. You can use this design if you think your qualitative data will explain and contextualize your quantitative findings.
• Exploratory sequential: Qualitative data is collected and analyzed first, followed by quantitative data. You can use this design if you think the quantitative data will confirm or validate your qualitative findings.

Triangulation in research means using multiple datasets, methods, theories and/or investigators to address a research question. It’s a research strategy that can help you enhance the validity and credibility of your findings.

Triangulation is mainly used in qualitative research , but it’s also commonly applied in quantitative research . Mixed methods research always uses triangulation.

In multistage sampling , or multistage cluster sampling, you draw a sample from a population using smaller and smaller groups at each stage.

This method is often used to collect data from a large, geographically spread group of people in national surveys, for example. You take advantage of hierarchical groupings (e.g., from state to city to neighborhood) to create a sample that’s less expensive and time-consuming to collect data from.

No, the steepness or slope of the line isn’t related to the correlation coefficient value. The correlation coefficient only tells you how closely your data fit on a line, so two datasets with the same correlation coefficient can have very different slopes.

To find the slope of the line, you’ll need to perform a regression analysis .

Correlation coefficients always range between -1 and 1.

The sign of the coefficient tells you the direction of the relationship: a positive value means the variables change together in the same direction, while a negative value means they change together in opposite directions.

The absolute value of a number is equal to the number without its sign. The absolute value of a correlation coefficient tells you the magnitude of the correlation: the greater the absolute value, the stronger the correlation.

These are the assumptions your data must meet if you want to use Pearson’s r :

• Both variables are on an interval or ratio level of measurement
• Data from both variables follow normal distributions
• Your data have no outliers
• Your data is from a random or representative sample
• You expect a linear relationship between the two variables

Quantitative research designs can be divided into two main categories:

• Correlational and descriptive designs are used to investigate characteristics, averages, trends, and associations between variables.
• Experimental and quasi-experimental designs are used to test causal relationships .

Qualitative research designs tend to be more flexible. Common types of qualitative design include case study , ethnography , and grounded theory designs.

A well-planned research design helps ensure that your methods match your research aims, that you collect high-quality data, and that you use the right kind of analysis to answer your questions, utilizing credible sources . This allows you to draw valid , trustworthy conclusions.

The priorities of a research design can vary depending on the field, but you usually have to specify:

• Your research questions and/or hypotheses
• Your overall approach (e.g., qualitative or quantitative )
• The type of design you’re using (e.g., a survey , experiment , or case study )
• Your sampling methods or criteria for selecting subjects
• Your data collection methods (e.g., questionnaires , observations)
• Your data collection procedures (e.g., operationalization , timing and data management)
• Your data analysis methods (e.g., statistical tests  or thematic analysis )

A research design is a strategy for answering your   research question . It defines your overall approach and determines how you will collect and analyze data.

Questionnaires can be self-administered or researcher-administered.

Self-administered questionnaires can be delivered online or in paper-and-pen formats, in person or through mail. All questions are standardized so that all respondents receive the same questions with identical wording.

Researcher-administered questionnaires are interviews that take place by phone, in-person, or online between researchers and respondents. You can gain deeper insights by clarifying questions for respondents or asking follow-up questions.

You can organize the questions logically, with a clear progression from simple to complex, or randomly between respondents. A logical flow helps respondents process the questionnaire easier and quicker, but it may lead to bias. Randomization can minimize the bias from order effects.

Closed-ended, or restricted-choice, questions offer respondents a fixed set of choices to select from. These questions are easier to answer quickly.

Open-ended or long-form questions allow respondents to answer in their own words. Because there are no restrictions on their choices, respondents can answer in ways that researchers may not have otherwise considered.

A questionnaire is a data collection tool or instrument, while a survey is an overarching research method that involves collecting and analyzing data from people using questionnaires.

The third variable and directionality problems are two main reasons why correlation isn’t causation .

The third variable problem means that a confounding variable affects both variables to make them seem causally related when they are not.

The directionality problem is when two variables correlate and might actually have a causal relationship, but it’s impossible to conclude which variable causes changes in the other.

Correlation describes an association between variables : when one variable changes, so does the other. A correlation is a statistical indicator of the relationship between variables.

Causation means that changes in one variable brings about changes in the other (i.e., there is a cause-and-effect relationship between variables). The two variables are correlated with each other, and there’s also a causal link between them.

While causation and correlation can exist simultaneously, correlation does not imply causation. In other words, correlation is simply a relationship where A relates to B—but A doesn’t necessarily cause B to happen (or vice versa). Mistaking correlation for causation is a common error and can lead to false cause fallacy .

Controlled experiments establish causality, whereas correlational studies only show associations between variables.

• In an experimental design , you manipulate an independent variable and measure its effect on a dependent variable. Other variables are controlled so they can’t impact the results.
• In a correlational design , you measure variables without manipulating any of them. You can test whether your variables change together, but you can’t be sure that one variable caused a change in another.

In general, correlational research is high in external validity while experimental research is high in internal validity .

A correlation is usually tested for two variables at a time, but you can test correlations between three or more variables.

A correlation coefficient is a single number that describes the strength and direction of the relationship between your variables.

Different types of correlation coefficients might be appropriate for your data based on their levels of measurement and distributions . The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r ) is commonly used to assess a linear relationship between two quantitative variables.

A correlational research design investigates relationships between two variables (or more) without the researcher controlling or manipulating any of them. It’s a non-experimental type of quantitative research .

A correlation reflects the strength and/or direction of the association between two or more variables.

• A positive correlation means that both variables change in the same direction.
• A negative correlation means that the variables change in opposite directions.
• A zero correlation means there’s no relationship between the variables.

Random error  is almost always present in scientific studies, even in highly controlled settings. While you can’t eradicate it completely, you can reduce random error by taking repeated measurements, using a large sample, and controlling extraneous variables .

You can avoid systematic error through careful design of your sampling , data collection , and analysis procedures. For example, use triangulation to measure your variables using multiple methods; regularly calibrate instruments or procedures; use random sampling and random assignment ; and apply masking (blinding) where possible.

Systematic error is generally a bigger problem in research.

With random error, multiple measurements will tend to cluster around the true value. When you’re collecting data from a large sample , the errors in different directions will cancel each other out.

Systematic errors are much more problematic because they can skew your data away from the true value. This can lead you to false conclusions ( Type I and II errors ) about the relationship between the variables you’re studying.

Random and systematic error are two types of measurement error.

Random error is a chance difference between the observed and true values of something (e.g., a researcher misreading a weighing scale records an incorrect measurement).

Systematic error is a consistent or proportional difference between the observed and true values of something (e.g., a miscalibrated scale consistently records weights as higher than they actually are).

On graphs, the explanatory variable is conventionally placed on the x-axis, while the response variable is placed on the y-axis.

• If you have quantitative variables , use a scatterplot or a line graph.
• If your response variable is categorical, use a scatterplot or a line graph.
• If your explanatory variable is categorical, use a bar graph.

The term “ explanatory variable ” is sometimes preferred over “ independent variable ” because, in real world contexts, independent variables are often influenced by other variables. This means they aren’t totally independent.

Multiple independent variables may also be correlated with each other, so “explanatory variables” is a more appropriate term.

The difference between explanatory and response variables is simple:

• An explanatory variable is the expected cause, and it explains the results.
• A response variable is the expected effect, and it responds to other variables.

In a controlled experiment , all extraneous variables are held constant so that they can’t influence the results. Controlled experiments require:

• A control group that receives a standard treatment, a fake treatment, or no treatment.
• Random assignment of participants to ensure the groups are equivalent.

Depending on your study topic, there are various other methods of controlling variables .

There are 4 main types of extraneous variables :

• Demand characteristics : environmental cues that encourage participants to conform to researchers’ expectations.
• Experimenter effects : unintentional actions by researchers that influence study outcomes.
• Situational variables : environmental variables that alter participants’ behaviors.
• Participant variables : any characteristic or aspect of a participant’s background that could affect study results.

An extraneous variable is any variable that you’re not investigating that can potentially affect the dependent variable of your research study.

A confounding variable is a type of extraneous variable that not only affects the dependent variable, but is also related to the independent variable.

In a factorial design, multiple independent variables are tested.

If you test two variables, each level of one independent variable is combined with each level of the other independent variable to create different conditions.

Within-subjects designs have many potential threats to internal validity , but they are also very statistically powerful .

Advantages:

• Only requires small samples
• Statistically powerful
• Removes the effects of individual differences on the outcomes

Disadvantages:

• Internal validity threats reduce the likelihood of establishing a direct relationship between variables
• Time-related effects, such as growth, can influence the outcomes
• Carryover effects mean that the specific order of different treatments affect the outcomes

While a between-subjects design has fewer threats to internal validity , it also requires more participants for high statistical power than a within-subjects design .

• Prevents carryover effects of learning and fatigue.
• Shorter study duration.
• Needs larger samples for high power.
• Uses more resources to recruit participants, administer sessions, cover costs, etc.
• Individual differences may be an alternative explanation for results.

Yes. Between-subjects and within-subjects designs can be combined in a single study when you have two or more independent variables (a factorial design). In a mixed factorial design, one variable is altered between subjects and another is altered within subjects.

In a between-subjects design , every participant experiences only one condition, and researchers assess group differences between participants in various conditions.

In a within-subjects design , each participant experiences all conditions, and researchers test the same participants repeatedly for differences between conditions.

The word “between” means that you’re comparing different conditions between groups, while the word “within” means you’re comparing different conditions within the same group.

Random assignment is used in experiments with a between-groups or independent measures design. In this research design, there’s usually a control group and one or more experimental groups. Random assignment helps ensure that the groups are comparable.

In general, you should always use random assignment in this type of experimental design when it is ethically possible and makes sense for your study topic.

To implement random assignment , assign a unique number to every member of your study’s sample .

Then, you can use a random number generator or a lottery method to randomly assign each number to a control or experimental group. You can also do so manually, by flipping a coin or rolling a dice to randomly assign participants to groups.

Random selection, or random sampling , is a way of selecting members of a population for your study’s sample.

In contrast, random assignment is a way of sorting the sample into control and experimental groups.

Random sampling enhances the external validity or generalizability of your results, while random assignment improves the internal validity of your study.

In experimental research, random assignment is a way of placing participants from your sample into different groups using randomization. With this method, every member of the sample has a known or equal chance of being placed in a control group or an experimental group.

“Controlling for a variable” means measuring extraneous variables and accounting for them statistically to remove their effects on other variables.

Researchers often model control variable data along with independent and dependent variable data in regression analyses and ANCOVAs . That way, you can isolate the control variable’s effects from the relationship between the variables of interest.

Control variables help you establish a correlational or causal relationship between variables by enhancing internal validity .

If you don’t control relevant extraneous variables , they may influence the outcomes of your study, and you may not be able to demonstrate that your results are really an effect of your independent variable .

A control variable is any variable that’s held constant in a research study. It’s not a variable of interest in the study, but it’s controlled because it could influence the outcomes.

Including mediators and moderators in your research helps you go beyond studying a simple relationship between two variables for a fuller picture of the real world. They are important to consider when studying complex correlational or causal relationships.

Mediators are part of the causal pathway of an effect, and they tell you how or why an effect takes place. Moderators usually help you judge the external validity of your study by identifying the limitations of when the relationship between variables holds.

If something is a mediating variable :

• It’s caused by the independent variable .
• It influences the dependent variable
• When it’s taken into account, the statistical correlation between the independent and dependent variables is higher than when it isn’t considered.

A confounder is a third variable that affects variables of interest and makes them seem related when they are not. In contrast, a mediator is the mechanism of a relationship between two variables: it explains the process by which they are related.

A mediator variable explains the process through which two variables are related, while a moderator variable affects the strength and direction of that relationship.

There are three key steps in systematic sampling :

• Define and list your population , ensuring that it is not ordered in a cyclical or periodic order.
• Decide on your sample size and calculate your interval, k , by dividing your population by your target sample size.
• Choose every k th member of the population as your sample.

Systematic sampling is a probability sampling method where researchers select members of the population at a regular interval – for example, by selecting every 15th person on a list of the population. If the population is in a random order, this can imitate the benefits of simple random sampling .

Yes, you can create a stratified sample using multiple characteristics, but you must ensure that every participant in your study belongs to one and only one subgroup. In this case, you multiply the numbers of subgroups for each characteristic to get the total number of groups.

For example, if you were stratifying by location with three subgroups (urban, rural, or suburban) and marital status with five subgroups (single, divorced, widowed, married, or partnered), you would have 3 x 5 = 15 subgroups.

You should use stratified sampling when your sample can be divided into mutually exclusive and exhaustive subgroups that you believe will take on different mean values for the variable that you’re studying.

Using stratified sampling will allow you to obtain more precise (with lower variance ) statistical estimates of whatever you are trying to measure.

For example, say you want to investigate how income differs based on educational attainment, but you know that this relationship can vary based on race. Using stratified sampling, you can ensure you obtain a large enough sample from each racial group, allowing you to draw more precise conclusions.

In stratified sampling , researchers divide subjects into subgroups called strata based on characteristics that they share (e.g., race, gender, educational attainment).

Once divided, each subgroup is randomly sampled using another probability sampling method.

Cluster sampling is more time- and cost-efficient than other probability sampling methods , particularly when it comes to large samples spread across a wide geographical area.

However, it provides less statistical certainty than other methods, such as simple random sampling , because it is difficult to ensure that your clusters properly represent the population as a whole.

There are three types of cluster sampling : single-stage, double-stage and multi-stage clustering. In all three types, you first divide the population into clusters, then randomly select clusters for use in your sample.

• In single-stage sampling , you collect data from every unit within the selected clusters.
• In double-stage sampling , you select a random sample of units from within the clusters.
• In multi-stage sampling , you repeat the procedure of randomly sampling elements from within the clusters until you have reached a manageable sample.

Cluster sampling is a probability sampling method in which you divide a population into clusters, such as districts or schools, and then randomly select some of these clusters as your sample.

The clusters should ideally each be mini-representations of the population as a whole.

If properly implemented, simple random sampling is usually the best sampling method for ensuring both internal and external validity . However, it can sometimes be impractical and expensive to implement, depending on the size of the population to be studied,

If you have a list of every member of the population and the ability to reach whichever members are selected, you can use simple random sampling.

The American Community Survey  is an example of simple random sampling . In order to collect detailed data on the population of the US, the Census Bureau officials randomly select 3.5 million households per year and use a variety of methods to convince them to fill out the survey.

Simple random sampling is a type of probability sampling in which the researcher randomly selects a subset of participants from a population . Each member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. Data is then collected from as large a percentage as possible of this random subset.

Quasi-experimental design is most useful in situations where it would be unethical or impractical to run a true experiment .

Quasi-experiments have lower internal validity than true experiments, but they often have higher external validity  as they can use real-world interventions instead of artificial laboratory settings.

A quasi-experiment is a type of research design that attempts to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. The main difference with a true experiment is that the groups are not randomly assigned.

Blinding is important to reduce research bias (e.g., observer bias , demand characteristics ) and ensure a study’s internal validity .

If participants know whether they are in a control or treatment group , they may adjust their behavior in ways that affect the outcome that researchers are trying to measure. If the people administering the treatment are aware of group assignment, they may treat participants differently and thus directly or indirectly influence the final results.

• In a single-blind study , only the participants are blinded.
• In a double-blind study , both participants and experimenters are blinded.
• In a triple-blind study , the assignment is hidden not only from participants and experimenters, but also from the researchers analyzing the data.

Blinding means hiding who is assigned to the treatment group and who is assigned to the control group in an experiment .

A true experiment (a.k.a. a controlled experiment) always includes at least one control group that doesn’t receive the experimental treatment.

However, some experiments use a within-subjects design to test treatments without a control group. In these designs, you usually compare one group’s outcomes before and after a treatment (instead of comparing outcomes between different groups).

For strong internal validity , it’s usually best to include a control group if possible. Without a control group, it’s harder to be certain that the outcome was caused by the experimental treatment and not by other variables.

An experimental group, also known as a treatment group, receives the treatment whose effect researchers wish to study, whereas a control group does not. They should be identical in all other ways.

Individual Likert-type questions are generally considered ordinal data , because the items have clear rank order, but don’t have an even distribution.

Overall Likert scale scores are sometimes treated as interval data. These scores are considered to have directionality and even spacing between them.

The type of data determines what statistical tests you should use to analyze your data.

A Likert scale is a rating scale that quantitatively assesses opinions, attitudes, or behaviors. It is made up of 4 or more questions that measure a single attitude or trait when response scores are combined.

To use a Likert scale in a survey , you present participants with Likert-type questions or statements, and a continuum of items, usually with 5 or 7 possible responses, to capture their degree of agreement.

In scientific research, concepts are the abstract ideas or phenomena that are being studied (e.g., educational achievement). Variables are properties or characteristics of the concept (e.g., performance at school), while indicators are ways of measuring or quantifying variables (e.g., yearly grade reports).

The process of turning abstract concepts into measurable variables and indicators is called operationalization .

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

• Prepare and organize your data.
• Review and explore your data.
• Develop a data coding system.
• Assign codes to the data.
• Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

There are five common approaches to qualitative research :

• Grounded theory involves collecting data in order to develop new theories.
• Ethnography involves immersing yourself in a group or organization to understand its culture.
• Narrative research involves interpreting stories to understand how people make sense of their experiences and perceptions.
• Phenomenological research involves investigating phenomena through people’s lived experiences.
• Action research links theory and practice in several cycles to drive innovative changes.

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.

Operationalization means turning abstract conceptual ideas into measurable observations.

For example, the concept of social anxiety isn’t directly observable, but it can be operationally defined in terms of self-rating scores, behavioral avoidance of crowded places, or physical anxiety symptoms in social situations.

Before collecting data , it’s important to consider how you will operationalize the variables that you want to measure.

When conducting research, collecting original data has significant advantages:

• You can tailor data collection to your specific research aims (e.g. understanding the needs of your consumers or user testing your website)
• You can control and standardize the process for high reliability and validity (e.g. choosing appropriate measurements and sampling methods )

However, there are also some drawbacks: data collection can be time-consuming, labor-intensive and expensive. In some cases, it’s more efficient to use secondary data that has already been collected by someone else, but the data might be less reliable.

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organizations.

There are several methods you can use to decrease the impact of confounding variables on your research: restriction, matching, statistical control and randomization.

In restriction , you restrict your sample by only including certain subjects that have the same values of potential confounding variables.

In matching , you match each of the subjects in your treatment group with a counterpart in the comparison group. The matched subjects have the same values on any potential confounding variables, and only differ in the independent variable .

In statistical control , you include potential confounders as variables in your regression .

In randomization , you randomly assign the treatment (or independent variable) in your study to a sufficiently large number of subjects, which allows you to control for all potential confounding variables.

A confounding variable is closely related to both the independent and dependent variables in a study. An independent variable represents the supposed cause , while the dependent variable is the supposed effect . A confounding variable is a third variable that influences both the independent and dependent variables.

Failing to account for confounding variables can cause you to wrongly estimate the relationship between your independent and dependent variables.

To ensure the internal validity of your research, you must consider the impact of confounding variables. If you fail to account for them, you might over- or underestimate the causal relationship between your independent and dependent variables , or even find a causal relationship where none exists.

Yes, but including more than one of either type requires multiple research questions .

For example, if you are interested in the effect of a diet on health, you can use multiple measures of health: blood sugar, blood pressure, weight, pulse, and many more. Each of these is its own dependent variable with its own research question.

You could also choose to look at the effect of exercise levels as well as diet, or even the additional effect of the two combined. Each of these is a separate independent variable .

To ensure the internal validity of an experiment , you should only change one independent variable at a time.

No. The value of a dependent variable depends on an independent variable, so a variable cannot be both independent and dependent at the same time. It must be either the cause or the effect, not both!

You want to find out how blood sugar levels are affected by drinking diet soda and regular soda, so you conduct an experiment .

• The type of soda – diet or regular – is the independent variable .
• The level of blood sugar that you measure is the dependent variable – it changes depending on the type of soda.

Determining cause and effect is one of the most important parts of scientific research. It’s essential to know which is the cause – the independent variable – and which is the effect – the dependent variable.

In non-probability sampling , the sample is selected based on non-random criteria, and not every member of the population has a chance of being included.

Common non-probability sampling methods include convenience sampling , voluntary response sampling, purposive sampling , snowball sampling, and quota sampling .

Probability sampling means that every member of the target population has a known chance of being included in the sample.

Probability sampling methods include simple random sampling , systematic sampling , stratified sampling , and cluster sampling .

Using careful research design and sampling procedures can help you avoid sampling bias . Oversampling can be used to correct undercoverage bias .

Some common types of sampling bias include self-selection bias , nonresponse bias , undercoverage bias , survivorship bias , pre-screening or advertising bias, and healthy user bias.

Sampling bias is a threat to external validity – it limits the generalizability of your findings to a broader group of people.

A sampling error is the difference between a population parameter and a sample statistic .

A statistic refers to measures about the sample , while a parameter refers to measures about the population .

Populations are used when a research question requires data from every member of the population. This is usually only feasible when the population is small and easily accessible.

Samples are used to make inferences about populations . Samples are easier to collect data from because they are practical, cost-effective, convenient, and manageable.

There are seven threats to external validity : selection bias , history, experimenter effect, Hawthorne effect , testing effect, aptitude-treatment and situation effect.

The two types of external validity are population validity (whether you can generalize to other groups of people) and ecological validity (whether you can generalize to other situations and settings).

The external validity of a study is the extent to which you can generalize your findings to different groups of people, situations, and measures.

Cross-sectional studies cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship or analyze behavior over a period of time. To investigate cause and effect, you need to do a longitudinal study or an experimental study .

Cross-sectional studies are less expensive and time-consuming than many other types of study. They can provide useful insights into a population’s characteristics and identify correlations for further research.

Sometimes only cross-sectional data is available for analysis; other times your research question may only require a cross-sectional study to answer it.

Longitudinal studies can last anywhere from weeks to decades, although they tend to be at least a year long.

The 1970 British Cohort Study , which has collected data on the lives of 17,000 Brits since their births in 1970, is one well-known example of a longitudinal study .

Longitudinal studies are better to establish the correct sequence of events, identify changes over time, and provide insight into cause-and-effect relationships, but they also tend to be more expensive and time-consuming than other types of studies.

Longitudinal studies and cross-sectional studies are two different types of research design . In a cross-sectional study you collect data from a population at a specific point in time; in a longitudinal study you repeatedly collect data from the same sample over an extended period of time.

There are eight threats to internal validity : history, maturation, instrumentation, testing, selection bias , regression to the mean, social interaction and attrition .

Internal validity is the extent to which you can be confident that a cause-and-effect relationship established in a study cannot be explained by other factors.

In mixed methods research , you use both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods to answer your research question .

The research methods you use depend on the type of data you need to answer your research question .

• If you want to measure something or test a hypothesis , use quantitative methods . If you want to explore ideas, thoughts and meanings, use qualitative methods .
• If you want to analyze a large amount of readily-available data, use secondary data. If you want data specific to your purposes with control over how it is generated, collect primary data.
• If you want to establish cause-and-effect relationships between variables , use experimental methods. If you want to understand the characteristics of a research subject, use descriptive methods.

A confounding variable , also called a confounder or confounding factor, is a third variable in a study examining a potential cause-and-effect relationship.

A confounding variable is related to both the supposed cause and the supposed effect of the study. It can be difficult to separate the true effect of the independent variable from the effect of the confounding variable.

In your research design , it’s important to identify potential confounding variables and plan how you will reduce their impact.

Discrete and continuous variables are two types of quantitative variables :

• Discrete variables represent counts (e.g. the number of objects in a collection).
• Continuous variables represent measurable amounts (e.g. water volume or weight).

Quantitative variables are any variables where the data represent amounts (e.g. height, weight, or age).

Categorical variables are any variables where the data represent groups. This includes rankings (e.g. finishing places in a race), classifications (e.g. brands of cereal), and binary outcomes (e.g. coin flips).

You need to know what type of variables you are working with to choose the right statistical test for your data and interpret your results .

You can think of independent and dependent variables in terms of cause and effect: an independent variable is the variable you think is the cause , while a dependent variable is the effect .

In an experiment, you manipulate the independent variable and measure the outcome in the dependent variable. For example, in an experiment about the effect of nutrients on crop growth:

• The  independent variable  is the amount of nutrients added to the crop field.
• The  dependent variable is the biomass of the crops at harvest time.

Defining your variables, and deciding how you will manipulate and measure them, is an important part of experimental design .

Experimental design means planning a set of procedures to investigate a relationship between variables . To design a controlled experiment, you need:

• A testable hypothesis
• At least one independent variable that can be precisely manipulated
• At least one dependent variable that can be precisely measured

When designing the experiment, you decide:

• How you will manipulate the variable(s)
• How you will control for any potential confounding variables
• How many subjects or samples will be included in the study
• How subjects will be assigned to treatment levels

Experimental design is essential to the internal and external validity of your experiment.

I nternal validity is the degree of confidence that the causal relationship you are testing is not influenced by other factors or variables .

External validity is the extent to which your results can be generalized to other contexts.

The validity of your experiment depends on your experimental design .

Reliability and validity are both about how well a method measures something:

• Reliability refers to the  consistency of a measure (whether the results can be reproduced under the same conditions).
• Validity   refers to the  accuracy of a measure (whether the results really do represent what they are supposed to measure).

If you are doing experimental research, you also have to consider the internal and external validity of your experiment.

A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population . Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research. For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.

In statistics, sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population.

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research project . It involves studying the methods used in your field and the theories or principles behind them, in order to develop an approach that matches your objectives.

Methods are the specific tools and procedures you use to collect and analyze data (for example, experiments, surveys , and statistical tests ).

In shorter scientific papers, where the aim is to report the findings of a specific study, you might simply describe what you did in a methods section .

In a longer or more complex research project, such as a thesis or dissertation , you will probably include a methodology section , where you explain your approach to answering the research questions and cite relevant sources to support your choice of methods.

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem.  We  are always here for you.

• Email [email protected]
• Start live chat
• Call +1 (510) 822-8066
• WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Our team helps students graduate by offering:

• A world-class citation generator
• Plagiarism Checker software powered by Turnitin
• Innovative Citation Checker software
• Professional proofreading services
• Over 300 helpful articles about academic writing, citing sources, plagiarism, and more

Scribbr specializes in editing study-related documents . We proofread:

• PhD dissertations
• Research proposals
• Personal statements
• Admission essays
• Motivation letters
• Reflection papers
• Journal articles
• Capstone projects

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker is powered by elements of Turnitin’s Similarity Checker , namely the plagiarism detection software and the Internet Archive and Premium Scholarly Publications content databases .

The add-on AI detector is powered by Scribbr’s proprietary software.

The Scribbr Citation Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.

You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Citation Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .

Definition of a Hypothesis

What it is and how it's used in sociology

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

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

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

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

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

Null Hypothesis

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

Alternative Hypothesis

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

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

Formulating a Hypothesis

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

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

Updated by Nicki Lisa Cole, Ph.D

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

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
• v.53(4); 2010 Aug

Research questions, hypotheses and objectives

Patricia farrugia.

* Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, the

Bradley A. Petrisor

† Division of Orthopaedic Surgery and the

Forough Farrokhyar

‡ Departments of Surgery and

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

Mohit Bhandari

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

Objectives of this article

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

Research question

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

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

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

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

FINER criteria for a good research question

Adapted with permission from Wolters Kluwer Health. 2

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

PICOT criteria 1

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

Research hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research objective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A million light years and still going

New, groundbreaking research shows that rotation curves of galaxies stay flat indefinitely, corroborating predictions of modified gravity theory as an alternative to dark matter.

CLEVELAND—In a breakthrough discovery that challenges the conventional understanding of cosmology, scientists at Case Western Reserve University have unearthed new evidence that could reshape our perception of the cosmos.

Tobias Mistele , a post-doctoral scholar in the Department of Astronomy at Case Western Reserve’s College of Arts and Sciences , pioneered a revolutionary technique using “gravitational lensing” to delve into the enigmatic realm of dark matter. He found that the rotation curves of galaxies remain flat for millions of light years with no end in sight.

Scientists have previously believed that the rotation curves of galaxies must decline the farther out you peer into space.

Traditionally, the behavior of stars within galaxies has puzzled astronomers. According to Newtonian gravity, stars on the outer edges should be slower due to diminished gravitational pull. This was not observed, leading to the inference of dark matter. But even dark matter halos should come to an end, so rotation curves should not remain flat indefinitely.

Mistele’s analysis defies this expectation,  providing a startling revelation: the influence of what we call dark matter extends far beyond previous estimates, stretching at least a million light-years from the galactic center.

Such a long range effect may indicate that dark matter—as we understand it—might not exist at all.

“This finding challenges existing models,” he said, “suggesting there exist either vastly extended dark matter halos or that we need to fundamentally reevaluate our understanding of gravitational theory.” 

Stacy McGaugh , professor and director of the Department of Astronomy in the College of Arts and Sciences, said Mistele’s findings, slated for publication in the Astrophysical Journal Letters , push traditional boundaries.

“The implications of this discovery are profound,” McGaugh said. “It not only could redefine our understanding of dark matter, but also beckons us to explore alternative theories of gravity, challenging the very fabric of modern astrophysics.”

Turning Einstein’s theory on its head

The primary technique Mistele used in his research, gravitational lensing, is a phenomenon predicted by Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Essentially, it occurs when a massive object, like a galaxy cluster or even a single massive star, bends the path of light coming from a distant source. This bending of light happens because the mass of the object warps the fabric of spacetime around it. This bending of light by galaxies persists over much larger scales than expected.

As part of the research, Mistele plotted out what’s called Tully–Fisher relation on a chart to highlight the empirical relationship between the visible mass of a galaxy and its rotation speed.

“We knew this relationship existed,” Mistele said. “But it wasn’t obvious that the relationship would hold the farther you go out. How far does this behavior persist? That’s the question, because it can’t persist forever.”

Mistele said his discovery underscores the necessity for further exploration and collaboration within the scientific community—and the possible analysis of other data.

McGaugh noted the Herculean—yet, so far, unsuccessful—efforts in the international particle physics community to detect and identify dark matter particles.

“Either dark matter halos are much bigger than we expected, or the whole paradigm is wrong,” McGaugh said. “The theory that predicted this behavior in advance is the modified gravity theory MOND hypothesized by Moti Milgrom as an alternative to dark matter in 1983. So, the obvious and inevitably controversial interpretation of this result is that dark matter is a chimera; perhaps the evidence for it is pointing to some new theory of gravity beyond what Einstein taught us.”

For more information, contact Colin McEwen at [email protected] .

• Open access
• Published: 20 June 2024

The twisted path to sacredness: a grounded theory study of irrational religious orientation and its psycho-sociological implications

• Ziang Wang 1 ,
• Yinglin Luo 1 ,
• Xuan Cao 2 &
• Jindong Jiang 1  

BMC Psychology volume  12 , Article number:  360 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

131 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

This research delves into the nuances, origins, and societal effects of irrational religious orientations within China’s Generation Z, employing grounded theory methodology for a comprehensive analysis. The focus is on those born between 1995 and 2010, a demographic raised amidst rapid information technology growth and significantly influenced by digitalization and globalization. The study identifies three primary dimensions of irrational religious orientations in Generation Z: religious spiritual dependence, religious instrumental tendency, and religious uniqueness identity. These are shaped by factors such as the overwhelming influx of information via digital media, societal pressures and psychological dilemmas, conflicts in values and identity crises, as well as feelings of social isolation and the need for group belonging. To address these trends, the study suggests several interventions: enhancing multicultural and values education, implementing stricter online information regulation and literacy programs, boosting mental health awareness and support, and fostering engagement in social and cultural activities. These recommendations are essential for comprehensively understanding and effectively responding to the irrational religious orientations of Generation Z, ultimately contributing to their overall well-being and healthy development.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Generation Z’s deep engagement with technology significantly influences their values, lifestyles, and worldviews, including their religious inclinations [ 1 – 2 ]. Studies by Davis and Venkatesh et al. underscore their dependency on technology, driven by its perceived usefulness and ease of use [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. This dependence is shaped by how well technology meets their needs, the effort involved, and its fit with their social milieu [ 4 ]. Their digital habits, including the use of social media, not only shape their health behaviors but also their religious attitudes, steering them towards pragmatic rather than traditional religious practices [ 2 ]. Understanding these digital behaviors is crucial for appreciating how they affect Generation Z’s lifestyle choices and religious perspectives [ 1 – 2 , 4 − 5 ].

Regarding the “irrational religious orientation” in China’s Generation Z, it’s a multifaceted phenomenon influenced by various factors. Li Chen, Sheng Zeng, and Zaizhen Tian’s study challenges the notion of blind religious adherence among Generation Z, suggesting their religiosity is based on rational considerations of religious rewards [ 6 ]. Jurnal Pendidikan et al.‘s research implies that Generation Z’s openness to religion might indicate a moderate, flexible approach to beliefs [ 7 ]. This contradicts interpretations of their religious behavior as irrational. Demir’s study reveals Generation Z’s adoption of secular, transhumanist values like individuality and critical thinking, potentially influencing their religious orientations [ 8 ]. These findings highlight the need for future research to adopt a nuanced approach, considering the impacts of social change, globalization, and generational shifts on Generation Z’s religious orientations [ 6 , 7 , 8 ]. Such research could lead to strategies promoting balanced religious beliefs and practices in this demographic.

Literature review

The exploration of religious orientation as a key influencer of human behavior, interpersonal relationships, and mental health has revealed a complex duality in its impacts, as evidenced by a range of studies. G. Allport and J. M. Ross’s seminal work highlights how religious orientation can significantly contribute to prejudice, linking certain prejudiced behaviors to specific religious orientations, notably those with indiscriminate favoritism towards religion [ 9 ].

Further, the interaction between religious orientation and mental health is intricate. M. Janbozorgi and F. Aliakbari, Dawood Taqvaei, and Z. Pirani, delve into the potential therapeutic aspects of religious orientation, suggesting a beneficial connection with mental health [ 10 ].

Religious orientation’s influence extends to media engagement, as Ahmad Saifalddin Abu-Alhaija et al. demonstrate its impact on viewer loyalty and perceptions in satellite TV consumption [ 11 ]. Similarly, a study links religious orientation with consumer purchasing behavior influenced by social media advertising, indicating an economic behavioral impact [ 12 ].

The realm of pro-social behavior, particularly among young women, is also explored, focusing on how religious beliefs shape charitable actions and empathy [ 13 ]. Conversely, some studies reveal potential negative implications of religious orientation, such as ‘extrinsic religious orientation’ correlating negatively with well-being [ 14 ], or influencing job-related stress levels [ 15 ].

Noteworthy contributions also include research on religious orientation’s relation to death anxiety in the elderly [ 16 ], depression in college students [ 17 ], and reproductive behaviors in women [ 18 ]. These studies collectively reaffirm the broad and significant impact of religious orientation on diverse life aspects.

In summary, the synthesis of religious orientation literature encompasses a vast array of domains, ranging from media consumption and mental health to societal and economic behaviors. The effects are varied and heavily dependent on individual experiences with religion, highlighting a multifaceted relationship between religious orientation and its influence on human life. This literature review emphasizes the need for more comprehensive and nuanced research to better understand these dynamics [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ].

The existing literature on religious orientation predominantly focuses on Western contexts, underscoring a significant gap in research concerning non-Western societies, particularly China. Notably, the religious inclinations of Chinese youth, especially Generation Z, remain insufficiently explored. Chen, Zeng, and Tian found that religiosity among China’s Generation Z is notably higher than the national average, influenced by factors like practical benefits and religious socialization [ 20 ]. This underscores the importance of considering the unique cultural and social context in religious studies. Minkov and Kaasa’s study in Africa also highlights the often-neglected cultural differences in religion, sometimes misinterpreted as racial or ethnic disparities [ 21 ]. These insights call for a recontextualization of religious orientation research, particularly in non-Western settings, to enhance its relevance and accuracy.

In China, research on Generation Z’s religious inclinations predominantly focuses on rational factors that drive their religious choices [ 6 ], such as tangible benefits over supernatural elements. However, this perspective, aligning with theories from Stark and Finke, and Hartmut Rosa, largely omits the exploration of irrational or non-rational factors. This aligns with theories by Stark and Finke, and Hartmut Rosa [ 22 ], but largely ignores the role of irrational or non-rational factors [ 23 ]. Studies on religious moderation and the impact of Internet use on religious authority choices tend to focus on rational aspects [ 8 ]. In contrast, research on older populations reveals insights into irrational religious beliefs through acceptance and commitment therapy and the role of doubt in religious education, which could provide useful perspectives for studying Generation Z’s irrational beliefs [ 24 – 25 ].

In essence, while current literature provides critical insights, it largely overlooks the irrational elements of religious inclination in Generation Z. Exploring these aspects in future research could offer a more comprehensive understanding of this demographic’s religious dynamics.

Purpose of the study

The research purpose of the study is to delve into the nuances, origins, and societal effects of irrational religious orientations within China’s Generation Z using grounded theory methodology. The study aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of these orientations, shaped by factors such as the influx of information via digital media, societal pressures, and psychological dilemmas. Additionally, it suggests several interventions to address these trends, ultimately contributing to the overall well-being and healthy development of this demographic.

Methodology

The researcher’s analysis utilizes grounded theory, a methodology developed by Glaser and Strauss, which focuses on deriving theories from data rather than adhering to a pre-existing framework [ 26 , 27 , 28 ]. This approach is particularly effective in social science research, as demonstrated in the study of irrational religious orientations among Daoist and Buddhist believers. Grounded theory enables the development of theories that genuinely reflect respondents’ experiences, fostering a deeper understanding of the subject.

In this study, the researcher employed various grounded theory coding strategies, starting with open coding to extract key concepts, followed by principal axis coding to understand their interrelationships, and concluding with selective coding to build a comprehensive theoretical framework [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ]. Semi-structured interviews, complemented by literature analysis, were pivotal in exploring the conceptual nuances of irrational religious orientations, enhancing the depth and applicability of the findings.

Overall, the researcher’s grounded theory approach, supported by relevant literature, illustrates its effectiveness in social sciences for examining complex phenomena like irrational religious orientations, confirming its vital role in current scholarly discourse. The research utilized a mix of online and offline interviews, guided by an outline of open-ended questions (see Table  1 ), ensuring comprehensive coverage of the research topic.

This study aims to define irrational religious orientations, setting a foundation for future research. A diverse and inclusive sample was crucial, with 29 participants from varied backgrounds in terms of gender, age, occupation, and religious affiliation, ensuring broad representativeness (details in Table  2 ). The sample included a balance of genders (8 males, 21 females) and a wide age range (19–55 years), encompassing various professions like clerical staff, freelancers, and entrepreneurs, enriching the study with diverse professional insights.

The participants’ religious beliefs included only three beliefs, Taoism, Buddhism, and no religious beliefs, which comprehensively reflected their religious orientation. The study utilized a dual-mode interview method, i.e., offline interviews using a KDDI SR502 recorder in a quiet environment and online interviews via Tencent conferencing software to ensure effective communication and data collection. Each interview lasted between 30 and 50 min and was adjusted according to the comfort level of the participants to optimize data quality.

Ethically, the study upheld privacy and confidentiality standards, with voluntary participation emphasized, showcasing a commitment to ethical research practices.

This research, grounded in qualitative methodology, emphasizes the open coding process in analyzing interview transcripts, underscoring the crucial role of qualitative data analysis software like NVivo14 in categorizing data and conceptualizing themes [ 31 – 32 ]. Open coding involves a detailed dissection of data, here interview transcripts, to extract categories, properties, and hypotheses, demanding an in-depth understanding and identification of recurring patterns or themes [ 33 ]. This creative yet disciplined process requires an analytical mind capable of connecting disparate qualitative data.

NVivo14 is instrumental in breaking down data into manageable units, organizing and analyzing content to identify key themes and patterns [ 32 ]. This software minimizes category overlap, clarifying and distinguishing each theme, thereby enhancing the analysis’s accuracy and quality. The incorporation of digital tools like NVivo14 in research workflows not only speeds up the process but also ensures a thorough, nuanced examination of qualitative data. The specifics of open coding are presented in Table  3 .

In grounded theory methodology, spindle coding follows open coding as a pivotal process [ 26 ]. Its primary role is to establish connections and relationships between pre-existing codes. This stage synthesizes initial codes into broader themes, revealing causal links, conditions, and contexts [ 34 ]. For instance, researchers might group codes into themes like “belief avoidance” or “belief dependence,” exploring their interplay within the studied phenomenon.

Selective coding, the final step in grounded theory [ 26 , 35 – 36 ], integrates categories from spindle coding around a central or “core category“ [ 37 ]. This is done to form a cohesive theory around the core categories that effectively summarizes the major phenomena observed in the study [ 26 , 34 , 38 ]. This forms a unified theory reflecting the study’s main observations. For example, if “religious spiritual dependence” emerges as a core category, selective coding aligns all related categories to depict its representation in the data. This process culminates in a structured, coherent theoretical framework, as outlined in Table  4 .

Dimension construction process

The results of the semi-structured interviews on irrational religious orientations revealed three main dimensions of irrational religious orientations: B01 Religious Spiritual Dependence; B02 Religious Instrumental Tendency; and B03 Religious Uniqueness Identity.

Religious spiritual dependence

The three main dimensions are A01 Faith Escape, A02 Faith Dependence, and A03 Faith Dissemination, and the five subdimensions are C10 Reality Escape, C11 Responsibility Escape, C14 Negative Coping, C18 Emotional Dependence, and C19 Persuasion.

Religious-spiritual dependence reflects an individual’s excessive reliance on religious beliefs, which usually manifests itself in the form of avoidance of real-life difficulties and responsibilities, as well as the search for psychological comfort and a sense of social belonging [ 39 ]. In gaining a deeper understanding of the nature of this dependence, its multiple dimensions can be revealed by analyzing the three main categories - Faithful Evasion, Faithful Dependence, and Faithful Dissemination - and their related subcategories.

Faithful Evasion encompasses the subcategories of " C10 Reality Escape " and " C11 Responsibility Escape “. This concept describes the use of religious beliefs by individuals to escape real-life dilemmas and personal responsibilities, reflecting religious spirituality as a mechanism to avoid real-life challenges.

Seeking Solace in Faith is a fusion of the subcategories of “C14 Negative Coping” and “C18 Emotional Dependence”. It expresses the tendency of individuals to seek religion for emotional comfort and psychological support in the face of life’s challenges, rather than actively solving problems, and shows individuals’ reliance on the spirit of religion for psychological comfort and emotional support in the face of adversity.

Faith Dissemination, derived from the subcategory of “C19 Persuasion”, describes individuals who actively persuade others to accept their religious beliefs due to the need for spiritual dependence. This behavior may be due to the fact that the individual seeks to gain self-affirmation and psychological support by getting others to accept his or her beliefs.

Considering the relationship between these primary and secondary categories together, the complexity of religious spiritual dependence can be seen. Individuals may seek to cope with life’s stresses and challenges through faith escape, find emotional solace and psychological support through faith dependence, and enhance their own faith experience and increase their sense of social belonging through faith transmission. Together, these patterns of behavior constitute the structure of religious-spiritual dependence, reflecting how individuals respond to various psychological and social needs in their personal lives through religious belief.

Religious instrumental tendency

The 4 main categories are A04 Extravagant Display, A05 Profit-driven, A06 Stubbornness and Narrow-mindedness, and A07 Social Avoidance. the 8 subcategories are C04 Wastefulness, C08 Flaunting, C06 Profit-making tendency, C09 Investing tendency, C02 Obsessive, C20 Paranoia, C13 Dogmatic rigidity, C17 Social isolation.

Religious instrumental tendency is a state of mind that uses religious beliefs as a means to achieve personal ends, and this tendency shows diversity and complexity among different individuals. By analyzing in depth the four main categories - Ostentatious Display, Profit-Driven, Stubborn Narrow-mindedness, and Social Avoidance - and the sub-categories associated with them, we can understand the nature and manifestations of this tendency more fully.

The concept of “A04 Extravagant display”, formed by combining the subcategories of “C08 Flaunting” and “C04 Wastefulness”, describes the excessive and unnecessary consumption behaviors that individuals engage in in order to display their social status and wealth. Such behavior is not only intended to attract the attention and admiration of others, but also reflects a strong desire for social recognition and status in the context of religious instrumentalism.

“A05 Profit-driven” is a blend of “C06 Profit-making tendency” and “C06 Profit-making tendency”, and is characterized by the individual’s intense pursuit of monetary rewards. This mindset may drive individuals to seek profit in various investments and business activities, sometimes without regard for risk or ethics.

“A07 Social avoidance”, derived directly from the subcategory of “C17 Social isolation”, describes an individual’s tendency to avoid social interactions due to fear of interpersonal complexity or distrust of others. This avoidance behavior may be a defense mechanism, but in the long run it may lead to a deterioration of social skills and impoverishment of interpersonal relationships.

“A06 Stubbornness and narrow-mindedness” combines the subcategories of " C02 Obsessive,” " C20 Paranoia,” and " C13 Dogmatic rigidity,” highlighting a lack of openness and flexibility in an individual’s thinking and behavior. A lack of openness and flexibility in individual thought and behavior. Such attitudes are often associated with resistance to dissent and new information, and reflect an overly insistent and narrow perspective on religious ideas.

Considering these categories together, religious instrumental tendencies constitute a complex web of individual behaviors and mindsets. Through extravagant displays, individuals may seek social recognition and status; through the profit motive, they pursue material gain; through social avoidance, they avoid confronting the complexity of relationships; and through stubborn narrow-mindedness, they defend their beliefs and perspectives. Together, these patterns of behavior exemplify how individuals use religious beliefs to achieve personal ends, including the pursuit of material gain, social status, and avoidance of social interactions.

Religious unique attribute identity

The four main categories are A08 Critically Deficient Conformity, A09 Psychological Compensatory Beliefs, A10 Authoritative Dependence, and A11 Identity Judgemental Discrimination Blind Conformity. the seven subcategories are C01 Blind Conformity, C05 Blind Rendering, C15 Authoritative Dependence, C07 Compensation, C03 Coercion, C12 Obedience to the Word, and C16 Double Standards.

Religious uniqueness identity refers to specific mental attitudes and behavioral patterns exhibited by individuals in their religious practices and beliefs. These patterns typically include blind obedience to authority, compensation for psychological needs, and discrimination and prejudice in identity judgments. By analyzing the four main categories: critically deficient conformity, psychologically compensatory beliefs, authority attachment, and identity-judging discrimination, as well as the related subcategories, we can gain insight into the nature of religiously exclusive identity.

Uncritical Conformity combines the subcategories of Blind Conformity, Blind Rendering, and Authority Dependence to describe the nature of individuals’ religious practices. It describes an individual’s blind acceptance of authoritative opinions and collective beliefs in religious practice without individual critical thinking. This reflects the individual’s unconditional obedience to religious authority and collective views.

Psychological Compensation Faith retains the independence of the Compensation subcategory and emphasizes the use of religious practices to satisfy internal psychological needs, such as comfort, self-affirmation, or escape from stressful situations.

Compliance Pressure combines the subcategories of Compulsion and Obedience to emphasize the unconditional obedience of individuals to authority in religious contexts and the coercion of beliefs on others. It expresses the individual’s submissiveness and dependence on religious authority.

Identity Judgment Bias maintains the independence of the subcategory of “double standards”, which relates to the impartiality of judgments, and manifests itself in discrimination and prejudice against different identities or groups in religious beliefs and practices.

The relationship between these primary and secondary categories reveals the multiple dimensions of religious identity. Individuals may exhibit blind obedience to religious authority and collective viewpoints through critically deficient subordination; through psychologically compensatory beliefs that utilize religion to satisfy internal psychological needs; through authoritative dependence, which manifests as obedience to authority and coercion of beliefs about others; and through identity judgmental discrimination, whereby individuals may exhibit discrimination and prejudice against different identities or groups in their religious beliefs and practices. Together, these behavioral and attitudinal patterns constitute the complex structure of religious uniqueness identity, reflecting how individuals develop specific psychological attitudes and behavioral patterns in their religious beliefs and practices.

Theoretical modeling of irrational religious orientations

In constructing a theoretical model of irrational religious dispositions, a variety of complex psychological, social, and cultural factors are considered and how they interact to shape an individual’s religious behaviors and attitudes (as shown in Fig.  1 ). The model refines the key factors that shape irrational religious dispositions, explores their profound impact on individual mindsets and behaviors, and proposes a range of strategies aimed at mitigating or preventing these dispositions. In this framework, we can see how religious beliefs can mutate from a healthy spiritual support to an irrational form that can bring about psychological distress and social division. Next, we will explore in detail the factors that shape irrational religious orientations as well as specific measures to counter these tendencies.

Conceptual Model of Irrational religious orientations

Factors shaping generation Z’s Irrational religious orientations

Information explosion and online communication.

In the digital age, Generation Z is significantly impacted by the vast availability of online information, particularly in shaping their religious beliefs. This information overload often leads to cognitive stress and confusion, as they struggle to process and assimilate extensive religious content [ 40 ]. Consequently, decision-making becomes more challenging, and there’s a tendency towards superficial information processing [ 41 ]. The diversity of information, while offering broad perspectives, also poses risks. Extreme or irrational religious views online can mislead youth, impacting their value formation. Additionally, social media algorithms may reinforce existing beliefs, creating an ‘Echo Chamber Effect’ and hindering critical thinking [ 42 – 43 ].

Therefore, the information era presents both opportunities and challenges for Generation Z in forming religious concepts. The key concern is aiding them in effectively filtering and processing information to develop rational beliefs [ 44 ].

Social pressures and psychological difficulties

In the current social context, Generation Z faces considerable stressors, including academic, career, and social pressures, contributing to mental health issues like anxiety and depression [ 45 ]. To cope, many turn to religious beliefs for solace, sometimes adopting irrational religious ideas that offer simple solutions [ 45 ].

This reliance on irrational religious concepts can lead to avoidance behaviors, impacting long-term development and mental health [ 46 ]. Such avoidance may manifest as denial of real-life problems and a lack of constructive coping strategies.

This reliance on irrational religious concepts can lead to avoidance behaviors, impacting long-term development and mental health [ 47 ]. This avoidance behavior may manifest itself in ignoring or denying real-life problems, as well as a lack of positive coping attitudes in the face of difficulties.

Furthermore, excessive reliance on these beliefs in decision-making can impair rational thinking, leading to potentially harmful choices in education, career, health, and relationships [ 48 – 49 ].This can also result in a disconnect from family, friends, and society, potentially leading to social isolation and increased psychological distress [ 41 , 50 ].

In summary, Generation Z’s turn to irrational religious beliefs as a response to societal and psychological pressures not only affects their mental health and development but also influences their social relationships and life choices. Understanding and addressing these tendencies is vital for their overall well-being.

Value conflict and identity crisis

In the context of globalization and the digital era, Generation Z navigates complex challenges in shaping their identity and values [ 51 ]. This generation actively seeks to establish unique identities, often blending various cultures, values, and lifestyles beyond traditional or ethnic boundaries. Balancing cultural conflicts and integration, they grapple with tradition versus modernity and local versus global influences.

Many in Generation Z question traditional religions and cultural values, gravitating towards non-mainstream or emerging religious beliefs as a form of spiritual solace and a means to express individuality and dissent [ 52 – 53 ]. This exploration is also driven by their need for a sense of community and belonging. They often turn to virtual communities, which offer a platform for aligning with specific religious concepts or lifestyles, providing a new avenue for identity formation and belonging [ 54 – 55 ].

Overall, Generation Z’s journey in forming personal identities and values is influenced by a mix of cultural diversity, individualization, and community belonging. This journey often includes an attraction to non-mainstream religious beliefs, highlighting the complexity of their search for identity and belonging.

Social loneliness and sense of group belonging

The rise of social networks has had a profound dual impact on Generation Z’s social habits and religious perspectives [ 56 ]. Social media, while facilitating connectivity, often lacks depth and authenticity, leading to decreased real-life socialization and potential social isolation [ 57 – 58 ]. The culture of online comparison can undermine self-worth, exacerbating feelings of loneliness and dissatisfaction. Additionally, overreliance on virtual communication may impair real-life social skills, hindering the formation of meaningful relationships [ 59 ].

In response, religious groups are becoming increasingly appealing to Generation Z for offering community and a sense of belonging [ 50 , 60 ]. The shared beliefs and community activities within these groups can mitigate feelings of isolation and promote social engagement. However, in their search for belonging and meaning, Gen Z may also be drawn to irrational religious beliefs that provide simple answers to complex life questions.

In summary, social media’s influence and the resulting social isolation may prompt Gen Z to seek belonging in religious communities, while simultaneously increasing their susceptibility to irrational religious orientations. This underscores the complexities of Gen Z’s pursuit of social connection, psychological solace, and identity formation.

Response to Generation Z’s Irrational religious orientations

Strengthening internet information regulation and literacy education.

Enhancing internet information regulation and literacy education is vital in assisting Generation Z to discern and resist irrational religious orientations, fostering the development of sound religious concepts and values.

Effective online information regulation involves scrutinizing and filtering religious content to prevent the spread of misinformation and extreme ideas [ 61 – 62 ]. This includes restricting misleading content and ensuring online platforms are transparent and accountable, flagging or removing content promoting harmful religious ideologies [ 63 ].

Literacy education should focus on equipping Gen Z with skills to critically analyze internet content, particularly religious information. This involves teaching them to identify credible sources, understand the intentions behind information, and evaluate online content from various perspectives [ 64 – 65 ].Media literacy education, crucial for safe and responsible use of social media and online platforms, should be integrated into school curricula and broader societal education [ 66 ]. A comprehensive approach requires multifaceted education and guidance, extending beyond formal school settings to families, communities, and online platforms. Promoting content that disseminates healthy religious concepts and recognizing individual differences in information processing and critical thinking are also key. Personalized support should be offered based on individual needs [ 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 ]. These strategies will help Generation Z to develop healthy and rational beliefs and values.

Mental health and counseling

Mental health education and counseling are pivotal for assisting Generation Z in managing psychological stress and diminishing their reliance on irrational religious beliefs. Firstly, enhancing mental health awareness is crucial. It involves educating young people about recognizing and understanding common psychological issues, like anxiety and depression, which are fundamental for mental well-being [ 67 ].

Developing coping and emotional self-regulation skills is also essential. This approach teaches Generation Z effective strategies for handling life’s pressures and emotional challenges, enabling them to respond positively to mood swings and frustrations [ 68 ].

Professional psychological counseling plays a significant role, providing emotional support and specialized assistance, especially in addressing personal problems and stress. Tailored counseling services offer individualized support, helping young people discover personal coping strategies [ 69 – 70 ].

Implementing these strategies in schools and communities is equally important. Integrating mental health education into curriculums and providing accessible community resources, like hotlines and workshops, broadens support. Training parents and teachers enhances their ability to understand and meet the psychological needs of youth [ 71 ].

A comprehensive approach includes a multi-channel mental health support system, combining resources from educational institutions, families, communities, and professional organizations. This system should foster open discussions about mental health to dismantle taboos and offer specialized support for those with specific psychological needs [ 72 ].

Through these initiatives, Generation Z can more effectively manage psychological stress, enhancing their mental health and reducing dependency on irrational religious practices, thereby promoting their overall well-being and healthy development.

Multiculturalism and values education

Multiculturalism and values education are essential in addressing the irrational religious inclinations of Generation Z [ 73 ]. This form of education fosters an appreciation and respect for diverse cultural backgrounds, beliefs, and traditions, crucial for cultivating a broad-minded perspective among young people [ 74 ]. It enhances cultural awareness, sensitivity, and the ability to respect and value equality, while also sharpening critical thinking skills [ 75 ].

The role of public media is significant in promoting pluralistic and inclusive narratives. By offering varied perspectives, including those of minority and marginalized groups, media can contribute to a balanced understanding while steering clear of extreme or radical viewpoints.

Implementing systematic multicultural and values education programs involves integrating these themes into school curricula and leveraging the influence of public media. Encouraging active participation in social and cultural activities enables young people to engage with diverse groups, fostering practical experiences in multiculturalism and values. Opportunities for volunteerism, community involvement, and cultural experiences further reinforce these concepts [ 73 , 74 , 75 ].

These strategies are pivotal in helping Generation Z develop a rational worldview, mitigate the allure of irrational religious beliefs, and grow into open, tolerant, and understanding members of a multicultural society.

Religious education and dialogue

Religious education is key in enhancing young people’s comprehension and appreciation of various religions [ 76 ]. It delves into the history, core beliefs, and practices of different faiths, emphasizing the spectrum and intricacies of religious beliefs. This education is instrumental in helping Generation Z understand diverse religious perspectives, recognize similarities and differences among them, and discern between rational religious concepts and extremist ideas [ 77 – 78 ].

Public lectures and seminars featuring religious experts can foster dialogue and rational discussions, enabling students to articulate and respect diverse viewpoints [ 79 – 80 ]. Inter-religious exchange activities further promote mutual understanding and respect across different faiths.

Critical thinking is a cornerstone of religious education, equipping young people to analyze and critically evaluate religious information, identify prejudices, and base their understandings on facts and logic [ 81 – 82 ]. It encourages them to develop their own religious views, rather than conforming to others’ beliefs uncritically.

Effective strategies for promoting religious understanding include offering religious education and dialogue through schools, communities, religious institutions, and public media. Emphasizing inclusivity and respect for both believers and non-believers in all forms of religious education and dialogue is essential. These measures are designed to help Generation Z develop a well-rounded worldview, understand the role of religion in personal and societal contexts, and become more open, inclusive, and rational members of society [ 76 , 80 , 81 , 82 ].

Main findings

This research delves into the irrational religious orientations of Generation Z in China, uncovering their complexity and multidimensionality. The study identifies key aspects:

a. Religious Spiritual Dependence : This includes faith avoidance, dependence, and propagation, highlighting how individuals excessively rely on religious beliefs for psychological comfort and social belonging when facing real-life challenges.

b. Religious Instrumental Tendency : Some individuals use religion as a means to achieve personal goals, such as gaining social status or material benefits.

c. Religious Uniqueness Identity : This reflects specific attitudes and behaviors in religious practices among Generation Z, characterized by a lack of critical thinking and using religion to fulfill psychological needs.

The formation of these tendencies is influenced by factors such as information overload and Internet communication, leading to cognitive challenges and susceptibility to misinformation, particularly in developing religious ideas. Social pressures, academic and professional development challenges, value conflicts, identity crises, social isolation, and the need for group belonging also contribute significantly.

The study suggests multifaceted strategies to address these tendencies:

Promotion of Multiculturalism and Values Education : Through education and public media, fostering respect, equality, and critical thinking.

Strengthening Online Information Regulation and Literacy : Aiding Gen Z in discerning information and developing rational religious concepts.

Mental Health Awareness and Counseling : Supporting Gen Z in managing psychological stress and reducing dependence on irrational religious beliefs.

Encouragement of Social and Cultural Activities : Enhancing communication and understanding among diverse groups, promoting openness and inclusivity.

These findings and strategies provide valuable insights into Generation Z’s irrational religiosity and propose practical approaches for support and guidance. Implementing these strategies is key to understanding their psychological and behavioral patterns in religious beliefs, crucial for their well-being and healthy development.

Theoretical and practical implications

This study offers a comprehensive exploration of irrational religious orientations in China’s Generation Z, shedding light on their complex motivations and multidimensional nature. It examines how religious spiritual dependence, instrumental tendency, and exclusive identity interplay with personal behaviors, providing valuable theoretical insights into this complex phenomenon.

The research underscores the significance of cultural context in understanding religious orientations. Investigating these tendencies across various cultural and social environments can yield more nuanced understanding, highlighting the impact of cultural factors on the development and manifestation of these inclinations.

For policymakers, the study’s findings offer crucial guidance. It suggests the need for educational policies, public communication strategies, and social interventions tailored to address irrational religious orientations among Generation Z. These strategies aim to foster social cohesion and support the healthy development of young people.

Educators and mental health professionals can leverage these insights to better assist Generation Z. Multicultural education, cyber literacy, and mental health counseling emerge as key tools for guiding young people towards healthier, more rational religious attitudes and helping them navigate the psychological and social challenges associated with these tendencies.

In summary, this study not only enriches the theoretical understanding of irrational religious orientations but also provides practical strategies for addressing these issues, particularly focusing on Generation Z in China. Its implications are vital for enhancing societal well-being and fostering healthy development.

There are still some limitations of this paper, which are as follows:

Sample diversity

The sample in this study may not be fully representative of the broader Generation Z population in different parts of China, which may affect the generalizability of the results. The sample is limited to participants from predominantly urban areas, which may not reflect the religious orientation of participants from rural areas.

Methodological limitations

While grounded theory provides reliable qualitative insights, the interpretation of the data may be subjective and influenced by the researcher’s viewpoint. This may affect the neutrality and replicability of the study.

Cross-sectional nature

The study design is cross-sectional, which limits the ability to capture changes in religious orientation over time or to infer causal relationships between observed factors and religious orientation.

Reliance on self-reported data

The study relies heavily on self-reported data obtained through interviews, which are susceptible to biases such as social desirability or recall bias. Participants may present themselves in ways that they find socially acceptable rather than reflecting their true religious orientation.

Digital influences

Given the study’s focus on the digital influences of Generation Z, the study may overemphasize the impact of digital media on religious orientation without sufficiently considering other important influences such as family, education, and personal experiences.

Recommendations for future research

To further enrich the understanding and theoretical framework of irrational religious orientations among China’s Generation Z, this study suggests employing innovative qualitative research methodologies such as Online Photovoice (OPV), Online Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (OIPA), and Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) [ 83 ]. These methodologies are crucial for capturing the personal experiences and perceptions of individuals authentically and vividly, delving deeper into their thoughts, feelings, images, and behaviors.

Utilizing OPV and OIPA can provide valuable insights into the irrational religious orientations and their psycho-sociological implications. By applying OPV and CBPR, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of Generation Z’s approach to religious and spiritual concepts. Furthermore, examining religious and spiritual facilitators and barriers for Chinese people through the lens of OPV and OIPA, while collaborating with them from a CBPR perspective, is essential [ 84 ].

OPV, as one of the most recent and effective innovative qualitative research methods, offers a unique opportunity for participants to express their own experiences with minimal manipulation compared to traditional quantitative methods. Early adopters of OPV, such as Tanhan and Strack, have operationalized and explained it step by step, demonstrating its effectiveness in capturing authentic participant experiences [ 85 ].

Future researchers are encouraged to conduct qualitative or mixed-method studies to explore the potential of OPV. Educators and trainers can also use OPV for experiential activities to enhance group and organizational synergy. OPV and OIPA provide straightforward and comprehensive approaches to data analysis, resulting in meaningful and comprehensive insights [ 86 ].This approach is not only about expanding the understanding of irrational orientations but also about exploring the multi-dimensional aspects of religious spiritual dependence, instrumental tendency, and exclusive identity.

This comprehensive exploration provides critical insights into the interplay between religious beliefs and personal behaviors, offering new perspectives that contribute to a more nuanced understanding of this complex phenomenon. The study highlights the importance of conducting similar research in different cultural contexts, as cultural factors significantly influence the formation and manifestation of religious orientations. By analyzing these orientations in varied settings, researchers can obtain more comprehensive insights that enhance our understanding globally.

The findings from this study serve as important guidance for policymakers, suggesting the need for more effective educational policies, public communication strategies, and social interventions. These can be specifically targeted to address the challenges posed by irrational religious orientations and promote social cohesion and the healthy development of young people. Additionally, educators and mental health professionals can utilize these findings to better understand and support Generation Z. Through targeted interventions such as multicultural education, cyber literacy, and mental health counseling, professionals can guide young people to develop healthier and more rational religious attitudes, assisting them in navigating the psychological and social challenges associated with irrational religious orientations.

Overall, the integration of these innovative methodologies and the in-depth analysis provided by this study significantly contribute to the theoretical and practical understanding of irrational religious orientations. This is particularly significant in enhancing the well-being and promoting the healthy development of society, especially within the context of Generation Z in China.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Silveira P, Morais R, Petrella S. (2022). A Communication Study of Young Adults and Online Dependency during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Societies.

Szymkowiak A, Melović B, Dabić M, Jeganathan K, Kundi GS. Information technology and Gen Z: the role of teachers, the internet, and technology in the education of young people. Technol Soc. 2021;65:101565.

Article   Google Scholar  

Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of Use, and user Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 1989;13:319–40.

Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User Acceptance of Information Technology: toward a unified view. Institutions & Transition Economics: Microeconomic Issues eJournal; 2003.

Google Scholar  

Venkatesh V, Thong JYL, Xu X. Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Behavioral Marketing eJournal; 2012.

Chen L, Zeng S, Tian Z. Resonance or alienation: an empirical study on the influencing factors of religious belief choices among China’s Generation Z. Religions. 2023b;14(9):1161.

Pendidikan J, Islam A, Hopid A, Samaalee A, Rachmaningtyas NA, Cahyo H, Kistoro A. Generation Z’s Perception of Religious Moderation and Tendency to Choose Religious Studies in Indonesia. Jurnal pendidikan agama Islam; 2023.

Demi̇r T. (2022). Is Everything Sacred Evaporating? Transhumanist Traces on Value Orientation of Generation Z. Marifetname.

Āllport GW, Ross JM. Personal religious orientation and prejudice. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1967;5(4):432–43.

Janbozorgi M. RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND MENTAL HEALTH. Res Med. 2007;31:345–50.

Aliakbari F, Taqvaei D, Pirani Z. Designing the model of men’s violence against women based on religious orientation and mental health, considering the mediating role of gendered educational style and cognitive emotion regulation styles. International journal of health sciences; 2022.

الخوالدة عم. Social media advertising, motivation, price reduction, and consumer purchasing behavior. religious orientation as a moderator; 2021.

Asad DS, Khalid S, Rehman S, Abdullah M. Religious Orientation and Development of Pro- Social Behavior in Young Female Students. Journal of Professional & Applied Psychology; 2021.

Doane MJ, Elliott M, Dyrenforth PS. Extrinsic religious orientation and Well-Being: is their negative Association Real or Spurious? Rev Religious Res. 2014;56:45–60.

Narsa NPDRH, Wijayanti DM. The importance of psychological capital on the linkages between religious orientation and job stress. Journal of Asia Business Studies; 2021.

Bakan AB, Arli SK, Yıldız M. Relationship between religious orientation and death anxiety in Elderly individuals. J Relig Health. 2019;58:2241–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-019-00917-4 . https://link.springer.com/article/ .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Forouhari S, Hosseini Teshnizi S, Ehrampoush MH, Mahmoodabad M, Fallahzadeh SS, Tabei H, Nami SZ, Mirzaei M, Namavar Jahromi M, HOSSEINI B, TESHNIZI SM, GHANI DEHKORDI J, Kazemitabaee M. Relationship between religious orientation, anxiety, and Depression among College students: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Iran J Public Health. 2019;48:43–52. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6401585/pdf/IJPH-48-43.pdf .

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ozgoli G, saeigarenaz m, Hajizadeh F, Sheikhan Z, Nasiri M, Jannesari S. Relationship between demographic factors and religious orientation and the Reproductive Behavior of Employed women in Tehran. Int J Women’s Health. 2017;5:277–82.

Vujisić Z. (2009). Religious Orientation and Mental Health.

Chen L, Zeng S, Tian Z. (2023). Resonance or Alienation: An Empirical Study on the Influencing Factors of Religious Belief Choices among China’s Generation Z. Religions.

Minkov M, Kaasa A. Do religions account for important cultural differences? An analysis across 100 religious groups in 27 African countries. Cross Cult Strategic Manage. 2022;29(4):938–62.

Rusli R, Ainah N, Arief MI, Husin GMI. RELIGIOUS MODERATION OF GENERATION Z: ATTITUDE OF STUDENTS’RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN STRENGTHENING THE CHARACTER OF THE NATION. el-Buhuth: Borneo Journal of Islamic Studies; 2022. pp. 1–10.

Rizka H. Generation Z on the choice of religious authorities: a Case Study of Religious communities in Yogyakarta. SHAHIH: J Islamicate Multidisciplinary. 2019;4(1):25–38.

Powell SM, Spaulding HW, Tite PL. Teaching with Faith Crisis. A Summary of On the Necessity of Crisis; 1969.

Silver RS. Faith, Science and the future. ‘Church and Society’. Geneva, Switzerland, World Council of Churches, 1978. Pp. 236. £3·95. Scott J Theol. 1980;33:76–8.

Corbin JM. Grounded theory. J Posit Psychol. 2017;12:301–2.

Heath H, Cowley S. Developing a grounded theory approach: a comparison of Glaser and Strauss. Int J Nurs Stud. 2004;41(2):141–50.

Morse JM, Stern PN, Corbin JM, Bowers BJ, Charmaz K, Clarke AE. (2016). In the Beginning Glaser and Strauss Created Grounded Theory.

In-sook K. Divergence of grounded theory: focused on the differences of Glaser and Strauss. Korean J Social Welf Stud. 2011;42:351–79.

Loubser JJ. Review: the Discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research by Glaser and Strauss. Am J Sociol. 1968;73:773–4.

Kalpokas N, Radivojevic I. Bridging the Gap between Methodology and Qualitative Data Analysis Software: a practical guide for educators and qualitative researchers. Sociol Res Online. 2021;27:313–41.

Paulus TM. Using qualitative data Analysis Software to support Digital Research Workflows. Hum Resour Dev Rev. 2022;22:139–48.

Goldman S. Consensual qualitative research: a practical resource for investigating social science phenomena. Counselling Psychother Res. 2012;12:242–3.

Priya KR. (2013). Grounded Theory Methodology.

Glaser BG. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory.

Strauss A, Corbin JM. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Contemp Sociol. 1993;21:138.

Pieterse HJC. The grounded theory methodology to conduct content analysis of sermons and interviews: Critique and response. HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies; 2020.

Yue N, Mui LG. A qualitative study on Quality of Life on Elderly in Community in Mianyang City, China. International Journal of Biology and Life Sciences; 2023.

Hai AH, Franklin C, Park S, DiNitto DM, Aurelio N. The efficacy of spiritual/religious interventions for substance use problems: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;202:134–48.

Liu H, Liu W, Yoganathan V, Osburg VS. COVID-19 information overload and generation Z’s social media discontinuance intention during the pandemic lockdown. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2021;166:120600–120600. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8640972/pdf/main.pdf .

Dalayli F. Evaluation of Generation Z and Influencer Interaction in the scope of Religious and Cultural values. Cumhuriyet İlahiyat Dergisi; 2023.

Cinelli M, De Francisci Morales G, Galeazzi A, Quattrociocchi W, Starnini M. The echo chamber effect on social media. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2021;118(9):e2023301118. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7936330/pdf/pnas.202023301.pdf .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Zhu J, Ni P, Tong G, Wang G, Huang J. Influence maximization problem with echo chamber effect in social network. IEEE Trans Comput Social Syst. 2021;8(5):1163–71.

Rolando DM, Achfandhy MI, Jamiah R. Problematics Of Today’s Problem As A Threat Of Moral Degradation Of Generation Z. KOMUNIKA; 2023.

Yalçın İncik E. Generation Z Students’ views on Technology in Education: what they want what they get. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology; 2022.

Dodok Y, Guntur A, Indriyawati, Wicaksono KE. Behavioral Differences in Seeking Help for Mental Health among Generation Z from the Kodi People Group and the madurese ethnic group. Journal of Applied Nursing and Health; 2022.

Dobrowolski Z, Drozdowski G, Panait MC. (2022). Understanding the impact of Generation Z on Risk Management—A preliminary views on values, competencies, and Ethics of the Generation Z in Public Administration. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 19.

Chen X-j, Wei W, Ai W. (2023). Organ donation: Key factors influencing the younger generation’s decision-making in China. Front Public Health, 11.

Mei L, Liu K, Xiong L, Zhu B-W, Halafoff A, Singleton A, Bouma G, Rasmussen ML. (2020b). Religious literacy of Australia’s Gen Z teens: diversity and social inclusion. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 41, 195–213.

Halafoff A, Singleton A, Bouma G, Rasmussen ML. Religious literacy of Australia’s Gen Z teens: diversity and social inclusion. J Beliefs Values. 2020a;41(2):195–213.

Bhutto MY, Khan MA, Ertz M, Sun H. Investigating the role of ethical self-identity and its effect on consumption values and intentions to adopt green vehicles among Generation Z. Sustainability. 2022;14(5):3015.

Herzog PS. Youth and emerging adults: the changing contexts of faith and giving. Volume 8. MDPI; 2017. p. 124.

Iles-Caven Y, Gregory S, Matthews S. Coding definitions of participant religious, non-religious and spiritual beliefs in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents & Children (ALSPAC). Wellcome Open Res. 2023;8(528):528.

Ross AD, Rouse SM. (Young) generations as Social identities: the role of Latino* Millennial/Generation Z in shaping attitudes about Climate Change. Polit Behav. 2022;44(3):1105–24.

Sitompul LU, Noviani F, Sembiring S. (2023). Constructing Self Identity through Social-Media: In the Perspective of Gen Z. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Law, Social Sciences and Education, ICLSSE 2023, 1st June 2023, Singaraja, Bali, Indonesia.

Cheadle JE, Schwadel P. The ‘friendship dynamics of religion,’or the ‘religious dynamics of friendship’? A social network analysis of adolescents who attend small schools. Soc Sci Res. 2012;41(5):1198–212. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3461188/pdf/nihms367881.pdf .

Azzaakiyyah HK. (2023). The Impact of Social Media Use on Social Interaction in Contemporary Society. Technology and Society Perspectives (TACIT), 1(1), 1–9.

Chaker NN, Nowlin EL, Pivonka MT, Itani OS, Agnihotri R. Inside sales social media use and its strategic implications for salesperson-customer digital engagement and performance. Ind Mark Manage. 2022;100:127–44.

Bryant L, Brunner M, Hemsley B. A review of virtual reality technologies in the field of communication disability: implications for practice and research. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology; 2019.

DeWeerdt JS. (2023). The loft: where Gen Z goes to Build relationships and Discover spiritual truths.

Atreja S, Hemphill L, Resnick P. Remove, reduce, inform: what actions do people want Social Media platforms to take on potentially misleading content? Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact. 2023;7(CSCW2):1–33.

Brown I, Marsden CT. Regulating code: good governance and better regulation in the information age. MIT Press; 2023.

Wilson RA, Land MK. Hate speech on social media: content moderation in context. Conn L Rev. 2020;52:1029.

Blocksidge K, Primeau H. Adapting and evolving: Generation Z’s information beliefs. J Acad Librariansh. 2023;49(3):102686.

Okolie UC, Igwe PA, Mong IK, Nwosu HE, Kanu C, Ojemuyide CC. Enhancing students’ critical thinking skills through engagement with innovative pedagogical practices in Global South. High Educ Res Dev. 2022;41(4):1184–98.

Wuyckens G, Landry N, Fastrez P. Untangling media literacy, information literacy, and digital literacy: a systematic meta-review of core concepts in media education. J Media Lit Educ. 2022;14(1):168–82.

Foulkes L, Andrews JL. Are mental health awareness efforts contributing to the rise in reported mental health problems? A call to test the prevalence inflation hypothesis. New Ideas Psychol. 2023;69:101010.

Wyman PA, Cross W, Hendricks Brown C, Yu Q, Tu X, Eberly S. Intervention to strengthen emotional self-regulation in children with emerging mental health problems: proximal impact on school behavior. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2010;38:707–20.

Dale R, Jesser A, Pieh C, O’Rourke T, Probst T, Humer E. Mental health burden of high school students, and suggestions for psychosocial support, 1.5 years into the COVID-19 pandemic in Austria. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2023;32(6):1015–24.

Lynch L, Long M, Moorhead A. Young men, help-seeking, and mental health services: exploring barriers and solutions. Am J Men’s Health. 2018;12(1):138–49.

Shelemy L, Harvey K, Waite P. Supporting students’ mental health in schools: what do teachers want and need? Emotional Behav Difficulties. 2019;24(1):100–16.

Dimitrov R, Jelen A, L’Etang J. Taboos in health communication: Stigma, silence and voice. Volume 11. London, England: SAGE Publications Sage UK; 2022. pp. 3–35.

Suri D, Chandra D. Teacher’s strategy for implementing multiculturalism education based on local cultural values and character building for early childhood education. J Ethnic Cult Stud. 2021;8(4):271–85.

Firdaus F, Anggreta DK, Yasin F. (2020). Internalizing multiculturalism values through education: Anticipatory strategies for multicultural problems and intolerance in Indonesia. Jurnal Antropologi: Isu-Isu Sosial Budaya, 22(1), 131–141.

Gradellini C, Gómez-Cantarino S, Dominguez-Isabel P, Molina-Gallego B, Mecugni D, Ugarte-Gurrutxaga MI. Cultural competence and cultural sensitivity education in university nursing courses. A scoping review. Front Psychol. 2021;12:682920.

Franken L. Coping with diversity in Religious Education: an overview. J Beliefs Values. 2017;38(1):105–20.

Osbeck C, Skeie G. Religious education at schools in Sweden. Religious education at schools in Europe. Part. 2014;3:237–66.

Watson B, Thompson P. The effective teaching of religious education. Routledge; 2014.

Knitter PF. (2013). Inter-Religious Dialogue and Social Action. The Wiley‐Blackwell Companion to Inter‐Religious Dialogue, 133–148.

Körs A, Weisse W, Willaime J-P. Religious diversity and interreligious dialogue. Springer; 2020.

Altıntaş MC. The role of Religious Education in the 21st Century: worldviews and Identity Discernment of Muslim Youth. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık; 2021.

Jarmer ST. 50 years of criticizing Religion: a historical overview of Norwegian Religious Education. Religions. 2022;13(9):781.

Doyumğaç İ, Tanhan A, Kıymaz MS. Understanding the most important facilitators and barriers for online education during COVID-19 through online photovoice methodology. Int J High Educ. 2021;10(1):166–90.

Dari T, Fox C, Laux JM, Speedlin Gonzalez S. The Development and Validation of the community-based Participatory Research Knowledge Self-Assessment Scale (CBPR-KSAS): a Rasch Analysis. Meas Evaluation Couns Dev. 2023;56(1):64–79.

Tanhan A, Strack RW. Online photovoice to explore and advocate for muslim biopsychosocial spiritual wellbeing and issues: ecological systems theory and ally development. Curr Psychol. 2020;39(6):2010–25.

Dari T, Chan C, Del Re J. Integrating culturally responsive group work in schools to foster the development of career aspirations among marginalized youth. J Spec Group Work. 2021;46(1):75–89.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am immensely grateful for the invaluable support and assistance I’ve received throughout this study. My profound thanks go to Hangzhou Qiuyue Xiyun Culture and Creativity Company, Hong Kong Ruyi Culture and Industry Company Limited, and Zhejiang Jinlan Law Firm for their generous financial backing, insightful guidance, and advice, which were instrumental in the study’s success. I would also like to express my heartfelt gratitude to all the volunteers and participants involved in this study. Their enthusiastic participation, sincere sharing, and invaluable advice provided critical data and profound insights that were invaluable to the depth and breadth of this study. My heartfelt appreciation extends to all the volunteers and participants for their enthusiastic involvement and meaningful contributions, offering essential data and perspectives that greatly enriched this research.

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Ziang Wang, Yinglin Luo & Jindong Jiang

Hong Kong Ruyi Culture Limited, HongKong, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Ziang Wang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Curation Software, Writing - Original Draft，Yinglin Luo: Writing Review & Editing, Visualization Xuan Cao: Investigation, Resources Jindong Jiang: Project administration, Resources.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jindong Jiang .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

All procedures in the study were approved and all methods and experimental protocols were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. This study confirms that all experimental protocols have been approved by the Ethics Committee or IRB of the Hangzhou Normal University. Informed consent was obtained from individual. This study was explained to the interviewees and subjects prior to the study, their consent was obtained, and the interviewees and subjects gave their consent for their data to be used as research material.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, 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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence 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. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wang, Z., Luo, Y., Cao, X. et al. The twisted path to sacredness: a grounded theory study of irrational religious orientation and its psycho-sociological implications. BMC Psychol 12 , 360 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01858-8

Download citation

Received : 23 December 2023

Accepted : 17 June 2024

Published : 20 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01858-8

Share this article

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

• Generation Z
• Irrational religious orientation
• Grounded theory
• Digital influence
• Response strategies

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

• General enquiries: [email protected]

share this!

June 24, 2024

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

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

New research challenges black holes as dark matter explanation

by University of Warsaw

The gravitational wave detectors LIGO and Virgo have detected a population of massive black holes whose origin is one of the biggest mysteries in modern astronomy. According to one hypothesis, these objects may have formed in the very early universe and may include dark matter, a mysterious substance filling the universe.

A team of scientists from the OGLE (Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment) survey from the Astronomical Observatory of the University of Warsaw have announced the results of nearly 20-year-long observations indicating that such massive black holes may comprise at most a few percent of dark matter . Another explanation, therefore, is needed for gravitational wave sources. The results of the research were published in a study in Nature and a study in The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series .

Various astronomical observations indicate that ordinary matter, which we can see or touch, comprises only 5% of the total mass and energy budget of the universe. In the Milky Way, for every 1 kg of ordinary matter in stars, there is 15 kg of dark matter, which does not emit any light and interacts only by means of its gravitational pull.

"The nature of dark matter remains a mystery. Most scientists think it is composed of unknown elementary particles," says Dr. Przemek Mr.óz from the Astronomical Observatory, University of Warsaw, the lead author of both articles. "Unfortunately, despite decades of efforts, no experiment (including experiments carried out with the Large Hadron Collider) has found new particles that could be responsible for dark matter."

Since the first detection of gravitational waves from a merging pair of black holes in 2015, the LIGO and Virgo experiments have detected more than 90 such events. Astronomers noticed that black holes detected by LIGO and Virgo are typically significantly more massive (20–100 solar masses) than those known previously in the Milky Way (5–20 solar masses).

"Explaining why these two populations of black holes are so different is one of the biggest mysteries of modern astronomy," says Dr. Mr.óz.

One possible explanation postulates that LIGO and Virgo detectors have uncovered a population of primordial black holes that may have formed in the very early universe. Their existence was first proposed over 50 years ago by British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, and independently, by the Soviet physicist Yakov Zeldovich.

"We know that the early universe was not ideally homogeneous—small density fluctuations gave rise to current galaxies and galaxy clusters," says Dr. Mr.óz. "Similar density fluctuations, if they exceed a critical density contrast, may collapse and form black holes."

Since the first detection of gravitational waves, more and more scientists have been speculating that such primordial black holes may comprise a significant fraction, if not all, of dark matter.

Fortunately, this hypothesis can be verified with astronomical observations. We observe that copious amounts of dark matter exist in the Milky Way. If it were composed of black holes, we should be able to detect them in our cosmic neighborhood. Is this possible, given that black holes do not emit any detectable light?

According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, light may be bent and deflected in the gravitational field of massive objects, a phenomenon called gravitational microlensing .

"Microlensing occurs when three objects—an observer on Earth, a source of light, and a lens—virtually ideally align in space," says Prof. Andrzej Udalski, the principal investigator of the OGLE survey. "During a microlensing event, the source's light may be deflected and magnified, and we observe a temporary brightening of the source's light."

The duration of the brightening depends on the mass of the lensing object: the higher the mass, the longer the event. Microlensing events by solar mass objects typically last several weeks, whereas those by black holes that are 100 times more massive than the sun would last a few years.

The idea of using gravitational microlensing to study dark matter is not new. It was first proposed in the 1980s by Polish astrophysicist Bohdan Paczyński. His idea inspired the start of three major experiments: Polish OGLE, American MACHO, and French EROS. The first results from these experiments demonstrated that black holes less massive than one solar mass may comprise less than 10% of dark matter. These observations were not, however, sensitive to extremely long-timescale microlensing events, and therefore, not sensitive to massive black holes, similar to those recently detected with gravitational-wave detectors.

In the new article in The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , OGLE astronomers present the results of nearly 20-year-long photometric monitoring of almost 80 million stars located in a nearby galaxy, called the Large Magellanic Cloud, and the searches for gravitational microlensing events. The analyzed data was collected during the third and fourth phases of the OGLE project from 2001 to 2020.

"This data set provides the longest, largest, and most accurate photometric observations of stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud in the history of modern astronomy," says Prof. Udalski.

The second article, published in Nature , discusses the astrophysical consequences of the findings.

"If the entire dark matter in the Milky Way was composed of black holes of 10 solar masses, we should have detected 258 microlensing events," says Dr. Mr.óz. "For 100 solar mass black holes, we expected 99 microlensing events. For 1,000 solar mass black holes—27 microlensing events."

In contrast, the OGLE astronomers have found only 13 microlensing events. Their detailed analysis demonstrates that all of them can be explained by the known stellar populations in the Milky Way or the Large Magellanic Cloud itself, not by black holes.

"That indicates that massive black holes can compose at most a few percent of dark matter," says Dr. Mr.óz.

The detailed calculations demonstrate that black holes of 10 solar masses may comprise at most 1.2% of dark matter, 100 solar mass black holes—3.0% of dark matter, and 1,000 solar mass black holes—11% of dark matter.

"Our observations indicate that primordial black holes cannot comprise a significant fraction of the dark matter, and simultaneously, explain the observed black hole merger rates measured by LIGO and Virgo," says Prof. Udalski.

Therefore, other explanations are needed for massive black holes detected by LIGO and Virgo. According to one hypothesis, they formed as a product of the evolution of massive, low-metallicity stars. Another possibility involves mergers of less massive objects in dense stellar environments, such as globular clusters.

"Our results will remain in astronomy textbooks for decades to come," adds Prof. Udalski.

Przemek Mróz et al, Microlensing Optical Depth and Event Rate toward the Large Magellanic Cloud Based on 20 yr of OGLE Observations, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series (2024). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad452e

Journal information: arXiv , Nature

Provided by University of Warsaw

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Secrets of salt drop stains unveiled: New research decodes chemical composition from simple photos

9 minutes ago

AI-based approach matches protein interaction partners

Hydrothermal vents on seafloors of 'ocean worlds' could support life, new study says

58 minutes ago

Researchers develop tuneable anti-counterfeiting material

Webb Space Telescope captures star clusters in Cosmic Gems arc

2 hours ago

Researchers develop RNA-targeting technology for precisely manipulating parts of human genes

Space radiation can damage satellites—next-generation material could self-heal when exposed to cosmic rays

Extreme wildfires doubled over past two decades: Study

Egypt tomb find may shed light on ancient diseases: Ministry

Geologists expect Chang'e-6 lunar surface samples to contain volcanic rock and impact ejecta

3 hours ago

Relevant PhysicsForums posts

Questions about dark matter/energy, some photos of antares and sigma sagittarii (nunki).

22 hours ago

Why is the CNO Cycle considered catalytic in stellar nucleosynthesis?

Jun 23, 2024

Is the Universe older than we think?

Jun 22, 2024

Will we ever communicate with extraterrestial life in a reasonable time frame?

Jun 19, 2024

Solar Activity and Space Weather Update thread

Jun 18, 2024

More from Astronomy and Astrophysics

Related Stories

Primordial black holes can only explain a fraction of dark matter, research suggests

Jun 6, 2024

Astrophysicists set constraints on compact dark matter from gravitational wave microlensing

Apr 1, 2022

The universe could be filled with ultralight black holes that can't die

May 6, 2024

How NASA's Roman mission will hunt for primordial black holes

May 7, 2024

Quest for source of black hole dark matter

Aug 14, 2018

Did black holes form immediately after the Big Bang?

Dec 17, 2021

Recommended for you

Observations investigate galaxy cluster Abell S1136

6 hours ago

Astronomers discover that a well-known X-ray binary is actually a hidden ultraluminous X-ray source

China, France launch satellite to better understand the universe

A black hole of inexplicable mass: JWST observations reveal a mature quasar at cosmic dawn

Jun 21, 2024

Galaxy NGC 4696 hosts a complex globular cluster system, observations find

Jun 20, 2024

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

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

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

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

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

E-mail the story

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

Newsletter sign up

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

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

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

E-mail newsletter

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence

Title: artificial leviathan: exploring social evolution of llm agents through the lens of hobbesian social contract theory.

Abstract: The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) and advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) offer an opportunity for computational social science research at scale. Building upon prior explorations of LLM agent design, our work introduces a simulated agent society where complex social relationships dynamically form and evolve over time. Agents are imbued with psychological drives and placed in a sandbox survival environment. We conduct an evaluation of the agent society through the lens of Thomas Hobbes's seminal Social Contract Theory (SCT). We analyze whether, as the theory postulates, agents seek to escape a brutish "state of nature" by surrendering rights to an absolute sovereign in exchange for order and security. Our experiments unveil an alignment: Initially, agents engage in unrestrained conflict, mirroring Hobbes's depiction of the state of nature. However, as the simulation progresses, social contracts emerge, leading to the authorization of an absolute sovereign and the establishment of a peaceful commonwealth founded on mutual cooperation. This congruence between our LLM agent society's evolutionary trajectory and Hobbes's theoretical account indicates LLMs' capability to model intricate social dynamics and potentially replicate forces that shape human societies. By enabling such insights into group behavior and emergent societal phenomena, LLM-driven multi-agent simulations, while unable to simulate all the nuances of human behavior, may hold potential for advancing our understanding of social structures, group dynamics, and complex human systems.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

• Foreign Affairs
• CFR Education
• Newsletters

• Israel-Hamas

Climate Change

Global Climate Agreements: Successes and Failures

Backgrounder by Lindsay Maizland December 5, 2023 Renewing America

• Defense & Security
• Diplomacy & International Institutions
• Energy & Environment
• Human Rights
• Politics & Government
• Social Issues

Myanmar’s Troubled History

Backgrounder by Lindsay Maizland January 31, 2022

• Europe & Eurasia
• Global Commons
• Middle East & North Africa
• Sub-Saharan Africa

How Tobacco Laws Could Help Close the Racial Gap on Cancer

Interactive by Olivia Angelino, Thomas J. Bollyky , Elle Ruggiero and Isabella Turilli February 1, 2023 Global Health Program

• Backgrounders
• Special Projects

China’s Stockpiling and Mobilization Measures for Competition and Conflict Link

Featuring Zongyuan Zoe Liu via U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission June 13, 2024

• Centers & Programs
• Books & Reports
• Independent Task Force Program
• Fellowships

Oil and Petroleum Products

Academic Webinar: The Geopolitics of Oil

Webinar with Carolyn Kissane and Irina A. Faskianos April 12, 2023

• State & Local Officials
• Religion Leaders
• Local Journalists

The Rise in LGBTQ+ Hate and Democratic Backsliding

Event with Graeme Reid, Ari Shaw, Maria Sjödin and Nancy Yao June 4, 2024

• Lectureship Series
• Webinars & Conference Calls
• Member Login

What Are Tariffs?

• Tariffs are a form of tax applied on imports from other countries. Economists say the costs are largely passed on to consumers.
• Countries have used them to protect domestic industries, such as agriculture and renewable energy , as well as to retaliate against other states’ unfair trade practices.
• U.S. President Trump wielded tariffs more than any recent American president, particularly against China. President Biden has largely left these levies in place while imposing his own.

Introduction

Countries around the world have long used tariffs, a tax on imports, to prop up homegrown industries by inducing citizens to buy goods produced domestically. After World War II, however, tariffs largely fell out of favor in advanced economies because they often lead to reduced trade, higher prices for consumers, and retaliation from abroad. 

President Donald Trump broke with this economic orthodoxy and imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of imported goods from China and other countries in an effort to combat alleged unfair trade practices, reduce the U.S. trade deficit, and boost domestic manufacturing in the name of national security and U.S. economic competitiveness. President Joe Biden has left these tariffs in place, leading some experts to fear that they will become a permanent part of the U.S. trade landscape.

What is a tariff?

United States

A tariff is a tax imposed on foreign-made goods, paid by the importing business to its home country’s government. The most common kind of tariffs are ad valorem, which are levied as a fixed percentage of the value of the imports. There are also “specific tariffs,” which are charged as a fixed amount on each imported good (for example, $2 per shirt) and “tariff-rate quotas,” which are tariffs that kick in or rise significantly after a certain amount of imports is reached (e.g., fifty thousand tons of sugar).

Daily News Brief

A summary of global news developments with cfr analysis delivered to your inbox each morning.  weekdays., the world this week, a weekly digest of the latest from cfr on the biggest foreign policy stories of the week, featuring briefs, opinions, and explainers. every friday., think global health.

A curation of original analyses, data visualizations, and commentaries, examining the debates and efforts to improve health worldwide.  Weekly.

Tariffs can serve several goals. Like all taxes, they provide a modest source of government revenue. Several countries have also used tariffs to help fledgling industries at home, hoping to shelter local firms from foreign competitors. Some tariffs are also meant to address unfair practices that other countries have used to make their exports artificially cheap.

Who uses tariffs?

Almost every country imposes some tariffs. In general, wealthy countries maintain low tariffs compared to developing countries. There are several reasons why: developing countries might have more fragile industries that they wish to protect, or they might have fewer sources of government revenue. The United States, for instance, maintained high tariffs for decades, until income taxes supplanted tariffs as the most important source of revenue in the 1930s. After World War II, tariffs continued to decline as the United States emphasized trade expansion as a central plank of its global strategy.

Who authorizes tariffs in the United States?

The Constitution grants Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,” which it used for more than a century to impose tariffs. Perhaps most infamously, Congress raised close to nine hundred separate tariffs with the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act , which many economists say worsened the Great Depression. But over the past ninety years, Congress has delegated more and more trade authority to the executive branch, in part a response to Smoot-Hawley.

Several pieces of legislation underline this trend. The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 gave President Franklin D. Roosevelt the power to negotiate tariff-cutting trade deals with other countries. This was followed by the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which granted the president authority to negotiate tariff reductions of up to 80 percent. The Trade Act of 1974 [PDF] allowed the executive branch to strike trade deals—with negotiating objectives set by Congress—that were then subject to an unamendable up-or-down vote, known as fast-tracking. Both Democratic and Republican presidents have used this authority to lower tariffs and enter into a range of trade deals, including the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO). 

These laws give the president the power to raise tariffs if foreign countries are found to be engaged in unfair trading practices, or if imported goods are deemed to be threatening critical domestic industries and thus harming national security. They also allow the president to impose tariffs if domestic industries are “seriously injured” by import competition, even if there is no alleged foul play. Many presidents have exercised these powers, though Trump did so to a far greater extent than most of his predecessors, imposing tariffs affecting hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods from China and some U.S. allies, including members of the European Union (EU). Biden has maintained most of Trump’s tariffs on China and introduced several of his own. However, he has reined in tariffs on EU member countries. 

Additionally, the WTO sets limits on the tariffs that countries can impose. WTO members are supposed to keep their tariffs below an agreed level, or bound rate, which varies among countries. (Developing countries are generally permitted to have higher tariffs.) When a country wins a dispute at the WTO, it is often allowed to impose retaliatory tariffs to pressure the losing country to change its policies. Many experts say that the organization’s credibility has been damaged by Trump’s—and now Biden’s—decisions to bypass the WTO and unilaterally impose tariffs.

What are the aims of tariffs?

Tariffs are intended to protect local industries by making imports more expensive and driving consumers to domestic producers. In the United States, several politically sensitive industries benefit from such tariffs: sugar producers have been protected by tariffs since 1789—two years after the signing of the U.S. constitution—and the auto industry has benefited from the so-called chicken tax since 1964, which places 25 percent tariffs on some pickup trucks . Additionally, tariffs are used to shield domestic industries from foreign countries’ unfair trading practices and, in some cases, for national security purposes. They can also be a tool of industrial policy .

Tariffs are intended to protect local industries by making imports more expensive and driving consumers to domestic producers.

Unfair trading practices . Some tariffs are meant to counteract specific measures taken by foreign countries or firms. For instance, the United States applies “countervailing duties” when another country subsidizes a domestic industry—allowing its exporters to sell products at a lower price than they would otherwise be able to in a free market—and thereby undercuts U.S. producers. “Antidumping” tariffs are applied when a U.S. firm proves that a foreign firm is selling products in the United States at lower prices than they charge at home, often in an attempt to drive competitors out of an industry before raising prices. In both of these cases, tariffs are meant as a penalty that allows domestic producers to compete as if the market had not been distorted. Critics, however, claim that even these tariffs are often disguised protectionist policies .

In 2018, under the auspices of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) issued a report [PDF] detailing how China’s intellectual property (IP) practices were “unreasonable or discriminatory, and burden or restrict U.S. commerce.” These included pressuring American companies to hand over their IP as a condition for doing business in China, known as forced technology transfer. On the basis of the report, Trump imposed a slew of tariffs, ultimately covering roughly $360 billion worth of imports from China. The Biden administration has mostly kept these tariffs in place. 

Biden has also used Section 301 to impose tariffs. In May 2024,  he used the authority to target $18 billion worth of Chinese goods, including steel and aluminum, semiconductors, and electric vehicles and other green technologies—sectors that CFR expert Brad W. Setser says are viewed as “critical for America’s economic future.” Analysts say the administration imposed these tariffs to protect the United States’ burgeoning green energy industry from a glut of subsidized Chinese products.

National security . In some strategic industries, often for goods with military uses, tariffs can be used to ensure a country does not rely on trade for its supply of critical products. Most notably, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows the president to raise tariffs on certain goods for national security reasons. 

In an effort to curb China’s massive steel production , Trump used this law to raise tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from China, as well as from allies including Canada and the EU, leading to accusations that national security was being used as a pretext for protectionism. (Tariffs on Canada and Mexico were later dropped as part of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement , and Biden lifted tariffs on EU member countries.) The use of Section 232 is particularly controversial , experts say, because it exploits an exception to WTO rules for actions taken in the name of national security. 

Economic competitiveness . Some support for tariffs stems from a grand vision for how to build an economy. Alexander Hamilton, the nation’s first treasury secretary, asserted that tariffs are necessary, at least temporarily, to nourish “infant industries” in the United States until they grow strong enough to compete abroad, at which point the taxes can be removed. Variations of this argument have been advanced throughout U.S. history. They have gained credence again in recent years, especially after high-profile supply-chain failures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Both Trump and Biden have cited tariffs as an effective tool for reducing the U.S. trade deficit and bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States.

Importers pay tariffs to their home government, but most economists find that the bulk of tariff costs are passed on to consumers. This is particularly true for industries with small profit margins, such as retail. Critics say poor Americans are hit the hardest , and recent research [PDF] has found that U.S. consumers have indeed “borne the brunt” of the tariffs on Chinese goods through higher prices. Still other studies have pointed to different costs for consumers: with tariffs on their foreign competitors, domestic producers can safely raise their prices. Ultimately, consumers share the burden with importers. 

At the same time, tariffs can harm exporters , who may cut prices to hold on to their market share. If exporters do not cut prices, their products can become relatively more expensive, causing sales to slump. Both cutting and maintaining prices can cause profits to fall and potentially damage the exporting country’s economy.

The effect is particularly worrisome for countries whose economies are export-driven, including many of those in Asia. China became the world’s largest exporter in 2009, and Vietnam has become a hub for low-cost manufacturing exports. Some high-income countries, such as Germany, also rely on exports to support their growth. Companies in countries that depend on exports for growth can lose customers when hit with tariffs, resulting in strong economic headwinds. Some research has shown that U.S. tariffs have led to modest contractions in China’s economic growth, though the effects are difficult to measure since growth was already slowing before the tariffs took effect.

What is the impact on tariff-wielding countries?

Many experts challenge the logic behind tariffs and argue that they hurt more industries than they help, saying that tariffs act as an economic drag in the countries using them. When consumers pay the bulk of tariff costs, it makes them effectively poorer because prices are higher. 

According to this view, firms that use domestic products as inputs also see their purchasing power shrink, as tariffs allow domestic producers to raise prices. For example, as automakers pay more for steel, economists suggest they are likely to shed more workers than steel mills will hire. A 2020 study by economists at Harvard University and the University of California, Davis found that tariffs on steel and aluminum had likely resulted in seventy-five thousand fewer manufacturing jobs in steel-using industries while creating just one thousand jobs in steel production. 

Other experts contend that tariffs shrink the economy: the Tax Foundation, which is generally skeptical of tariffs, estimates that tariffs will slash U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) by 0.21 percent and reduce employment by more than 166,000 jobs. 

Tariff critics also warn about retaliatory tariffs. These place the country that first levied tariffs on the other side of the equation and ensure that both its consumers and its export industries will be hit. China responded to Trump’s tariffs in kind, while U.S. allies, including Canada and the EU, retaliated against the levies on steel and aluminum products. Countries often target the sensitive U.S. agriculture sector, which is reliant on exports.

Still, economists and politicians on both the left and the right increasingly favor tariffs. A 2022 analysis by economists at the Economic Policy Institute, a pro-labor think tank, found that Trump’s tariffs helped “reshore” supply chains in strategic industries, and that reducing them “would have only a minimal and transitory impact” on U.S. price levels. Republican strategists generally argue that tariffs create good jobs, increase economic growth, and decrease trade deficits. Biden and many other Democrats agree that tariffs are good for American workers; the Biden administration has also contended that tariffs are necessary to build up the U.S. green energy industry, which it argues will be integral to slowing climate change. In February 2024, Republican Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced legislation to increase tariffs on U.S. imports of Chinese cars to 100 percent; Biden raised tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles to that level three months later.

What can countries do to mitigate the effects of tariffs?

The most common way for countries to fight back against tariffs—aside from levying retaliatory tariffs—is to subsidize the domestic industries that have been hit. The Tarump administration countered tariffs on agricultural products by providing farmers with tens of billions of dollars in aid to make up for lost exports. Many economists criticized this strategy as counterproductive and wasteful. Some fear that recipients come to rely on such assistance programs, making them difficult to end.

Some experts suggest that export-dependent countries could let their currencies depreciate in the face of tariffs. This would effectively cheapen exports and make them competitive despite tariffs. But it would also make consumers in that country poorer, as the local currency would have less purchasing power. Another remedy is to find alternative markets for imports and exports. Trump encouraged this, suggesting that companies facing tariffs on imports from China turn to Vietnam and other countries for their products. However, in testimony to the USTR’s office, many U.S. businesses complained that they were unable to quickly shift to sourcing products from outside of China, given the country’s dominance in manufacturing consumer products, and were therefore forced to pay the tariffs.

Once imposed, tariffs are difficult to remove because companies become used to the new environment and lobby against lifting them, experts say.

Ultimately, it might not be possible to reverse their effects. Once imposed, tariffs are difficult to remove because companies become used to the new environment and lobby against lifting them, experts say. The chicken tax on pickup trucks, for example, was imposed during a trade spat with the EU in 1964, yet has remained in place. If tariffs lead trading partners to find new buyers and sellers, those new relationships can endure.

Recommended Resources

This timeline by the Peterson Institute for International Economics tracked Trump’s major actions on trade .

CFR experts Matthew P. Goodman, Zongyuan Zoe Liu, and Brad W. Setser discuss Biden’s China tariffs in this media briefing.

Dartmouth College economist Douglas A. Irwin traces the history of U.S. trade policy in his book Clashing Over Commerce . 

The Economist examines the changing global trade landscape in this special report .

For Foreign Affairs , former U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer defends the Trump administration’s approach to trade.

• Who authorizes tariffs?
• What are their aims?

More From Renewing America

What Happens When the U.S. Hits Its Debt Ceiling?

Backgrounder by Noah Berman June 27, 2023 Renewing America

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

What’s Next for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?

Backgrounder by James McBride , Andrew Chatzky and Anshu Siripurapu September 20, 2021 Renewing America

Globalization

The Dangerous New Anti-Globalization Consensus

Article by Edward Alden May 10, 2022 Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies

Top Stories on CFR

Backgrounder by Andrew Chatzky, Anshu Siripurapu and Noah Berman June 21, 2024 Renewing America

Global Perspectives on the G7 Summit Link

via Council of Councils May 25, 2023

Russia Struck a Defense Pact With North Korea. What Does It Mean?

Expert Brief by Sue Mi Terry and Stephen Sestanovich June 19, 2024