how can a scientific hypothesis be

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

• When did science begin?
• Where was science invented?

scientific hypothesis

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - On the scope of scientific hypotheses
• LiveScience - What is a scientific hypothesis?
• The Royal Society - On the scope of scientific hypotheses

scientific hypothesis , an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an “If…then” statement summarizing the idea and in the ability to be supported or refuted through observation and experimentation. The notion of the scientific hypothesis as both falsifiable and testable was advanced in the mid-20th century by Austrian-born British philosopher Karl Popper .

The formulation and testing of a hypothesis is part of the scientific method , the approach scientists use when attempting to understand and test ideas about natural phenomena. The generation of a hypothesis frequently is described as a creative process and is based on existing scientific knowledge, intuition , or experience. Therefore, although scientific hypotheses commonly are described as educated guesses, they actually are more informed than a guess. In addition, scientists generally strive to develop simple hypotheses, since these are easier to test relative to hypotheses that involve many different variables and potential outcomes. Such complex hypotheses may be developed as scientific models ( see scientific modeling ).

Depending on the results of scientific evaluation, a hypothesis typically is either rejected as false or accepted as true. However, because a hypothesis inherently is falsifiable, even hypotheses supported by scientific evidence and accepted as true are susceptible to rejection later, when new evidence has become available. In some instances, rather than rejecting a hypothesis because it has been falsified by new evidence, scientists simply adapt the existing idea to accommodate the new information. In this sense a hypothesis is never incorrect but only incomplete.

The investigation of scientific hypotheses is an important component in the development of scientific theory . Hence, hypotheses differ fundamentally from theories; whereas the former is a specific tentative explanation and serves as the main tool by which scientists gather data, the latter is a broad general explanation that incorporates data from many different scientific investigations undertaken to explore hypotheses.

Countless hypotheses have been developed and tested throughout the history of science . Several examples include the idea that living organisms develop from nonliving matter, which formed the basis of spontaneous generation , a hypothesis that ultimately was disproved (first in 1668, with the experiments of Italian physician Francesco Redi , and later in 1859, with the experiments of French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur ); the concept proposed in the late 19th century that microorganisms cause certain diseases (now known as germ theory ); and the notion that oceanic crust forms along submarine mountain zones and spreads laterally away from them ( seafloor spreading hypothesis ).

• 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

APA Table of Contents – Format and Example

Research Paper Conclusion – Writing Guide and...

Background of The Study – Examples and Writing...

References in Research – Types, Examples and...

Ethical Considerations – Types, Examples and...

Chapter Summary & Overview – Writing Guide...

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.

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

• Manuscript Preparation

What is and How to Write a Good Hypothesis in Research?

• 4 minute read
• 330.7K views

Table of Contents

One of the most important aspects of conducting research is constructing a strong hypothesis. But what makes a hypothesis in research effective? In this article, we’ll look at the difference between a hypothesis and a research question, as well as the elements of a good hypothesis in research. We’ll also include some examples of effective hypotheses, and what pitfalls to avoid.

What is a Hypothesis in Research?

Simply put, a hypothesis is a research question that also includes the predicted or expected result of the research. Without a hypothesis, there can be no basis for a scientific or research experiment. As such, it is critical that you carefully construct your hypothesis by being deliberate and thorough, even before you set pen to paper. Unless your hypothesis is clearly and carefully constructed, any flaw can have an adverse, and even grave, effect on the quality of your experiment and its subsequent results.

Research Question vs Hypothesis

It’s easy to confuse research questions with hypotheses, and vice versa. While they’re both critical to the Scientific Method, they have very specific differences. Primarily, a research question, just like a hypothesis, is focused and concise. But a hypothesis includes a prediction based on the proposed research, and is designed to forecast the relationship of and between two (or more) variables. Research questions are open-ended, and invite debate and discussion, while hypotheses are closed, e.g. “The relationship between A and B will be C.”

A hypothesis is generally used if your research topic is fairly well established, and you are relatively certain about the relationship between the variables that will be presented in your research. Since a hypothesis is ideally suited for experimental studies, it will, by its very existence, affect the design of your experiment. The research question is typically used for new topics that have not yet been researched extensively. Here, the relationship between different variables is less known. There is no prediction made, but there may be variables explored. The research question can be casual in nature, simply trying to understand if a relationship even exists, descriptive or comparative.

How to Write Hypothesis in Research

Writing an effective hypothesis starts before you even begin to type. Like any task, preparation is key, so you start first by conducting research yourself, and reading all you can about the topic that you plan to research. From there, you’ll gain the knowledge you need to understand where your focus within the topic will lie.

Remember that a hypothesis is a prediction of the relationship that exists between two or more variables. Your job is to write a hypothesis, and design the research, to “prove” whether or not your prediction is correct. A common pitfall is to use judgments that are subjective and inappropriate for the construction of a hypothesis. It’s important to keep the focus and language of your hypothesis objective.

An effective hypothesis in research is clearly and concisely written, and any terms or definitions clarified and defined. Specific language must also be used to avoid any generalities or assumptions.

Use the following points as a checklist to evaluate the effectiveness of your research hypothesis:

• Predicts the relationship and outcome
• Simple and concise – avoid wordiness
• Clear with no ambiguity or assumptions about the readers’ knowledge
• Observable and testable results
• Relevant and specific to the research question or problem

Research Hypothesis Example

Perhaps the best way to evaluate whether or not your hypothesis is effective is to compare it to those of your colleagues in the field. There is no need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to writing a powerful research hypothesis. As you’re reading and preparing your hypothesis, you’ll also read other hypotheses. These can help guide you on what works, and what doesn’t, when it comes to writing a strong research hypothesis.

Here are a few generic examples to get you started.

Eating an apple each day, after the age of 60, will result in a reduction of frequency of physician visits.

Budget airlines are more likely to receive more customer complaints. A budget airline is defined as an airline that offers lower fares and fewer amenities than a traditional full-service airline. (Note that the term “budget airline” is included in the hypothesis.

Workplaces that offer flexible working hours report higher levels of employee job satisfaction than workplaces with fixed hours.

Each of the above examples are specific, observable and measurable, and the statement of prediction can be verified or shown to be false by utilizing standard experimental practices. It should be noted, however, that often your hypothesis will change as your research progresses.

Language Editing Plus

Elsevier’s Language Editing Plus service can help ensure that your research hypothesis is well-designed, and articulates your research and conclusions. Our most comprehensive editing package, you can count on a thorough language review by native-English speakers who are PhDs or PhD candidates. We’ll check for effective logic and flow of your manuscript, as well as document formatting for your chosen journal, reference checks, and much more.

• Research Process

Systematic Literature Review or Literature Review?

What is a Problem Statement? [with examples]

You may also like.

Page-Turner Articles are More Than Just Good Arguments: Be Mindful of Tone and Structure!

A Must-see for Researchers! How to Ensure Inclusivity in Your Scientific Writing

Make Hook, Line, and Sinker: The Art of Crafting Engaging Introductions

Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?

A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing

6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript

How to Write Clear and Crisp Civil Engineering Papers? Here are 5 Key Tips to Consider

The Clear Path to An Impactful Paper: ②

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

• 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."

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
• R Soc Open Sci
• v.10(8); 2023 Aug
• PMC10465209

On the scope of scientific hypotheses

William hedley thompson.

1 Department of Applied Information Technology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

2 Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

3 Department of Pedagogical, Curricular and Professional Studies, Faculty of Education, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

4 Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Associated Data

This article has no additional data.

Hypotheses are frequently the starting point when undertaking the empirical portion of the scientific process. They state something that the scientific process will attempt to evaluate, corroborate, verify or falsify. Their purpose is to guide the types of data we collect, analyses we conduct, and inferences we would like to make. Over the last decade, metascience has advocated for hypotheses being in preregistrations or registered reports, but how to formulate these hypotheses has received less attention. Here, we argue that hypotheses can vary in specificity along at least three independent dimensions: the relationship, the variables, and the pipeline. Together, these dimensions form the scope of the hypothesis. We demonstrate how narrowing the scope of a hypothesis in any of these three ways reduces the hypothesis space and that this reduction is a type of novelty. Finally, we discuss how this formulation of hypotheses can guide researchers to formulate the appropriate scope for their hypotheses and should aim for neither too broad nor too narrow a scope. This framework can guide hypothesis-makers when formulating their hypotheses by helping clarify what is being tested, chaining results to previous known findings, and demarcating what is explicitly tested in the hypothesis.

1.  Introduction

Hypotheses are an important part of the scientific process. However, surprisingly little attention is given to hypothesis-making compared to other skills in the scientist's skillset within current discussions aimed at improving scientific practice. Perhaps this lack of emphasis is because the formulation of the hypothesis is often considered less relevant, as it is ultimately the scientific process that will eventually decide the veracity of the hypothesis. However, there are more hypotheses than scientific studies as selection occurs at various stages: from funder selection and researcher's interests. So which hypotheses are worthwhile to pursue? Which hypotheses are the most effective or pragmatic for extending or enhancing our collective knowledge? We consider the answer to these questions by discussing how broad or narrow a hypothesis can or should be (i.e. its scope).

We begin by considering that the two statements below are both hypotheses and vary in scope:

• H 1 : For every 1 mg decrease of x , y will increase by, on average, 2.5 points.
• H 2 : Changes in x 1 or x 2 correlate with y levels in some way.

Clearly, the specificity of the two hypotheses is very different. H 1 states a precise relationship between two variables ( x and y ), while H 2 specifies a vaguer relationship and does not specify which variables will show the relationship. However, they are both still hypotheses about how x and y relate to each other. This claim of various degrees of the broadness of hypotheses is, in and of itself, not novel. In Epistemetrics, Rescher [ 1 ], while drawing upon the physicist Duhem's work, develops what he calls Duhem's Law. This law considers a trade-off between certainty or precision in statements about physics when evaluating them. Duhem's Law states that narrower hypotheses, such as H 1 above, are more precise but less likely to be evaluated as true than broader ones, such as H 2 above. Similarly, Popper, when discussing theories, describes the reverse relationship between content and probability of a theory being true, i.e. with increased content, there is a decrease in probability and vice versa [ 2 ]. Here we will argue that it is important that both H 1 and H 2 are still valid scientific hypotheses, and their appropriateness depends on certain scientific questions.

The question of hypothesis scope is relevant since there are multiple recent prescriptions to improve science, ranging from topics about preregistrations [ 3 ], registered reports [ 4 ], open science [ 5 ], standardization [ 6 ], generalizability [ 7 ], multiverse analyses [ 8 ], dataset reuse [ 9 ] and general questionable research practices [ 10 ]. Within each of these issues, there are arguments to demarcate between confirmatory and exploratory research or normative prescriptions about how science should be done (e.g. science is ‘bad’ or ‘worse’ if code/data are not open). Despite all these discussions and improvements, much can still be done to improve hypothesis-making. A recent evaluation of preregistered studies in psychology found that over half excluded the preregistered hypotheses [ 11 ]. Further, evaluations of hypotheses in ecology showed that most hypotheses are not explicitly stated [ 12 , 13 ]. Other research has shown that obfuscated hypotheses are more prevalent in retracted research [ 14 ]. There have been recommendations for simpler hypotheses in psychology to avoid misinterpretations and misspecifications [ 15 ]. Finally, several evaluations of preregistration practices have found that a significant proportion of articles do not abide by their stated hypothesis or add additional hypotheses [ 11 , 16 – 18 ]. In sum, while multiple efforts exist to improve scientific practice, our hypothesis-making could improve.

One of our intentions is to provide hypothesis-makers with tools to assist them when making hypotheses. We consider this useful and timely as, with preregistrations becoming more frequent, the hypothesis-making process is now open and explicit . However, preregistrations are difficult to write [ 19 ], and preregistered articles can change or omit hypotheses [ 11 ] or they are vague and certain degrees of freedom hard to control for [ 16 – 18 ]. One suggestion has been to do less confirmatory research [ 7 , 20 ]. While we agree that all research does not need to be confirmatory, we also believe that not all preregistrations of confirmatory work must test narrow hypotheses. We think there is a possible point of confusion that the specificity in preregistrations, where researcher degrees of freedom should be stated, necessitates the requirement that the hypothesis be narrow. Our belief that this confusion is occurring is supported by the study Akker et al . [ 11 ] where they found that 18% of published psychology studies changed their preregistered hypothesis (e.g. its direction), and 60% of studies selectively reported hypotheses in some way. It is along these lines that we feel the framework below can be useful to help formulate appropriate hypotheses to mitigate these identified issues.

We consider this article to be a discussion of the researcher's different choices when formulating hypotheses and to help link hypotheses over time. Here we aim to deconstruct what aspects there are in the hypothesis about their specificity. Throughout this article, we intend to be neutral to many different philosophies of science relating to the scientific method (i.e. how one determines the veracity of a hypothesis). Our idea of neutrality here is that whether a researcher adheres to falsification, verification, pragmatism, or some other philosophy of science, then this framework can be used when formulating hypotheses. 1

The framework this article advocates for is that there are (at least) three dimensions that hypotheses vary along regarding their narrowness and broadness: the selection of relationships, variables, and pipelines. We believe this discussion is fruitful for the current debate regarding normative practices as some positions make, sometimes implicit, commitments about which set of hypotheses the scientific community ought to consider good or permissible. We proceed by outlining a working definition of ‘scientific hypothesis' and then discuss how it relates to theory. Then, we justify how hypotheses can vary along the three dimensions. Using this framework, we then discuss the scopes in relation to appropriate hypothesis-making and an argument about what constitutes a scientifically novel hypothesis. We end the article with practical advice for researchers who wish to use this framework.

2.  The scientific hypothesis

In this section, we will describe a functional and descriptive role regarding how scientists use hypotheses. Jeong & Kwon [ 21 ] investigated and summarized the different uses the concept of ‘hypothesis’ had in philosophical and scientific texts. They identified five meanings: assumption, tentative explanation, tentative cause, tentative law, and prediction. Jeong & Kwon [ 21 ] further found that researchers in science and philosophy used all the different definitions of hypotheses, although there was some variance in frequency between fields. Here we see, descriptively , that the way researchers use the word ‘hypothesis’ is diverse and has a wide range in specificity and function. However, whichever meaning a hypothesis has, it aims to be true, adequate, accurate or useful in some way.

Not all hypotheses are ‘scientific hypotheses'. For example, consider the detective trying to solve a crime and hypothesizing about the perpetrator. Such a hypothesis still aims to be true and is a tentative explanation but differs from the scientific hypothesis. The difference is that the researcher, unlike the detective, evaluates the hypothesis with the scientific method and submits the work for evaluation by the scientific community. Thus a scientific hypothesis entails a commitment to evaluate the statement with the scientific process . 2 Additionally, other types of hypotheses can exist. As discussed in more detail below, scientific theories generate not only scientific hypotheses but also contain auxiliary hypotheses. The latter refers to additional assumptions considered to be true and not explicitly evaluated. 3

Next, the scientific hypothesis is generally made antecedent to the evaluation. This does not necessitate that the event (e.g. in archaeology) or the data collection (e.g. with open data reuse) must be collected before the hypothesis is made, but that the evaluation of the hypothesis cannot happen before its formulation. This claim state does deny the utility of exploratory hypothesis testing of post hoc hypotheses (see [ 25 ]). However, previous results and exploration can generate new hypotheses (e.g. via abduction [ 22 , 26 – 28 ], which is the process of creating hypotheses from evidence), which is an important part of science [ 29 – 32 ], but crucially, while these hypotheses are important and can be the conclusion of exploratory work, they have yet to be evaluated (by whichever method of choice). Hence, they still conform to the antecedency requirement. A further way to justify the antecedency is seen in the practice of formulating a post hoc hypothesis, and considering it to have been evaluated is seen as a questionable research practice (known as ‘hypotheses after results are known’ or HARKing [ 33 ]). 4

While there is a varying range of specificity, is the hypothesis a critical part of all scientific work, or is it reserved for some subset of investigations? There are different opinions regarding this. Glass and Hall, for example, argue that the term only refers to falsifiable research, and model-based research uses verification [ 36 ]. However, this opinion does not appear to be the consensus. Osimo and Rumiati argue that any model based on or using data is never wholly free from hypotheses, as hypotheses can, even implicitly, infiltrate the data collection [ 37 ]. For our definition, we will consider hypotheses that can be involved in different forms of scientific evaluation (i.e. not just falsification), but we do not exclude the possibility of hypothesis-free scientific work.

Finally, there is a debate about whether theories or hypotheses should be linguistic or formal [ 38 – 40 ]. Neither side in this debate argues that verbal or formal hypotheses are not possible, but instead, they discuss normative practices. Thus, for our definition, both linguistic and formal hypotheses are considered viable.

Considering the above discussion, let us summarize the scientific process and the scientific hypothesis: a hypothesis guides what type of data are sampled and what analysis will be done. With the new observations, evidence is analysed or quantified in some way (often using inferential statistics) to judge the hypothesis's truth value, utility, credibility, or likelihood. The following working definition captures the above:

• Scientific hypothesis : an implicit or explicit statement that can be verbal or formal. The hypothesis makes a statement about some natural phenomena (via an assumption, explanation, cause, law or prediction). The scientific hypothesis is made antecedent to performing a scientific process where there is a commitment to evaluate it.

For simplicity, we will only use the term ‘hypothesis’ for ‘scientific hypothesis' to refer to the above definition for the rest of the article except when it is necessary to distinguish between other types of hypotheses. Finally, this definition could further be restrained in multiple ways (e.g. only explicit hypotheses are allowed, or assumptions are never hypotheses). However, if the definition is more (or less) restrictive, it has little implication for the argument below.

3.  The hypothesis, theory and auxiliary assumptions

While we have a definition of the scientific hypothesis, we have yet to link it with how it relates to scientific theory, where there is frequently some interconnection (i.e. a hypothesis tests a scientific theory). Generally, for this paper, we believe our argument applies regardless of how scientific theory is defined. Further, some research lacks theory, sometimes called convenience or atheoretical studies [ 41 ]. Here a hypothesis can be made without a wider theory—and our framework fits here too. However, since many consider hypotheses to be defined or deducible from scientific theory, there is an important connection between the two. Therefore, we will briefly clarify how hypotheses relate to common formulations of scientific theory.

A scientific theory is generally a set of axioms or statements about some objects, properties and their relations relating to some phenomena. Hypotheses can often be deduced from the theory. Additionally, a theory has boundary conditions. The boundary conditions specify the domain of the theory stating under what conditions it applies (e.g. all things with a central neural system, humans, women, university teachers) [ 42 ]. Boundary conditions of a theory will consequently limit all hypotheses deduced from the theory. For example, with a boundary condition ‘applies to all humans’, then the subsequent hypotheses deduced from the theory are limited to being about humans. While this limitation of the hypothesis by the theory's boundary condition exists, all the considerations about a hypothesis scope detailed below still apply within the boundary conditions. Finally, it is also possible (depending on the definition of scientific theory) for a hypothesis to test the same theory under different boundary conditions. 5

The final consideration relating scientific theory to scientific hypotheses is auxiliary hypotheses. These hypotheses are theories or assumptions that are considered true simultaneously with the theory. Most philosophies of science from Popper's background knowledge [ 24 ], Kuhn's paradigms during normal science [ 44 ], and Laktos' protective belt [ 45 ] all have their own versions of this auxiliary or background information that is required for the hypothesis to test the theory. For example, Meelh [ 46 ] auxiliary theories/assumptions are needed to go from theoretical terms to empirical terms (e.g. neural activity can be inferred from blood oxygenation in fMRI research or reaction time to an indicator of cognition) and auxiliary theories about instruments (e.g. the experimental apparatus works as intended) and more (see also Other approaches to categorizing hypotheses below). As noted in the previous section, there is a difference between these auxiliary hypotheses, regardless of their definition, and the scientific hypothesis defined above. Recall that our definition of the scientific hypothesis included a commitment to evaluate it. There are no such commitments with auxiliary hypotheses, but rather they are assumed to be correct to test the theory adequately. This distinction proves to be important as auxiliary hypotheses are still part of testing a theory but are separate from the hypothesis to be evaluated (discussed in more detail below).

4.  The scope of hypotheses

In the scientific hypothesis section, we defined the hypothesis and discussed how it relates back to the theory. In this section, we want to defend two claims about hypotheses:

• (A1) Hypotheses can have different scopes . Some hypotheses are narrower in their formulation, and some are broader.
• (A2) The scope of hypotheses can vary along three dimensions relating to relationship selection , variable selection , and pipeline selection .

A1 may seem obvious, but it is important to establish what is meant by narrower and broader scope. When a hypothesis is very narrow, it is specific. For example, it might be specific about the type of relationship between some variables. In figure 1 , we make four different statements regarding the relationship between x and y . The narrowest hypothesis here states ‘there is a positive linear relationship with a magnitude of 0.5 between x and y ’ ( figure 1 a ), and the broadest hypothesis states ‘there is a relationship between x and y ’ ( figure 1 d ). Note that many other hypotheses are possible that are not included in this example (such as there being no relationship).

Examples of narrow and broad hypotheses between x and y . Circles indicate a set of possible relationships with varying slopes that can pivot or bend.

We see that the narrowest of these hypotheses claims a type of relationship (linear), a direction of the relationship (positive) and a magnitude of the relationship (0.5). As the hypothesis becomes broader, the specific magnitude disappears ( figure 1 b ), the relationship has additional options than just being linear ( figure 1 c ), and finally, the direction of the relationship disappears. Crucially, all the examples in figure 1 can meet the above definition of scientific hypotheses. They are all statements that can be evaluated with the same scientific method. There is a difference between these statements, though— they differ in the scope of the hypothesis . Here we have justified A1.

Within this framework, when we discuss whether a hypothesis is narrower or broader in scope, this is a relation between two hypotheses where one is a subset of the other. This means that if H 1 is narrower than H 2 , and if H 1 is true, then H 2 is also true. This can be seen in figure 1 a–d . Suppose figure 1 a , the narrowest of all the hypotheses, is true. In that case, all the other broader statements are also true (i.e. a linear correlation of 0.5 necessarily entails that there is also a positive linear correlation, a linear correlation, and some relationship). While this property may appear trivial, it entails that it is only possible to directly compare the hypothesis scope between two hypotheses (i.e. their broadness or narrowness) where one is the subset of the other. 6

4.1. Sets, disjunctions and conjunctions of elements

The above restraint defines the scope as relations between sets. This property helps formalize the framework of this article. Below, when we discuss the different dimensions that can impact the scope, these become represented as a set. Each set contains elements. Each element is a permissible situation that allows the hypothesis to be accepted. We denote elements as lower case with italics (e.g. e 1 , e 2 , e 3 ) and sets as bold upper case (e.g. S ). Each of the three different dimensions discussed below will be formalized as sets, while the total number of elements specifies their scope.

Let us reconsider the above restraint about comparing hypotheses as narrower or broader. This can be formally shown if:

• e 1 , e 2 , e 3 are elements of S 1 ; and
• e 1 and e 2 are elements of S 2 ,

then S 2 is narrower than S 1 .

Each element represents specific propositions that, if corroborated, would support the hypothesis. Returning to figure 1 a , b , the following statements apply to both:

• ‘There is a positive linear relationship between x and y with a slope of 0.5’.

Whereas the following two apply to figure 1 b but not figure 1 a :

• ‘There is a positive linear relationship between x and y with a slope of 0.4’ ( figure 1 b ).
• ‘There is a positive linear relationship between x and y with a slope of 0.3’ ( figure 1 b ).

Figure 1 b allows for a considerably larger number of permissible situations (which is obvious as it allows for any positive linear relationship). When formulating the hypothesis in figure 1 b , we do not need to specify every single one of these permissible relationships. We can simply specify all possible positive slopes, which entails the set of permissible elements it includes.

That broader hypotheses have more elements in their sets entails some important properties. When we say S contains the elements e 1 , e 2 , and e 3 , the hypothesis is corroborated if e 1 or e 2 or e 3 is the case. This means that the set requires only one of the elements to be corroborated for the hypothesis to be considered correct (i.e. the positive linear relationship needs to be 0.3 or 0.4 or 0.5). Contrastingly, we will later see cases when conjunctions of elements occur (i.e. both e 1 and e 2 are the case). When a conjunction occurs, in this formulation, the conjunction itself becomes an element in the set (i.e. ‘ e 1 and e 2 ’ is a single element). Figure 2 illustrates how ‘ e 1 and e 2 ’ is narrower than ‘ e 1 ’, and ‘ e 1 ’ is narrower than ‘ e 1 or e 2 ’. 7 This property relating to the conjunction being narrower than individual elements is explained in more detail in the pipeline selection section below.

Scope as sets. Left : four different sets (grey, red, blue and purple) showing different elements which they contain. Right : a list of each colour explaining which set is a subset of the other (thereby being ‘narrower’).

4.2. Relationship selection

We move to A2, which is to show the different dimensions that a hypothesis scope can vary along. We have already seen an example of the first dimension of a hypothesis in figure 1 , the relationship selection . Let R denote the set of all possible configurations of relationships that are permissible for the hypothesis to be considered true. For example, in the narrowest formulation above, there was one allowed relationship for the hypothesis to be true. Consequently, the size of R (denoted | R |) is one. As discussed above, in the second narrowest formulation ( figure 1 b ), R has more possible relationships where it can still be considered true:

• r 1 = ‘a positive linear relationship of 0.1’
• r 2 = ‘a positive linear relationship of 0.2’
• r 3 = ‘a positive linear relationship of 0.3’.

Additionally, even broader hypotheses will be compatible with more types of relationships. In figure 1 c , d , nonlinear and negative relationships are also possible relationships included in R . For this broader statement to be affirmed, more elements are possible to be true. Thus if | R | is greater (i.e. contains more possible configurations for the hypothesis to be true), then the hypothesis is broader. Thus, the scope of relating to the relationship selection is specified by | R |. Finally, if |R H1 | > |R H2 | , then H 1 is broader than H 2 regarding the relationship selection.

Figure 1 is an example of the relationship narrowing. That the relationship became linear is only an example and does not necessitate a linear relationship or that this scope refers only to correlations. An alternative example of a relationship scope is a broad hypothesis where there is no knowledge about the distribution of some data. In such situations, one may assume a uniform relationship or a Cauchy distribution centred at zero. Over time the specific distribution can be hypothesized. Thereafter, the various parameters of the distribution can be hypothesized. At each step, the hypothesis of the distribution gets further specified to narrower formulations where a smaller set of possible relationships are included (see [ 47 , 48 ] for a more in-depth discussion about how specific priors relate to more narrow tests). Finally, while figure 1 was used to illustrate the point of increasingly narrow relationship hypotheses, it is more likely to expect the narrowest relationship, within fields such as psychology, to have considerable uncertainty and be formulated with confidence or credible intervals (i.e. we will rarely reach point estimates).

4.3. Variable selection

We have demonstrated that relationship selection can affect the scope of a hypothesis. Additionally, at least two other dimensions can affect the scope of a hypothesis: variable selection and pipeline selection . The variable selection in figure 1 was a single bivariate relationship (e.g. x 's relationship with y ). However, it is not always the case that we know which variables will be involved. For example, in neuroimaging, we can be confident that one or more brain regions will be processing some information following a stimulus. Still, we might not be sure which brain region(s) this will be. Consequently, our hypothesis becomes broader because we have selected more variables. The relationship selection may be identical for each chosen variable, but the variable selection becomes broader. We can consider the following three hypotheses to be increasing in their scope:

• H 1 : x relates to y with relationship R .
• H 2 : x 1 or x 2 relates to y with relationship R .
• H 3 : x 1 or x 2 or x 3 relates to y with relationship R .

For H 1 –H 3 above, we assume that R is the same. Further, we assume that there is no interaction between these variables.

In the above examples, we have multiple x ( x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , … , x n ). Again, we can symbolize the variable selection as a non-empty set XY , containing either a single variable or many variables. Our motivation for designating it XY is that the variable selection can include multiple possibilities for both the independent variable ( x ) and the dependent variable ( y ). Like with relationship selection, we can quantify the broadness between two hypotheses with the size of the set XY . Consequently, | XY | denotes the total scope concerning variable selection. Thus, in the examples above | XY H1 | < | XY H2 | < | XY H3 |. Like with relationship selection, hypotheses that vary in | XY | still meet the definition of a hypothesis. 8

An obvious concern for many is that a broader XY is much easier to evaluate as correct. Generally, when | XY 1 | > | XY 2 |, there is a greater chance of spurious correlations when evaluating XY 1 . This concern is an issue relating to the evaluation of hypotheses (e.g. applying statistics to the evaluation), which will require additional assumptions relating to how to evaluate the hypotheses. Strategies to deal with this apply some correction or penalization for multiple statistical testing [ 49 ] or partial pooling and regularizing priors [ 50 , 51 ]. These strategies aim to evaluate a broader variable selection ( x 1 or x 2 ) on equal or similar terms to a narrow variable selection ( x 1 ).

4.4. Pipeline selection

Scientific studies require decisions about how to perform the analysis. This scope considers transformations applied to the raw data ( XY raw ) to achieve some derivative ( XY ). These decisions can also involve selection procedures that drop observations deemed unreliable, standardizing, correcting confounding variables, or different philosophies. We can call the array of decisions and transformations used as the pipeline . A hypothesis varies in the number of pipelines:

• H 1 : XY has a relationship(s) R with pipeline p 1 .
• H 2 : XY has a relationship(s) R with pipeline p 1 or pipeline p 2 .
• H 3 : XY has a relationship(s) R with pipeline p 1 or pipeline p 2 , or pipeline p 3 .

Importantly, the pipeline here considers decisions regarding how the hypothesis shapes the data collection and transformation. We do not consider this to include decisions made regarding the assumptions relating to the statistical inference as those relate to operationalizing the evaluation of the hypothesis and not part of the hypothesis being evaluated (these assumptions are like auxiliary hypotheses, which are assumed to be true but not explicitly evaluated).

Like with variable selection ( XY ) and relationship selection ( R ), we can see that pipelines impact the scope of hypotheses. Again, we can symbolize the pipeline selection with a set P . As previously, | P | will denote the dimension of the pipeline selection. In the case of pipeline selection, we are testing the same variables, looking for the same relationship, but processing the variables or relationships with different pipelines to evaluate the relationship. Consequently, | P H1 | < | P H2 | < | P H3 |.

These issues regarding pipelines have received attention as the ‘garden of forking paths' [ 52 ]. Here, there are calls for researchers to ensure that their entire pipeline has been specified. Additionally, recent work has highlighted the diversity of results based on multiple analytical pipelines [ 53 , 54 ]. These results are often considered a concern, leading to calls that results should be pipeline resistant.

The wish for pipeline-resistant methods entails that hypotheses, in their narrowest form, are possible for all pipelines. Consequently, a narrower formulation will entail that this should not impact the hypothesis regardless of which pipeline is chosen. Thus the conjunction of pipelines is narrower than single pipelines. Consider the following three scenarios:

• H 3 : XY has a relationship(s) R with pipeline p 1 and pipeline p 2 .

In this instance, since H 1 is always true if H 3 is true, thus H 3 is a narrower formulation than H 1 . Consequently, | P H3 | < | P H1 | < | P H2 |. Decreasing the scope of the pipeline dimension also entails the increase in conjunction of pipelines (i.e. creating pipeline-resistant methods) rather than just the reduction of disjunctional statements.

4.5. Combining the dimensions

In summary, we then have three different dimensions that independently affect the scope of the hypothesis. We have demonstrated the following general claim regarding hypotheses:

• The variables XY have a relationship R with pipeline P .

And that the broadness and narrowness of a hypothesis depend on how large the three sets XY , R and P are. With this formulation, we can conclude that hypotheses have a scope that can be determined with a 3-tuple argument of (| R |, | XY |, | P |).

While hypotheses can be formulated along these three dimensions and generally aim to be reduced, it does not entail that these dimensions behave identically. For example, the relationship dimensions aim to reduce the number of elements as far as possible (e.g. to an interval). Contrastingly, for both variables and pipeline, the narrower hypothesis can reduce to single variables/pipelines or become narrower still and become conjunctions where all variables/pipelines need to corroborate the hypothesis (i.e. regardless of which method one follows, the hypothesis is correct).

5.  Additional possible dimensions

No commitment is being made about the exhaustive nature of there only being three dimensions that specify the hypothesis scope. Other dimensions may exist that specify the scope of a hypothesis. For example, one might consider the pipeline dimension as two different dimensions. The first would consider the experimental pipeline dimension regarding all variables relating to the experimental setup to collect data, and the latter would be the analytical pipeline dimension regarding the data analysis of any given data snapshot. Another possible dimension is adding the number of situations or contexts under which the hypothesis is valid. For example, any restraint such as ‘in a vacuum’, ‘under the speed of light’, or ‘in healthy human adults' could be considered an additional dimension of the hypothesis. There is no objection to whether these should be additional dimensions of the hypothesis. However, as stated above, these usually follow from the boundary conditions of the theory.

6.  Specifying the scope versus assumptions

We envision that this framework can help hypothesis-makers formulate hypotheses (in research plans, registered reports, preregistrations etc.). Further, using this framework while formulating hypotheses can help distinguish between auxiliary hypotheses and parts of the scientific hypothesis being tested. When writing preregistrations, it can frequently occur that some step in the method has two alternatives (e.g. a preprocessing step), and there is not yet reason to choose one over the other, and the researcher needs to make a decision. These following scenarios are possible:

• 1. Narrow pipeline scope . The researcher evaluates the hypothesis with both pipeline variables (i.e. H holds for both p 1 and p 2 where p 1 and p 2 can be substituted with each other in the pipeline).
• 2. Broad pipeline scope. The researcher evaluates the hypothesis with both pipeline variables, and only one needs to be correct (i.e. H holds for either p 1 or p 2 where p 1 and p 2 can be substituted with each other in the pipeline). The result of this experiment may help motivate choosing either p 1 or p 2 in future studies.
• 3. Auxiliary hypothesis. Based on some reason (e.g. convention), the researcher assumes p 1 and evaluates H assuming p 1 is true.

Here we see that the same pipeline step can be part of either the auxiliary hypotheses or the pipeline scope. This distinction is important because if (3) is chosen, the decision becomes an assumption that is not explicitly tested by the hypothesis. Consequently, a researcher confident in the hypothesis may state that the auxiliary hypothesis p 1 was incorrect, and they should retest their hypothesis using different assumptions. In the cases where this decision is part of the pipeline scope, the hypothesis is intertwined with this decision, removing the eventual wiggle-room to reject auxiliary hypotheses that were assumed. Furthermore, starting with broader pipeline hypotheses that gradually narrow down can lead to a more well-motivated protocol for approaching the problem. Thus, this framework can help researchers while writing their hypotheses in, for example, preregistrations because they can consider when they are committing to a decision, assuming it, or when they should perhaps test a broader hypothesis with multiple possible options (discussed in more detail in §11 below).

7.  The reduction of scope in hypothesis space

Having established that different scopes of a hypothesis are possible, we now consider how the hypotheses change over time. In this section, we consider how the scope of the hypothesis develops ideally within science.

Consider a new research question. A large number of hypotheses are possible. Let us call this set of all possible hypotheses the hypothesis space . Hypotheses formulated within this space can be narrower or broader based on the dimensions discussed previously ( figure 3 ).

Example of hypothesis space. The hypothesis scope is expressed as cuboids in three dimensions (relationship ( R ), variable ( XY ), pipeline ( P )). The hypothesis space is the entire possible space within the three dimensions. Three hypotheses are shown in the hypothesis space (H 1 , H 2 , H 3 ). H 2 and H 3 are subsets of H 1 .

After the evaluation of the hypothesis with the scientific process, the hypothesis will be accepted or rejected. 9 The evaluation could be done through falsification or via verification, depending on the philosophy of science commitments. Thereafter, other narrower formulations of the hypothesis can be formulated by reducing the relationship, variable or pipeline scope. If a narrower hypothesis is accepted, more specific details about the subject matter are known, or a theory has been refined in greater detail. A narrower hypothesis will entail a more specific relationship, variable or pipeline detailed in the hypothesis. Consequently, hypotheses linked to each other in this way will become narrower over time along one or more dimensions. Importantly, considering that the conjunction of elements is narrower than single elements for pipelines and variables, this process of narrower hypotheses will lead to more general hypotheses (i.e. they have to be applied in all conditions and yield less flexibility when they do not apply). 10

Considering that the scopes of hypotheses were defined as sets above, some properties can be deduced from this framework about how narrower hypotheses relate to broader hypotheses. Let us consider three hypotheses (H 1 , H 2 , and H 3 ; figure 3 ). H 2 and H 3 are non-overlapping subsets of H 1 . Thus H 2 and H 3 are both narrower in scope than H 1 . Thus the following is correct:

• P1: If H 1 is false, then H 2 is false, and H 2 does not need to be evaluated.
• P2: If H 2 is true, then the broader H 1 is true, and H 1 does not need to be evaluated.
• P3: If H 1 is true and H 2 is false, some other hypothesis H 3 of similar scope to H 2 is possible.

For example, suppose H 1 is ‘there is a relationship between x and y ’, H 2 is ‘there is a positive relationship between x and y ’, and H 3 is ‘a negative relationship between x and y ’. In that case, it becomes apparent how each of these follows. 11 Logically, many deductions from set theory are possible but will not be explored here. Instead, we will discuss two additional consequences of hypothesis scopes: scientific novelty and applications for the researcher who formulates a hypothesis.

P1–P3 have been formulated as hypotheses being true or false. In practice, hypotheses are likely evaluated probabilistically (e.g. ‘H 1 is likely’ or ‘there is evidence in support of H 1 ’). In these cases, P1–P3 can be rephrased to account for this by substituting true/false with statements relating to evidence. For example, P2 could read: ‘If there is evidence in support of H 2 , then there is evidence in support of H 1 , and H 1 does not need to be evaluated’.

8.  Scientific novelty as the reduction of scope

Novelty is a key concept that repeatedly occurs in multiple aspects of the scientific enterprise, from funding to publishing [ 55 ]. Generally, scientific progress establishes novel results based on some new hypothesis. Consequently, the new hypothesis for the novel results must be narrower than previously established knowledge (i.e. the size of the scopes is reduced). Otherwise, the result is trivial and already known (see P2 above). Thus, scientific work is novel if the scientific process produces a result based on hypotheses with either a smaller | R |, | XY |, or | P | compared to previous work.

This framework of dimensions of the scope of a hypothesis helps to demarcate when a hypothesis and the subsequent result are novel. If previous studies have established evidence for R 1 (e.g. there is a positive relationship between x and y ), a hypothesis will be novel if and only if it is narrower than R 1 . Thus, if R 2 is narrower in scope than R 1 (i.e. | R 2 | < | R 1 |), R 2 is a novel hypothesis.

Consider the following example. Study 1 hypothesizes, ‘There is a positive relationship between x and y ’. It identifies a linear relationship of 0.6. Next, Study 2 hypothesizes, ‘There is a specific linear relationship between x and y that is 0.6’. Study 2 also identifies the relationship of 0.6. Since this was a narrower hypothesis, Study 2 is novel despite the same result. Frequently, researchers claim that they are the first to demonstrate a relationship. Being the first to demonstrate a relationship is not the final measure of novelty. Having a narrower hypothesis than previous researchers is a sign of novelty as it further reduces the hypothesis space.

Finally, it should be noted that novelty is not the only objective of scientific work. Other attributes, such as improving the certainty of a current hypothesis (e.g. through replications), should not be overlooked. Additional scientific explanations and improved theories are other aspects. Additionally, this definition of novelty relating to hypothesis scope does not exclude other types of novelty (e.g. new theories or paradigms).

9.  How broad should a hypothesis be?

Given the previous section, it is elusive to conclude that the hypothesis should be as narrow as possible as it entails maximal knowledge gain and scientific novelty when formulating hypotheses. Indeed, many who advocate for daring or risky tests seem to hold this opinion. For example, Meehl [ 46 ] argues that we should evaluate theories based on point (or interval) prediction, which would be compatible with very narrow versions of relationships. We do not necessarily think that this is the most fruitful approach. In this section, we argue that hypotheses should aim to be narrower than current knowledge , but too narrow may be problematic .

Let us consider the idea of confirmatory analyses. These studies will frequently keep the previous hypothesis scopes regarding P and XY but aim to become more specific regarding R (i.e. using the same method and the same variables to detect a more specific relationship). A very daring or narrow hypothesis is to minimize R to include the fewest possible relationships. However, it becomes apparent that simply pursuing specificness or daringness is insufficient for selecting relevant hypotheses. Consider a hypothetical scenario where a researcher believes virtual reality use leads people to overestimate the amount of exercise they have done. If unaware of previous studies on this project, an apt hypothesis is perhaps ‘increased virtual reality usage correlates with a less accuracy of reported exercise performed’ (i.e. R is broad). However, a more specific and more daring hypothesis would be to specify the relationship further. Thus, despite not knowing if there is a relationship at all, a more daring hypothesis could be: ‘for every 1 h of virtual reality usage, there will be, on average, a 0.5% decrease in the accuracy of reported exercise performed’ (i.e. R is narrow). We believe it would be better to establish the broader hypothesis in any scenario here for the first experiment. Otherwise, if we fail to confirm the more specific formulation, we could reformulate another equally narrow relative to the broader hypothesis. This process of tweaking a daring hypothesis could be pursued ad infinitum . Such a situation will neither quickly identify the true hypothesis nor effectively use limited research resources.

By first discounting a broader hypothesis that there is no relationship, it will automatically discard all more specific formulations of that relationship in the hypothesis space. Returning to figure 3 , it will be better to establish H 1 before attempting H 2 or H 3 to ensure the correct area in the hypothesis space is being investigated. To provide an analogy: when looking for a needle among hay, first identify which farm it is at, then which barn, then which haystack, then which part of the haystack it is at before we start picking up individual pieces of hay. Thus, it is preferable for both pragmatic and cost-of-resource reasons to formulate sufficiently broad hypotheses to navigate the hypothesis space effectively.

Conversely, formulating too broad a relationship scope in a hypothesis when we already have evidence for narrower scope would be superfluous research (unless the evidence has been called into question by, for example, not being replicated). If multiple studies have supported the hypothesis ‘there is a 20-fold decrease in mortality after taking some medication M’, it would be unnecessary to ask, ‘Does M have any effect?’.

Our conclusion is that the appropriate scope of a hypothesis, and its three dimensions, follow a Goldilocks-like principle where too broad is superfluous and not novel, while too narrow is unnecessary or wasteful. Considering the scope of one's hypothesis and how it relates to previous hypotheses' scopes ensures one is asking appropriate questions.

Finally, there has been a recent trend in psychology that hypotheses should be formal [ 38 , 56 – 60 ]. Formal theories are precise since they are mathematical formulations entailing that their interpretations are clear (non-ambiguous) compared to linguistic theories. However, this literature on formal theories often refers to ‘precise predictions’ and ‘risky testing’ while frequently referencing Meehl, who advocates for narrow hypotheses (e.g. [ 38 , 56 , 59 ]). While perhaps not intended by any of the proponents, one interpretation of some of these positions is that hypotheses derived from formal theories will be narrow hypotheses (i.e. the quality of being ‘precise’ can mean narrow hypotheses with risky tests and non-ambiguous interpretations simultaneously). However, the benefit from the clarity (non-ambiguity) that formal theories/hypotheses bring also applies to broad formal hypotheses as well. They can include explicit but formalized versions of uncertain relationships, multiple possible pipelines, and large sets of variables. For example, a broad formal hypothesis can contain a hyperparameter that controls which distribution the data fit (broad relationship scope), or a variable could represent a set of formalized explicit pipelines (broad pipeline scope) that will be tested. In each of these instances, it is possible to formalize non-ambiguous broad hypotheses from broad formal theories that do not yet have any justification for being overly narrow. In sum, our argumentation here stating that hypotheses should not be too narrow is not an argument against formal theories but rather that hypotheses (derived from formal theories) do not necessarily have to be narrow.

10.  Other approaches to categorizing hypotheses

The framework we present here is a way of categorizing hypotheses into (at least) three dimensions regarding the hypothesis scope, which we believe is accessible to researchers and help link scientific work over time while also trying to remain neutral with regard to a specific philosophy of science. Our proposal does not aim to be antagonistic or necessarily contradict other categorizing schemes—but we believe that our framework provides benefits.

One recent categorization scheme is the Theoretical (T), Auxiliary (A), Statistical (S) and Inferential (I) assumption model (together becoming the TASI model) [ 61 , 62 ]. Briefly, this model considers theory to generate theoretical hypotheses. To translate from theoretical unobservable terms (e.g. personality, anxiety, mass), auxiliary assumptions are needed to generate an empirical hypothesis. Statistical assumptions are often needed to test the empirical hypothesis (e.g. what is the distribution, is it skewed or not) [ 61 , 62 ]. Finally, additional inferential assumptions are needed to generalize to a larger population (e.g. was there a random and independent sampling from defined populations). The TASI model is insightful and helpful in highlighting the distance between a theory and the observation that would corroborate/contradict it. Part of its utility is to bring auxiliary hypotheses into the foreground, to improve comparisons between studies and improve theory-based interventions [ 63 , 64 ].

We do agree with the importance of being aware of or stating the auxiliary hypotheses, but there are some differences between the frameworks. First, the number of auxiliary assumptions in TASI can be several hundred [ 62 ], whereas our framework will consider some of them as part of the pipeline dimension. Consider the following four assumptions: ‘the inter-stimulus interval is between 2000 ms and 3000 ms', ‘the data will be z-transformed’, ‘subjects will perform correctly’, and ‘the measurements were valid’. According to the TASI model, all these will be classified similarly as auxiliary assumptions. Contrarily, within our framework, it is possible to consider the first two as part of the pipeline dimension and the latter two as auxiliary assumptions, and consequently, the first two become integrated as part of the hypothesis being tested and the latter two auxiliary assumptions. A second difference between the frameworks relates to non-theoretical studies (convenience, applied or atheoretical). Our framework allows for the possibility that the hypothesis space generated by theoretical and convenience studies can interact and inform each other within the same framework . Contrarily, in TASI, the theory assumptions no longer apply, and a different type of hypothesis model is needed; these assumptions must be replaced by another group of assumptions (where ‘substantive application assumptions' replace the T and the A, becoming SSI) [ 61 ]. Finally, part of our rationale for our framework is to be able to link and track hypotheses and hypothesis development together over time, so our classification scheme has different utility.

Another approach which has some similar utility to this framework is theory construction methodology (TCM) [ 57 ]. The similarity here is that TCM aims to be a practical guide to improve theory-making in psychology. It is an iterative process which relates theory, phenomena and data. Here hypotheses are not an explicit part of the model. However, what is designated as ‘proto theory’ could be considered a hypothesis in our framework as they are a product of abduction, shaping the theory space. Alternatively, what is deduced to evaluate the theory can also be considered a hypothesis. We consider both possible and that our framework can integrate with these two steps, especially since TCM does not have clear guidelines for how to do each step.

11.  From theory to practice: implementing this framework

We believe that many practising researchers can relate to many aspects of this framework. But, how can a researcher translate the above theoretical framework to their work? The utility of this framework lies in bringing these three scopes of a hypothesis together and explaining how each can be reduced. We believe researchers can use this framework to describe their current practices more clearly. Here we discuss how it can be helpful for researchers when formulating, planning, preregistering, and discussing the evaluation of their scientific hypotheses. These practical implications are brief, and future work can expand on the connection between the full interaction between hypothesis space and scope. Furthermore, both authors have the most experience in cognitive neuroscience, and some of the practical implications may revolve around this type of research and may not apply equally to other fields.

11.1. Helping to form hypotheses

Abduction, according to Peirce, is a hypothesis-making exercise [ 22 , 26 – 28 ]. Given some observations, a general testable explanation of the phenomena is formed. However, when making the hypothesis, this statement will have a scope (either explicitly or implicitly). Using our framework, the scope can become explicit. The hypothesis-maker can start with ‘The variables XY have a relationship R with pipeline P ’ as a scaffold to form the hypothesis. From here, the hypothesis-maker can ‘fill in the blanks’, explicitly adding each of the scopes. Thus, when making a hypothesis via abduction and using our framework, the hypothesis will have an explicit scope when it is made. By doing this, there is less chance that a formulated hypothesis is unclear, ambiguous, and needs amending at a later stage.

11.2. Assisting to clearly state hypotheses

A hypothesis is not just formulated but also communicated. Hypotheses are stated in funding applications, preregistrations, registered reports, and academic articles. Further, preregistered hypotheses are often omitted or changed in the final article [ 11 ], and hypotheses are not always explicitly stated in articles [ 12 ]. How can this framework help to make better hypotheses? Similar to the previous point, filling in the details of ‘The variables XY have a relationship R with pipeline P ’ is an explicit way to communicate the hypothesis. Thinking about each of these dimensions should entail an appropriate explicit scope and, hopefully, less variation between preregistered and reported hypotheses. The hypothesis does not need to be a single sentence, and details of XY and P will often be developed in the methods section of the text. However, using this template as a starting point can help ensure the hypothesis is stated, and the scope of all three dimensions has been communicated.

11.3. Helping to promote explicit and broad hypotheses instead of vague hypotheses

There is an important distinction between vague hypotheses and broad hypotheses, and this framework can help demarcate between them. A vague statement would be: ‘We will quantify depression in patients after treatment’. Here there is uncertainty relating to how the researcher will go about doing the experiment (i.e. how will depression be quantified?). However, a broad statement can be uncertain, but the uncertainty is part of the hypothesis: ‘Two different mood scales (S 1 or S 2 ) will be given to patients and test if only one (or both) changed after treatment’. This latter statement is transparently saying ‘S 1 or S 2 ’ is part of a broad hypothesis—the uncertainty is whether the two different scales are quantifying the same construct. We keep this uncertainty within the broad hypothesis, which will get evaluated, whereas a vague hypothesis has uncertainty as part of the interpretation of the hypothesis. This framework can be used when formulating hypotheses to help be broad (where needed) but not vague.

11.4. Which hypothesis should be chosen?

When considering the appropriate scope above, we argued for a Goldilocks-like principle of determining the hypothesis that is not too broad or too narrow. However, when writing, for example, a preregistration, how does one identify this sweet spot? There is no easy or definite universal answer to this question. However, one possible way is first to identify the XY , R , and P of previous hypotheses. From here, identify what a non-trivial step is to improve our knowledge of the research area. So, for example, could you be more specific about the exact nature of the relationship between the variables? Does the pipeline correspond to today's scientific standards, or were some suboptimal decisions made? Is there another population that you think the previous result also applies to? Do you think that maybe a more specific construct or subpopulation might explain the previous result? Could slightly different constructs (perhaps easier to quantify) be used to obtain a similar relationship? Are there even more constructs to which this relationship should apply simultaneously? Are you certain of the direction of the relationship? Answering affirmatively to any of these questions will likely make a hypothesis narrower and connect to previous research while being clear and explicit. Moreover, depending on the research question, answering any of these may be sufficiently narrow to be a non-trivial innovation. However, there are many other ways to make a hypothesis narrower than these guiding questions.

11.5. The confirmatory–exploratory continuum

Research is often dichotomized into confirmatory (testing a hypothesis) or exploratory (without a priori hypotheses). With this framework, researchers can consider how their research acts on some hypothesis space. Confirmatory and exploratory work has been defined in terms of how each interacts with the researcher's degrees of freedom (where confirmatory aims to reduce while exploratory utilizes them [ 30 ]). Both broad confirmatory and narrow exploratory research are possible using this definition and possible within this framework. How research interacts with the hypothesis space helps demarcate it. For example, if a hypothesis reduces the scope, it becomes more confirmatory, and trying to understand data given the current scope would be more exploratory work. This further could help demarcate when exploration is useful. Future theoretical work can detail how different types of research impact the hypothesis space in more detail.

11.6. Understanding when multiverse analyses are needed

Researchers writing a preregistration may face many degrees of freedom they have to choose from, and different researchers may motivate different choices. If, when writing such a preregistration, there appears to be little evidential support for certain degrees of freedom over others, the researcher is left with the option to either make more auxiliary assumptions or identify when an investigation into the pipeline scope is necessary by conducting a multiverse analysis that tests the impact of the different degrees of freedom on the result (see [ 8 ]). Thus, when applying this framework to explicitly state what pipeline variables are part of the hypothesis or an auxiliary assumption, the researcher can identify when it might be appropriate to conduct a multiverse analysis because they are having difficulty formulating hypotheses.

11.7. Describing novelty

Academic journals and research funders often ask for novelty, but the term ‘novelty’ can be vague and open to various interpretations [ 55 ]. This framework can be used to help justify the novelty of research. For example, consider a scenario where a previous study has established a psychological construct (e.g. well-being) that correlates with a certain outcome measure (e.g. long-term positive health outcomes). This framework can be used to explicitly justify novelty by (i) providing a more precise understanding of the relationship (e.g. linear or linear–plateau) or (ii) identifying more specific variables related to well-being or health outcomes. Stating how some research is novel is clearer than merely stating that the work is novel. This practice might even help journals and funders identify what type of novelty they would like to reward. In sum, this framework can help identify and articulate how research is novel.

11.8. Help to identify when standardization of pipelines is beneficial or problematic to a field

Many consider standardization in a field to be important for ensuring the comparability of results. Standardization of methods and tools entails that the pipeline P is identical (or at least very similar) across studies. However, in such cases, the standardized pipeline becomes an auxiliary assumption representing all possible pipelines. Therefore, while standardized pipelines have their benefits, this assumption becomes broader without validating (e.g. via multiverse analysis) which pipelines a standardized P represents. In summary, because this framework helps distinguish between auxiliary assumptions and explicit parts of the hypothesis and identifies when a multiverse analysis is needed, it can help determine when standardizations of pipelines are representative (narrower hypotheses) or assumptive (broader hypotheses).

12.  Conclusion

Here, we have argued that the scope of a hypothesis is made up of three dimensions: the relationship ( R ), variable ( XY ) and pipeline ( P ) selection. Along each of these dimensions, the scope can vary. Different types of scientific enterprises will often have hypotheses that vary the size of the scopes. We have argued that this focus on the scope of the hypothesis along these dimensions helps the hypothesis-maker formulate their hypotheses for preregistrations while also helping demarcate auxiliary hypotheses (assumed to be true) from the hypothesis (those being evaluated during the scientific process).

Hypotheses are an essential part of the scientific process. Considering what type of hypothesis is sufficient or relevant is an essential job of the researcher that we think has been overlooked. We hope this work promotes an understanding of what a hypothesis is and how its formulation and reduction in scope is an integral part of scientific progress. We hope it also helps clarify how broad hypotheses need not be vague or inappropriate.

Finally, we applied this idea of scopes to scientific progress and considered how to formulate an appropriate hypothesis. We have also listed several ways researchers can practically implement this framework today. However, there are other practicalities of this framework that future work should explore. For example, it could be used to differentiate and demarcate different scientific contributions (e.g. confirmatory studies, exploration studies, validation studies) with how their hypotheses interact with the different dimensions of the hypothesis space. Further, linking hypotheses over time within this framework can be a foundation for open hypothesis-making by promoting explicit links to previous work and detailing the reduction of the hypothesis space. This framework helps quantify the contribution to the hypothesis space of different studies and helps clarify what aspects of hypotheses can be relevant at different times.

Acknowledgements

We thank Filip Gedin, Kristoffer Sundberg, Jens Fust, and James Steele for valuable feedback on earlier versions of this article. We also thank Mark Rubin and an unnamed reviewer for valuable comments that have improved the article.

1 While this is our intention, we cannot claim that every theory has been accommodated.

2 Similar requirements of science being able to evaluate the hypothesis can be found in pragmatism [ 22 ], logical positivism [ 23 ] and falsification [ 24 ].

3 Although when making inferences about a failed evaluation of a scientific hypothesis it is possible, due to underdetermination, to reject the auxiliary hypothesis instead of rejecting the hypothesis. However, that rejection occurs at a later inference stage. The evaluation using the scientific method aims to test the scientific hypothesis, not the auxiliary assumptions.

4 Although some have argued that this practice is not as problematic or questionable (see [ 34 , 35 ]).

5 Alternatively, theories sometimes expand their boundary conditions. A theory that was previously about ‘humans' can be used with a more inclusive boundary condition. Thus it is possible for the hypothesis-maker to use a theory about humans (decision making) and expand it to fruit flies or plants (see [ 43 ]).

6 A similarity exists here with Popper, where he uses set theory in a similar way to compare theories (not hypotheses). Popper also discusses how theories with overlapping sets but neither is a subset are also comparable (see [ 24 , §§32–34]). We do not exclude this possibility but can require additional assumptions.

7 When this could be unclear, we place the element within quotation marks.

8 Here, we have assumed that there is no interaction between these variables in variable selection. If an interaction between x 1 and x 2 is hypothesized, this should be viewed as a different variable compared to ‘ x 1 or x 2 ’. The motivation behind this is because the hypothesis ‘ x 1 or x 2 ’ is not a superset of the interaction (i.e. ‘ x 1 or x 2 ’ is not necessarily true when the interaction is true). The interaction should, in this case, be considered a third variable (e.g. I( x 1 , x 2 )) and the hypothesis ‘ x 1 or x 2 or I( x 1 , x 2 )’ is broader than ‘ x 1 or x 2 ’.

9 Or possibly ambiguous or inconclusive.

10 This formulation of scope is compatible with different frameworks from the philosophy of science. For example, by narrowing the scope would in a Popperian terminology mean prohibiting more basic statements (thus a narrower hypothesis has a higher degree of falsifiability). The reduction of scope in the relational dimension would in Popperian terminology mean increase in precision (e.g. a circle is more precise than an ellipse since circles are a subset of possible ellipses), whereas reduction in variable selection and pipeline dimension would mean increase universality (e.g. ‘all heavenly bodies' is more universal than just ‘planets') [ 24 ]. For Meehl the reduction of the relationship dimension would amount to decreasing the relative tolerance of a theory to the Spielraum [ 46 ] .

11 If there is no relationship between x and y , we do not need to test if there is a positive relationship. If we know there is a positive relationship between x and y , we do not need to test if there is a relationship. If we know there is a relationship but there is not a positive relationship, then it is possible that they have a negative relationship.

Data accessibility

Declaration of ai use.

We have not used AI-assisted technologies in creating this article.

Authors' contributions

W.H.T.: conceptualization, investigation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; S.S.: investigation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing.

Both authors gave final approval for publication and agreed to be held accountable for the work performed therein.

Conflict of interest declaration

We declare we have no competing interests.

We received no funding for this study.

Scientific Hypothesis, Model, Theory, and Law

Understanding the Difference Between Basic Scientific Terms

Hero Images / Getty Images

• Chemical Laws
• Periodic Table
• Projects & Experiments
• Scientific Method
• Biochemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Medical Chemistry
• Chemistry In Everyday Life
• Famous Chemists
• Activities for Kids
• Abbreviations & Acronyms
• Weather & Climate
• Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
• B.A., Physics and Mathematics, Hastings College

Words have precise meanings in science. For example, "theory," "law," and "hypothesis" don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is "just a theory," meaning it's a supposition that may or may not be true. In science, however, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true. Here's a closer look at these important, commonly misused terms.

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. It's a prediction of cause and effect. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven but not proven to be true.

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. This hypothesis can be disproven if you observe a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying 1,000 detergents, there might be one more you haven't tried that could be different.

Scientists often construct models to help explain complex concepts. These can be physical models like a model volcano or atom  or conceptual models like predictive weather algorithms. A model doesn't contain all the details of the real deal, but it should include observations known to be valid.

Example: The  Bohr model shows electrons orbiting the atomic nucleus, much the same way as the way planets revolve around the sun. In reality, the movement of electrons is complicated but the model makes it clear that protons and neutrons form a nucleus and electrons tend to move around outside the nucleus.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say that it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908, in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It was theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon , and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this theory, generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

A scientific law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it's made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you the means to explain "why." The word "law" is used less and less in science, as many laws are only true under limited circumstances.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity . Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no "proof" or absolute "truth" in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is "proof" in science. Some work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define the terms hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What's important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.

• Null Hypothesis Examples
• Theory Definition in Science
• Hypothesis, Model, Theory, and Law
• What Is a Scientific or Natural Law?
• Scientific Hypothesis Examples
• The Continental Drift Theory: Revolutionary and Significant
• What 'Fail to Reject' Means in a Hypothesis Test
• What Is a Hypothesis? (Science)
• Hypothesis Definition (Science)
• Definition of a Hypothesis
• Processual Archaeology
• The Basics of Physics in Scientific Study
• What Is the Difference Between Hard and Soft Science?
• Tips on Winning the Debate on Evolution
• Geological Thinking: Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses
• 5 Common Misconceptions About Evolution

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, what is a hypothesis and how do i write one.

General Education

Think about something strange and unexplainable in your life. Maybe you get a headache right before it rains, or maybe you think your favorite sports team wins when you wear a certain color. If you wanted to see whether these are just coincidences or scientific fact, you would form a hypothesis, then create an experiment to see whether that hypothesis is true or not.

But what is a hypothesis, anyway? If you’re not sure about what a hypothesis is--or how to test for one!--you’re in the right place. This article will teach you everything you need to know about hypotheses, including: 

• Defining the term “hypothesis” 
• Providing hypothesis examples 
• Giving you tips for how to write your own hypothesis

So let’s get started!

What Is a Hypothesis?

Merriam Webster defines a hypothesis as “an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument.” In other words, a hypothesis is an educated guess . Scientists make a reasonable assumption--or a hypothesis--then design an experiment to test whether it’s true or not. Keep in mind that in science, a hypothesis should be testable. You have to be able to design an experiment that tests your hypothesis in order for it to be valid. 

As you could assume from that statement, it’s easy to make a bad hypothesis. But when you’re holding an experiment, it’s even more important that your guesses be good...after all, you’re spending time (and maybe money!) to figure out more about your observation. That’s why we refer to a hypothesis as an educated guess--good hypotheses are based on existing data and research to make them as sound as possible.

Hypotheses are one part of what’s called the scientific method .  Every (good) experiment or study is based in the scientific method. The scientific method gives order and structure to experiments and ensures that interference from scientists or outside influences does not skew the results. It’s important that you understand the concepts of the scientific method before holding your own experiment. Though it may vary among scientists, the scientific method is generally made up of six steps (in order):

• Observation
• Asking questions
• Forming a hypothesis
• Analyze the data
• Communicate your results

You’ll notice that the hypothesis comes pretty early on when conducting an experiment. That’s because experiments work best when they’re trying to answer one specific question. And you can’t conduct an experiment until you know what you’re trying to prove!

Independent and Dependent Variables 

After doing your research, you’re ready for another important step in forming your hypothesis: identifying variables. Variables are basically any factor that could influence the outcome of your experiment . Variables have to be measurable and related to the topic being studied.

There are two types of variables:  independent variables and dependent variables. I ndependent variables remain constant . For example, age is an independent variable; it will stay the same, and researchers can look at different ages to see if it has an effect on the dependent variable. 

Speaking of dependent variables... dependent variables are subject to the influence of the independent variable , meaning that they are not constant. Let’s say you want to test whether a person’s age affects how much sleep they need. In that case, the independent variable is age (like we mentioned above), and the dependent variable is how much sleep a person gets. 

Variables will be crucial in writing your hypothesis. You need to be able to identify which variable is which, as both the independent and dependent variables will be written into your hypothesis. For instance, in a study about exercise, the independent variable might be the speed at which the respondents walk for thirty minutes, and the dependent variable would be their heart rate. In your study and in your hypothesis, you’re trying to understand the relationship between the two variables.

Elements of a Good Hypothesis

The best hypotheses start by asking the right questions . For instance, if you’ve observed that the grass is greener when it rains twice a week, you could ask what kind of grass it is, what elevation it’s at, and if the grass across the street responds to rain in the same way. Any of these questions could become the backbone of experiments to test why the grass gets greener when it rains fairly frequently.

As you’re asking more questions about your first observation, make sure you’re also making more observations . If it doesn’t rain for two weeks and the grass still looks green, that’s an important observation that could influence your hypothesis. You'll continue observing all throughout your experiment, but until the hypothesis is finalized, every observation should be noted.

Finally, you should consult secondary research before writing your hypothesis . Secondary research is comprised of results found and published by other people. You can usually find this information online or at your library. Additionally, m ake sure the research you find is credible and related to your topic. If you’re studying the correlation between rain and grass growth, it would help you to research rain patterns over the past twenty years for your county, published by a local agricultural association. You should also research the types of grass common in your area, the type of grass in your lawn, and whether anyone else has conducted experiments about your hypothesis. Also be sure you’re checking the quality of your research . Research done by a middle school student about what minerals can be found in rainwater would be less useful than an article published by a local university.

Writing Your Hypothesis

Once you’ve considered all of the factors above, you’re ready to start writing your hypothesis. Hypotheses usually take a certain form when they’re written out in a research report.

When you boil down your hypothesis statement, you are writing down your best guess and not the question at hand . This means that your statement should be written as if it is fact already, even though you are simply testing it.

The reason for this is that, after you have completed your study, you'll either accept or reject your if-then or your null hypothesis. All hypothesis testing examples should be measurable and able to be confirmed or denied. You cannot confirm a question, only a statement! 

In fact, you come up with hypothesis examples all the time! For instance, when you guess on the outcome of a basketball game, you don’t say, “Will the Miami Heat beat the Boston Celtics?” but instead, “I think the Miami Heat will beat the Boston Celtics.” You state it as if it is already true, even if it turns out you’re wrong. You do the same thing when writing your hypothesis.

Additionally, keep in mind that hypotheses can range from very specific to very broad.  These hypotheses can be specific, but if your hypothesis testing examples involve a broad range of causes and effects, your hypothesis can also be broad.  

The Two Types of Hypotheses

Now that you understand what goes into a hypothesis, it’s time to look more closely at the two most common types of hypothesis: the if-then hypothesis and the null hypothesis.

#1: If-Then Hypotheses

First of all, if-then hypotheses typically follow this formula:

If ____ happens, then ____ will happen.

The goal of this type of hypothesis is to test the causal relationship between the independent and dependent variable. It’s fairly simple, and each hypothesis can vary in how detailed it can be. We create if-then hypotheses all the time with our daily predictions. Here are some examples of hypotheses that use an if-then structure from daily life: 

• If I get enough sleep, I’ll be able to get more work done tomorrow.
• If the bus is on time, I can make it to my friend’s birthday party. 
• If I study every night this week, I’ll get a better grade on my exam. 

In each of these situations, you’re making a guess on how an independent variable (sleep, time, or studying) will affect a dependent variable (the amount of work you can do, making it to a party on time, or getting better grades). 

You may still be asking, “What is an example of a hypothesis used in scientific research?” Take one of the hypothesis examples from a real-world study on whether using technology before bed affects children’s sleep patterns. The hypothesis read s:

“We hypothesized that increased hours of tablet- and phone-based screen time at bedtime would be inversely correlated with sleep quality and child attention.”

It might not look like it, but this is an if-then statement. The researchers basically said, “If children have more screen usage at bedtime, then their quality of sleep and attention will be worse.” The sleep quality and attention are the dependent variables and the screen usage is the independent variable. (Usually, the independent variable comes after the “if” and the dependent variable comes after the “then,” as it is the independent variable that affects the dependent variable.) This is an excellent example of how flexible hypothesis statements can be, as long as the general idea of “if-then” and the independent and dependent variables are present.

#2: Null Hypotheses

Your if-then hypothesis is not the only one needed to complete a successful experiment, however. You also need a null hypothesis to test it against. In its most basic form, the null hypothesis is the opposite of your if-then hypothesis . When you write your null hypothesis, you are writing a hypothesis that suggests that your guess is not true, and that the independent and dependent variables have no relationship .

One null hypothesis for the cell phone and sleep study from the last section might say: 

“If children have more screen usage at bedtime, their quality of sleep and attention will not be worse.” 

In this case, this is a null hypothesis because it’s asking the opposite of the original thesis! 

Conversely, if your if-then hypothesis suggests that your two variables have no relationship, then your null hypothesis would suggest that there is one. So, pretend that there is a study that is asking the question, “Does the amount of followers on Instagram influence how long people spend on the app?” The independent variable is the amount of followers, and the dependent variable is the time spent. But if you, as the researcher, don’t think there is a relationship between the number of followers and time spent, you might write an if-then hypothesis that reads:

“If people have many followers on Instagram, they will not spend more time on the app than people who have less.”

In this case, the if-then suggests there isn’t a relationship between the variables. In that case, one of the null hypothesis examples might say:

“If people have many followers on Instagram, they will spend more time on the app than people who have less.”

You then test both the if-then and the null hypothesis to gauge if there is a relationship between the variables, and if so, how much of a relationship. 

4 Tips to Write the Best Hypothesis

If you’re going to take the time to hold an experiment, whether in school or by yourself, you’re also going to want to take the time to make sure your hypothesis is a good one. The best hypotheses have four major elements in common: plausibility, defined concepts, observability, and general explanation.

#1: Plausibility

At first glance, this quality of a hypothesis might seem obvious. When your hypothesis is plausible, that means it’s possible given what we know about science and general common sense. However, improbable hypotheses are more common than you might think. 

Imagine you’re studying weight gain and television watching habits. If you hypothesize that people who watch more than  twenty hours of television a week will gain two hundred pounds or more over the course of a year, this might be improbable (though it’s potentially possible). Consequently, c ommon sense can tell us the results of the study before the study even begins.

Improbable hypotheses generally go against  science, as well. Take this hypothesis example: 

“If a person smokes one cigarette a day, then they will have lungs just as healthy as the average person’s.” 

This hypothesis is obviously untrue, as studies have shown again and again that cigarettes negatively affect lung health. You must be careful that your hypotheses do not reflect your own personal opinion more than they do scientifically-supported findings. This plausibility points to the necessity of research before the hypothesis is written to make sure that your hypothesis has not already been disproven.

#2: Defined Concepts

The more advanced you are in your studies, the more likely that the terms you’re using in your hypothesis are specific to a limited set of knowledge. One of the hypothesis testing examples might include the readability of printed text in newspapers, where you might use words like “kerning” and “x-height.” Unless your readers have a background in graphic design, it’s likely that they won’t know what you mean by these terms. Thus, it’s important to either write what they mean in the hypothesis itself or in the report before the hypothesis.

Here’s what we mean. Which of the following sentences makes more sense to the common person?

If the kerning is greater than average, more words will be read per minute.

If the space between letters is greater than average, more words will be read per minute.

For people reading your report that are not experts in typography, simply adding a few more words will be helpful in clarifying exactly what the experiment is all about. It’s always a good idea to make your research and findings as accessible as possible. 

Good hypotheses ensure that you can observe the results. 

#3: Observability

In order to measure the truth or falsity of your hypothesis, you must be able to see your variables and the way they interact. For instance, if your hypothesis is that the flight patterns of satellites affect the strength of certain television signals, yet you don’t have a telescope to view the satellites or a television to monitor the signal strength, you cannot properly observe your hypothesis and thus cannot continue your study.

Some variables may seem easy to observe, but if you do not have a system of measurement in place, you cannot observe your hypothesis properly. Here’s an example: if you’re experimenting on the effect of healthy food on overall happiness, but you don’t have a way to monitor and measure what “overall happiness” means, your results will not reflect the truth. Monitoring how often someone smiles for a whole day is not reasonably observable, but having the participants state how happy they feel on a scale of one to ten is more observable. 

In writing your hypothesis, always keep in mind how you'll execute the experiment.

#4: Generalizability 

Perhaps you’d like to study what color your best friend wears the most often by observing and documenting the colors she wears each day of the week. This might be fun information for her and you to know, but beyond you two, there aren’t many people who could benefit from this experiment. When you start an experiment, you should note how generalizable your findings may be if they are confirmed. Generalizability is basically how common a particular phenomenon is to other people’s everyday life.

Let’s say you’re asking a question about the health benefits of eating an apple for one day only, you need to realize that the experiment may be too specific to be helpful. It does not help to explain a phenomenon that many people experience. If you find yourself with too specific of a hypothesis, go back to asking the big question: what is it that you want to know, and what do you think will happen between your two variables?

Hypothesis Testing Examples

We know it can be hard to write a good hypothesis unless you’ve seen some good hypothesis examples. We’ve included four hypothesis examples based on some made-up experiments. Use these as templates or launch pads for coming up with your own hypotheses.

Experiment #1: Students Studying Outside (Writing a Hypothesis)

You are a student at PrepScholar University. When you walk around campus, you notice that, when the temperature is above 60 degrees, more students study in the quad. You want to know when your fellow students are more likely to study outside. With this information, how do you make the best hypothesis possible?

You must remember to make additional observations and do secondary research before writing your hypothesis. In doing so, you notice that no one studies outside when it’s 75 degrees and raining, so this should be included in your experiment. Also, studies done on the topic beforehand suggested that students are more likely to study in temperatures less than 85 degrees. With this in mind, you feel confident that you can identify your variables and write your hypotheses:

If-then: “If the temperature in Fahrenheit is less than 60 degrees, significantly fewer students will study outside.”

Null: “If the temperature in Fahrenheit is less than 60 degrees, the same number of students will study outside as when it is more than 60 degrees.”

These hypotheses are plausible, as the temperatures are reasonably within the bounds of what is possible. The number of people in the quad is also easily observable. It is also not a phenomenon specific to only one person or at one time, but instead can explain a phenomenon for a broader group of people.

To complete this experiment, you pick the month of October to observe the quad. Every day (except on the days where it’s raining)from 3 to 4 PM, when most classes have released for the day, you observe how many people are on the quad. You measure how many people come  and how many leave. You also write down the temperature on the hour. 

After writing down all of your observations and putting them on a graph, you find that the most students study on the quad when it is 70 degrees outside, and that the number of students drops a lot once the temperature reaches 60 degrees or below. In this case, your research report would state that you accept or “failed to reject” your first hypothesis with your findings.

Experiment #2: The Cupcake Store (Forming a Simple Experiment)

Let’s say that you work at a bakery. You specialize in cupcakes, and you make only two colors of frosting: yellow and purple. You want to know what kind of customers are more likely to buy what kind of cupcake, so you set up an experiment. Your independent variable is the customer’s gender, and the dependent variable is the color of the frosting. What is an example of a hypothesis that might answer the question of this study?

Here’s what your hypotheses might look like: 

If-then: “If customers’ gender is female, then they will buy more yellow cupcakes than purple cupcakes.”

Null: “If customers’ gender is female, then they will be just as likely to buy purple cupcakes as yellow cupcakes.”

This is a pretty simple experiment! It passes the test of plausibility (there could easily be a difference), defined concepts (there’s nothing complicated about cupcakes!), observability (both color and gender can be easily observed), and general explanation ( this would potentially help you make better business decisions ).

Experiment #3: Backyard Bird Feeders (Integrating Multiple Variables and Rejecting the If-Then Hypothesis)

While watching your backyard bird feeder, you realized that different birds come on the days when you change the types of seeds. You decide that you want to see more cardinals in your backyard, so you decide to see what type of food they like the best and set up an experiment. 

However, one morning, you notice that, while some cardinals are present, blue jays are eating out of your backyard feeder filled with millet. You decide that, of all of the other birds, you would like to see the blue jays the least. This means you'll have more than one variable in your hypothesis. Your new hypotheses might look like this: 

If-then: “If sunflower seeds are placed in the bird feeders, then more cardinals will come than blue jays. If millet is placed in the bird feeders, then more blue jays will come than cardinals.”

Null: “If either sunflower seeds or millet are placed in the bird, equal numbers of cardinals and blue jays will come.”

Through simple observation, you actually find that cardinals come as often as blue jays when sunflower seeds or millet is in the bird feeder. In this case, you would reject your “if-then” hypothesis and “fail to reject” your null hypothesis . You cannot accept your first hypothesis, because it’s clearly not true. Instead you found that there was actually no relation between your different variables. Consequently, you would need to run more experiments with different variables to see if the new variables impact the results.

Experiment #4: In-Class Survey (Including an Alternative Hypothesis)

You’re about to give a speech in one of your classes about the importance of paying attention. You want to take this opportunity to test a hypothesis you’ve had for a while: 

If-then: If students sit in the first two rows of the classroom, then they will listen better than students who do not.

Null: If students sit in the first two rows of the classroom, then they will not listen better or worse than students who do not.

You give your speech and then ask your teacher if you can hand out a short survey to the class. On the survey, you’ve included questions about some of the topics you talked about. When you get back the results, you’re surprised to see that not only do the students in the first two rows not pay better attention, but they also scored worse than students in other parts of the classroom! Here, both your if-then and your null hypotheses are not representative of your findings. What do you do?

This is when you reject both your if-then and null hypotheses and instead create an alternative hypothesis . This type of hypothesis is used in the rare circumstance that neither of your hypotheses is able to capture your findings . Now you can use what you’ve learned to draft new hypotheses and test again! 

Key Takeaways: Hypothesis Writing

The more comfortable you become with writing hypotheses, the better they will become. The structure of hypotheses is flexible and may need to be changed depending on what topic you are studying. The most important thing to remember is the purpose of your hypothesis and the difference between the if-then and the null . From there, in forming your hypothesis, you should constantly be asking questions, making observations, doing secondary research, and considering your variables. After you have written your hypothesis, be sure to edit it so that it is plausible, clearly defined, observable, and helpful in explaining a general phenomenon.

Writing a hypothesis is something that everyone, from elementary school children competing in a science fair to professional scientists in a lab, needs to know how to do. Hypotheses are vital in experiments and in properly executing the scientific method . When done correctly, hypotheses will set up your studies for success and help you to understand the world a little better, one experiment at a time.

What’s Next?

If you’re studying for the science portion of the ACT, there’s definitely a lot you need to know. We’ve got the tools to help, though! Start by checking out our ultimate study guide for the ACT Science subject test. Once you read through that, be sure to download our recommended ACT Science practice tests , since they’re one of the most foolproof ways to improve your score. (And don’t forget to check out our expert guide book , too.)

If you love science and want to major in a scientific field, you should start preparing in high school . Here are the science classes you should take to set yourself up for success.

If you’re trying to think of science experiments you can do for class (or for a science fair!), here’s a list of 37 awesome science experiments you can do at home

Ashley Sufflé Robinson has a Ph.D. in 19th Century English Literature. As a content writer for PrepScholar, Ashley is passionate about giving college-bound students the in-depth information they need to get into the school of their dreams.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

• For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

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 .

Science and the scientific method: Definitions and examples

Here's a look at the foundation of doing science — the scientific method.

The scientific method

Hypothesis, theory and law, a brief history of science, additional resources, bibliography.

Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is also the body of knowledge accumulated through the discoveries about all the things in the universe. 

The word "science" is derived from the Latin word "scientia," which means knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary . True to this definition, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis, a process known as the scientific method. Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. One important aspect of the scientific process is that it focuses only on the natural world, according to the University of California, Berkeley . Anything that is considered supernatural, or beyond physical reality, does not fit into the definition of science.

When conducting research, scientists use the scientific method to collect measurable, empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis (often in the form of an if/then statement) that is designed to support or contradict a scientific theory .

"As a field biologist, my favorite part of the scientific method is being in the field collecting the data," Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College, told Live Science. "But what really makes that fun is knowing that you are trying to answer an interesting question. So the first step in identifying questions and generating possible answers (hypotheses) is also very important and is a creative process. Then once you collect the data you analyze it to see if your hypothesis is supported or not."

The steps of the scientific method go something like this, according to Highline College :

• Make an observation or observations.
• Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
• Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
• Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
• Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility — no science."

Some key underpinnings to the scientific method:

• The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, according to North Carolina State University . Falsifiable means that there must be a possible negative answer to the hypothesis.
• Research must involve deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning . Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion while inductive reasoning uses observations to infer an explanation for those observations.
• An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change), according to the University of California, Santa Barbara .
• An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against, according to Britannica .

The process of generating and testing a hypothesis forms the backbone of the scientific method. When an idea has been confirmed over many experiments, it can be called a scientific theory. While a theory provides an explanation for a phenomenon, a scientific law provides a description of a phenomenon, according to The University of Waikato . One example would be the law of conservation of energy, which is the first law of thermodynamics that says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. 

A law describes an observed phenomenon, but it doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. "In science, laws are a starting place," said Peter Coppinger, an associate professor of biology and biomedical engineering at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. "From there, scientists can then ask the questions, 'Why and how?'"

Laws are generally considered to be without exception, though some laws have been modified over time after further testing found discrepancies. For instance, Newton's laws of motion describe everything we've observed in the macroscopic world, but they break down at the subatomic level.

This does not mean theories are not meaningful. For a hypothesis to become a theory, scientists must conduct rigorous testing, typically across multiple disciplines by separate groups of scientists. Saying something is "just a theory" confuses the scientific definition of "theory" with the layperson's definition. To most people a theory is a hunch. In science, a theory is the framework for observations and facts, Tanner told Live Science.

The earliest evidence of science can be found as far back as records exist. Early tablets contain numerals and information about the solar system , which were derived by using careful observation, prediction and testing of those predictions. Science became decidedly more "scientific" over time, however.

1200s: Robert Grosseteste developed the framework for the proper methods of modern scientific experimentation, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. His works included the principle that an inquiry must be based on measurable evidence that is confirmed through testing.

1400s: Leonardo da Vinci began his notebooks in pursuit of evidence that the human body is microcosmic. The artist, scientist and mathematician also gathered information about optics and hydrodynamics.

1500s: Nicolaus Copernicus advanced the understanding of the solar system with his discovery of heliocentrism. This is a model in which Earth and the other planets revolve around the sun, which is the center of the solar system.

1600s: Johannes Kepler built upon those observations with his laws of planetary motion. Galileo Galilei improved on a new invention, the telescope, and used it to study the sun and planets. The 1600s also saw advancements in the study of physics as Isaac Newton developed his laws of motion.

1700s: Benjamin Franklin discovered that lightning is electrical. He also contributed to the study of oceanography and meteorology. The understanding of chemistry also evolved during this century as Antoine Lavoisier, dubbed the father of modern chemistry , developed the law of conservation of mass.

1800s: Milestones included Alessandro Volta's discoveries regarding electrochemical series, which led to the invention of the battery. John Dalton also introduced atomic theory, which stated that all matter is composed of atoms that combine to form molecules. The basis of modern study of genetics advanced as Gregor Mendel unveiled his laws of inheritance. Later in the century, Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen discovered X-rays , while George Ohm's law provided the basis for understanding how to harness electrical charges.

1900s: The discoveries of Albert Einstein , who is best known for his theory of relativity, dominated the beginning of the 20th century. Einstein's theory of relativity is actually two separate theories. His special theory of relativity, which he outlined in a 1905 paper, " The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies ," concluded that time must change according to the speed of a moving object relative to the frame of reference of an observer. His second theory of general relativity, which he published as " The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity ," advanced the idea that matter causes space to curve.

In 1952, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine , which reduced the incidence of polio in the United States by nearly 90%, according to Britannica . The following year, James D. Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA , which is a double helix formed by base pairs attached to a sugar-phosphate backbone, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute .

2000s: The 21st century saw the first draft of the human genome completed, leading to a greater understanding of DNA. This advanced the study of genetics, its role in human biology and its use as a predictor of diseases and other disorders, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute .

• This video from City University of New York delves into the basics of what defines science.
• Learn about what makes science science in this book excerpt from Washington State University .
• This resource from the University of Michigan — Flint explains how to design your own scientific study.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Scientia. 2022. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientia

University of California, Berkeley, "Understanding Science: An Overview." 2022. ​​ https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/intro_01  

Highline College, "Scientific method." July 12, 2015. https://people.highline.edu/iglozman/classes/astronotes/scimeth.htm  

North Carolina State University, "Science Scripts." https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/bio183de/Black/science/science_scripts.html  

University of California, Santa Barbara. "What is an Independent variable?" October 31,2017. http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=6045  

Encyclopedia Britannica, "Control group." May 14, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/science/control-group  

The University of Waikato, "Scientific Hypothesis, Theories and Laws." https://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml  

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Robert Grosseteste. May 3, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grosseteste/  

Encyclopedia Britannica, "Jonas Salk." October 21, 2021. https://www.britannica.com/ biography /Jonas-Salk

National Human Genome Research Institute, "​Phosphate Backbone." https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Phosphate-Backbone  

National Human Genome Research Institute, "What is the Human Genome Project?" https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project/What  

‌ Live Science contributor Ashley Hamer updated this article on Jan. 16, 2022.

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

Human ancestor 'Lucy' was hairless, new research suggests. Here's why that matters.

'Loch ness monster' microbe stretches its neck to 30 times its body length in seconds

Saturn's planet-wide storms driven by seasonal heating, Cassini probe reveals

Most Popular

• 2 Y chromosome is evolving faster than the X, primate study reveals
• 3 Ming dynasty shipwrecks hide a treasure trove of artifacts in the South China Sea, excavation reveals
• 4 Have giant humans ever existed?
• 5 32 of the most dangerous animals on Earth
• 2 Have giant humans ever existed?
• 3 32 of the most dangerous animals on Earth
• 4 Is Earth really getting too hot for people to survive?
• 5 Jaguarundi: The little wildcat that looks like an otter and has 13 ways of 'talking'

AI Generator

When doing a research action plan students in school would know that the first thing to do is to know your topic well enough. From expecting science projects to work based on your predictions and the results that may have been quite the opposite from how you depicted them. This also rings true in businesses. There is a term for that and it is often associated with the subject Science, but can also be associated with business . Scientific method  or a hypothesis.

What Is a Hypothesis?

A hypothesis is a scientific wild guess, a prediction in research . A wild guess, a say from someone without any known proof.  A hypothesis can also mean a scientific, educated guess that most scientists and researchers do before planning out or doing experiments to check if their guesses or their scientific ideas based on their topics are exact or correct.

Hypothesis Format

A well-structured hypothesis is crucial for guiding scientific research. Here’s a detailed format for writing a hypothesis, along with examples for each step:

1. Start with a Research Question

Before writing a hypothesis, begin with a clear and concise research question . This question identifies the focus of your study.

Example Research Question: Does the amount of daily exercise affect weight loss?

2. Identify the Variables

Identify the independent and dependent variables in your research question.

• Independent Variable: The variable you manipulate (e.g., amount of daily exercise).
• Dependent Variable: The variable you measure (e.g., weight loss).

3. Formulate the Hypothesis

Use the identified variables to create a testable statement . This statement should clearly express the expected relationship between the variables.

• If [independent variable], then [dependent variable].
• [Independent variable] will [effect] [dependent variable].

Directional vs. Non-Directional Hypothesis:

• Specifies the direction of the expected relationship.
• Does not specify the direction of the expected relationship, only that a relationship exists.

4. Example Hypotheses Using the Format

Research question: does caffeine affect cognitive performance, if-then statement:.

• Example: If individuals consume caffeine, then their cognitive performance will improve.

Direct Statement:

• Example: Caffeine consumption will improve cognitive performance.

Null Hypothesis (H0):

• Example: There is no significant effect of caffeine consumption on cognitive performance.

Alternative Hypothesis (H1):

• Example: There is a significant effect of caffeine consumption on cognitive performance.

Directional Hypothesis:

Non-directional hypothesis:.

• Example: There is a relationship between caffeine consumption and cognitive performance.

5. Refining the Hypothesis

Ensure that your hypothesis is specific, measurable, and testable. Avoid vague terms and focus on a single independent and dependent variable.

Hypothesis Examples in Research

A hypothesis is a statement that predicts the relationship between variables. It serves as a foundation for research by providing a clear focus and direction for experiments and data analysis . Here are examples of hypotheses from various fields of research:

Research Question:

Does sunlight exposure affect plant growth?

Hypotheses:

• Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in plant growth between plants exposed to sunlight and those kept in the shade.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Plants exposed to sunlight grow taller than those kept in the shade.
• Directional Hypothesis: Increased sunlight exposure will lead to increased plant growth.
• If-Then Statement: If plants are exposed to more sunlight, then they will grow taller.

2. Psychology

Does sleep duration affect memory retention?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in memory retention between individuals who sleep for 8 hours and those who sleep for 4 hours.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Individuals who sleep for 8 hours will have better memory retention than those who sleep for 4 hours.
• Directional Hypothesis: Longer sleep duration will improve memory retention.
• If-Then Statement: If individuals sleep for 8 hours, then their memory retention will improve compared to those who sleep for 4 hours.

3. Education

Do interactive teaching methods improve student engagement?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in student engagement between interactive teaching methods and traditional lecture-based methods.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Interactive teaching methods result in higher student engagement compared to traditional lecture-based methods.
• Directional Hypothesis: Interactive teaching methods will increase student engagement.
• If-Then Statement: If teachers use interactive teaching methods, then student engagement will increase.

4. Medicine

Does a new drug reduce blood pressure more effectively than the standard medication?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in blood pressure reduction between the new drug and the standard medication.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): The new drug reduces blood pressure more effectively than the standard medication.
• Directional Hypothesis: The new drug will reduce blood pressure more than the standard medication.
• If-Then Statement: If patients take the new drug, then their blood pressure will decrease more than if they take the standard medication.

5. Sociology

Does socioeconomic status affect access to higher education?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant relationship between socioeconomic status and access to higher education.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Higher socioeconomic status is associated with greater access to higher education.
• Directional Hypothesis: Individuals with higher socioeconomic status will have greater access to higher education.
• If-Then Statement: If individuals have a higher socioeconomic status, then they will have greater access to higher education.

Hypothesis Examples in Psychology

Psychology research often explores the relationships between various cognitive, behavioral, and emotional variables. Here are some well-structured hypothesis examples in psychology:

1. Sleep Duration and Memory Retention

• Non-Directional Hypothesis: There is a relationship between sleep duration and memory retention.

2. Exercise and Anxiety Levels

Does regular exercise reduce anxiety levels?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in anxiety levels between individuals who exercise regularly and those who do not.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Individuals who exercise regularly will have lower anxiety levels than those who do not.
• Directional Hypothesis: Regular exercise will decrease anxiety levels.
• Non-Directional Hypothesis: There is a relationship between regular exercise and anxiety levels.
• If-Then Statement: If individuals exercise regularly, then their anxiety levels will decrease.

3. Social Media Usage and Self-Esteem

Does social media usage affect self-esteem in teenagers?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant relationship between social media usage and self-esteem in teenagers.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): High social media usage is associated with lower self-esteem in teenagers.
• Directional Hypothesis: Increased social media usage will decrease self-esteem in teenagers.
• Non-Directional Hypothesis: There is a relationship between social media usage and self-esteem in teenagers.
• If-Then Statement: If teenagers spend more time on social media, then their self-esteem will decrease.

4. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Depression

Is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) effective in reducing symptoms of depression?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in depression symptoms between individuals who undergo CBT and those who do not.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Individuals who undergo CBT will experience a greater reduction in depression symptoms than those who do not.
• Directional Hypothesis: CBT will reduce symptoms of depression.
• Non-Directional Hypothesis: There is a relationship between undergoing CBT and reduction in depression symptoms.
• If-Then Statement: If individuals undergo CBT, then their symptoms of depression will decrease.

5. Parental Involvement and Academic Achievement

Does parental involvement influence academic achievement in children?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant relationship between parental involvement and academic achievement in children.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Higher levels of parental involvement are associated with higher academic achievement in children.
• Directional Hypothesis: Increased parental involvement will improve academic achievement in children.
• Non-Directional Hypothesis: There is a relationship between parental involvement and academic achievement in children.
• If-Then Statement: If parents are more involved in their children’s education, then their children will achieve higher academic success.

Hypothesis Examples in Science

Scientific research often involves creating hypotheses to test the relationships between variables. Here are some well-structured hypothesis examples from various fields of science:

1. Biology: Sunlight and Plant Growth

• Non-Directional Hypothesis: There is a relationship between sunlight exposure and plant growth.

2. Chemistry: Temperature and Reaction Rate

Does temperature affect the rate of a chemical reaction?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in the reaction rate of a chemical reaction at different temperatures.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Increasing the temperature will increase the reaction rate.
• Directional Hypothesis: Higher temperatures will increase the reaction rate.
• Non-Directional Hypothesis: There is a relationship between temperature and the reaction rate.
• If-Then Statement: If the temperature of a reaction increases, then the reaction rate will increase.

3. Physics: Mass and Free Fall Speed

Does the mass of an object affect its speed when falling?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in the falling speed of objects with different masses.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Objects with greater mass fall faster than those with lesser mass.
• Directional Hypothesis: Heavier objects will fall faster than lighter objects.
• Non-Directional Hypothesis: There is a relationship between the mass of an object and its falling speed.
• If-Then Statement: If an object’s mass increases, then its falling speed will increase.

4. Environmental Science: Fertilizers and Water Quality

Do chemical fertilizers affect water quality in nearby lakes?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant effect of chemical fertilizers on the water quality of nearby lakes.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Chemical fertilizers negatively affect the water quality of nearby lakes.
• Directional Hypothesis: The use of chemical fertilizers will decrease the water quality of nearby lakes.
• Non-Directional Hypothesis: There is a relationship between the use of chemical fertilizers and the water quality of nearby lakes.
• If-Then Statement: If chemical fertilizers are used, then the water quality in nearby lakes will decrease.

5. Earth Science: Soil Composition and Erosion Rate

Does soil composition affect the rate of erosion?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in the erosion rate of soils with different compositions.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Soil composition affects the rate of erosion.
• Directional Hypothesis: Soils with higher clay content will erode more slowly than sandy soils.
• Non-Directional Hypothesis: There is a relationship between soil composition and the rate of erosion.
• If-Then Statement: If soil has a higher clay content, then its erosion rate will be lower compared to sandy soil.

Hypothesis Examples in Biology

In biology, hypotheses are used to explore relationships and effects within biological systems. Here are some well-structured hypothesis examples in various areas of biology:

1. Photosynthesis and Light Intensity

How does light intensity affect the rate of photosynthesis in plants?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): Light intensity has no significant effect on the rate of photosynthesis in plants.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Light intensity significantly affects the rate of photosynthesis in plants.
• Directional Hypothesis: Increased light intensity will increase the rate of photosynthesis in plants.
• Non-Directional Hypothesis: There is a relationship between light intensity and the rate of photosynthesis in plants.
• If-Then Statement: If light intensity increases, then the rate of photosynthesis in plants will increase.

2. Temperature and Enzyme Activity

How does temperature affect the activity of the enzyme amylase?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): Temperature has no significant effect on the activity of the enzyme amylase.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Temperature significantly affects the activity of the enzyme amylase.
• Directional Hypothesis: Increasing the temperature will increase the activity of the enzyme amylase up to an optimal point, after which activity will decrease.
• Non-Directional Hypothesis: There is a relationship between temperature and the activity of the enzyme amylase.
• If-Then Statement: If the temperature increases, then the activity of the enzyme amylase will increase up to an optimal temperature, after which it will decrease.

3. Nutrient Availability and Plant Growth

Does the availability of nutrients in soil affect the growth of plants?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): Nutrient availability has no significant effect on the growth of plants.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Nutrient availability significantly affects the growth of plants.
• Directional Hypothesis: Increased nutrient availability will enhance plant growth.
• Non-Directional Hypothesis: There is a relationship between nutrient availability and plant growth.
• If-Then Statement: If nutrient availability in the soil increases, then the growth of plants will be enhanced.

4. Genetic Variation and Disease Resistance

Does genetic variation in a population affect its resistance to diseases?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): Genetic variation has no significant effect on disease resistance in a population.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Genetic variation significantly affects disease resistance in a population.
• Directional Hypothesis: Populations with greater genetic variation will have higher resistance to diseases.
• Non-Directional Hypothesis: There is a relationship between genetic variation and disease resistance in a population.
• If-Then Statement: If a population has greater genetic variation, then its resistance to diseases will be higher.

5. Water pH and Aquatic Life Health

Does the pH level of water affect the health of aquatic life?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): The pH level of water has no significant effect on the health of aquatic life.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): The pH level of water significantly affects the health of aquatic life.
• Directional Hypothesis: Extreme pH levels (both high and low) will negatively affect the health of aquatic life.
• Non-Directional Hypothesis: There is a relationship between the pH level of water and the health of aquatic life.
• If-Then Statement: If the pH level of water is too high or too low, then the health of aquatic life will be negatively affected.

Hypothesis Examples in Sociology

In sociology, hypotheses are used to explore and explain social phenomena, behaviors, and relationships within societies. Here are some well-structured hypothesis examples in various areas of sociology:

1. Education and Social Mobility

Does access to higher education affect social mobility?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): Access to higher education has no significant effect on social mobility.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Access to higher education significantly affects social mobility.
• Directional Hypothesis: Increased access to higher education will improve social mobility.
• Non-Directional Hypothesis: There is a relationship between access to higher education and social mobility.
• If-Then Statement: If individuals have increased access to higher education, then their social mobility will improve.

2. Income Inequality and Crime Rates

Does income inequality influence crime rates in urban areas?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): Income inequality has no significant effect on crime rates in urban areas.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Income inequality significantly affects crime rates in urban areas.
• Directional Hypothesis: Higher income inequality will lead to higher crime rates in urban areas.
• Non-Directional Hypothesis: There is a relationship between income inequality and crime rates in urban areas.
• If-Then Statement: If income inequality increases, then crime rates in urban areas will increase.

3. Social Media Use and Social Interaction

Does the use of social media affect face-to-face social interactions among teenagers?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): The use of social media has no significant effect on face-to-face social interactions among teenagers.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): The use of social media significantly affects face-to-face social interactions among teenagers.
• Directional Hypothesis: Increased use of social media will decrease face-to-face social interactions among teenagers.
• Non-Directional Hypothesis: There is a relationship between the use of social media and face-to-face social interactions among teenagers.
• If-Then Statement: If teenagers use social media more frequently, then their face-to-face social interactions will decrease.

4. Gender Roles and Career Choices

Do traditional gender roles influence career choices among young adults?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): Traditional gender roles have no significant effect on career choices among young adults.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Traditional gender roles significantly affect career choices among young adults.
• Directional Hypothesis: Adherence to traditional gender roles will limit career choices among young adults.
• Non-Directional Hypothesis: There is a relationship between traditional gender roles and career choices among young adults.
• If-Then Statement: If young adults adhere to traditional gender roles, then their career choices will be limited.

5. Cultural Diversity and Workplace Productivity

Does cultural diversity in the workplace affect productivity levels?

• Null Hypothesis (H0): Cultural diversity in the workplace has no significant effect on productivity levels.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Cultural diversity in the workplace significantly affects productivity levels.
• Directional Hypothesis: Increased cultural diversity will improve productivity levels in the workplace.
• Non-Directional Hypothesis: There is a relationship between cultural diversity in the workplace and productivity levels.
• If-Then Statement: If the workplace has increased cultural diversity, then productivity levels will improve.

More Hypothesis Samples & Examples in PDF

1. research hypothesis.

2. Education Hypothesis

3. Basic Hypothesis

4. Hypothesis Statement Template

5. Hypothesis in PDF

6. Hypothesis Format

7. Hypothesis Examples

8. Simple Hypothesis

Types of Hypothesis

A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested and is often used in scientific research to propose a relationship between two or more variables. Understanding the different types of hypotheses is essential for conducting effective research. Below are the main types of hypotheses:

1. Null Hypothesis (H0)

The null hypothesis states that there is no relationship between the variables being studied. It assumes that any observed effect is due to chance. Researchers often aim to disprove the null hypothesis.

Example: There is no significant difference in test scores between students who study with music and those who study in silence.

2. Alternative Hypothesis (H1 or Ha)

The alternative hypothesis suggests that there is a relationship between the variables being studied. It is what researchers seek to prove.

Example: Students who study with music have higher test scores than those who study in silence.

3. Simple Hypothesis

A simple hypothesis predicts a relationship between a single independent variable and a single dependent variable.

Example: Increasing the amount of sunlight will increase the growth rate of plants.

4. Complex Hypothesis

A complex hypothesis predicts a relationship involving two or more independent variables and/or two or more dependent variables.

Example: Increasing sunlight and water will increase the growth rate and height of plants.

5. Directional Hypothesis

A directional hypothesis specifies the direction of the expected relationship between variables. It suggests whether the relationship is positive or negative.

Example: Students who study for more hours will score higher on exams.

6. Non-Directional Hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis does not specify the direction of the relationship. It only states that a relationship exists.

Example: There is a difference in test scores between students who study with music and those who study in silence.

7. Statistical Hypothesis

A statistical hypothesis involves quantitative data and can be tested using statistical methods. It often includes both null and alternative hypotheses.

Example: The mean test scores of students who study with music are significantly different from those who study in silence.

8. Causal Hypothesis

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

Example: Smoking causes lung cancer.

9. Associative Hypothesis

An associative hypothesis suggests that variables are related but does not imply causation.

Example: There is an association between physical activity levels and body weight.

10. Research Hypothesis

A research hypothesis is a broad statement that serves as the foundation for the research study. It is often the same as the alternative hypothesis.

Example: Implementing a new teaching strategy will improve student engagement and performance.

How To Use Hypothesis for Research?

A hypothesis is a critical component of the research process, providing a clear direction for the study and forming the basis for drawing conclusions. Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to use a hypothesis in research:

1. Identify the Research Problem

Before formulating a hypothesis, clearly define the research problem or question. This step involves understanding what you aim to investigate and why it is significant.

Example: You want to study the impact of sleep on academic performance among college students.

2. Review Existing Literature

Conduct a thorough review of existing literature to understand what is already known about the topic. This helps in identifying gaps in knowledge and forming a basis for your hypothesis.

Example: Previous studies suggest a positive correlation between sleep duration and academic performance but lack specific data on college students.

Based on the research problem and literature review, formulate a clear and testable hypothesis. Ensure it is specific and relates directly to the variables being studied.

Types of Hypotheses:

• Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant relationship between sleep duration and academic performance among college students.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): There is a significant relationship between sleep duration and academic performance among college students.

4. Define Variables

Clearly define the independent and dependent variables involved in the hypothesis.

• Independent Variable: Sleep duration
• Dependent Variable: Academic performance (e.g., GPA)

5. Design the Study

Choose an appropriate research design to test the hypothesis. This could be experimental, correlational, or observational, depending on the nature of your research question.

Example: Conduct a correlational study to examine the relationship between sleep duration and GPA among college students.

6. Collect Data

Gather data through surveys, experiments, or secondary data sources. Ensure the data collection methods are reliable and valid to accurately test the hypothesis.

Example: Use a questionnaire to collect data on students’ sleep duration and their GPAs.

7. Analyze the Data

Use appropriate statistical methods to analyze the data. This step involves testing the hypothesis to determine whether to accept or reject the null hypothesis.

Example: Perform a Pearson correlation analysis to examine the relationship between sleep duration and GPA.

8. Interpret the Results

Interpret the results of the statistical analysis. Determine if the data supports the alternative hypothesis or if the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.

Example: If the analysis shows a significant positive correlation, you can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis that sleep duration is related to academic performance.

9. Draw Conclusions

Draw conclusions based on the results of the hypothesis testing. Discuss the implications of the findings and how they contribute to the existing body of knowledge.

Example: Conclude that longer sleep duration is associated with higher GPA among college students and discuss potential implications for student health and academic policies.

10. Report and Share Findings

Write a detailed report or research paper presenting the hypothesis, methodology, results, and conclusions. Share your findings with the academic community or relevant stakeholders.

Example: Publish the study in a peer-reviewed journal or present it at an academic conference.

How to Write a Hypothesis?

Writing a hypothesis is a crucial step in the scientific method. A well-constructed hypothesis guides your research, helping you design experiments and analyze results. Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to write an effective hypothesis:

1. Understand the Research Question

Start by clearly understanding the research question or problem you want to address. This helps in formulating a focused hypothesis.

Example: How does sunlight exposure affect plant growth?

2. Conduct Preliminary Research

Review existing literature related to your research question. This helps in understanding what is already known and identifying gaps in knowledge.

Example: Studies show that plants generally grow better with more sunlight, but the optimal amount varies.

3. Identify Variables

Determine the independent and dependent variables for your study.

• Independent Variable: The factor you manipulate (e.g., sunlight exposure).
• Dependent Variable: The factor you measure (e.g., plant growth).

4. Formulate a Simple Hypothesis

A simple hypothesis involves one independent and one dependent variable. Clearly state the expected relationship between these variables.

Example: Increasing sunlight exposure will increase plant growth.

5. Choose the Type of Hypothesis

Decide whether your hypothesis will be null or alternative, directional or non-directional.

• Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no relationship between the variables.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): There is a relationship between the variables.
• Directional Hypothesis: Specifies the direction of the relationship.
• Non-Directional Hypothesis: Does not specify the direction.

Example of Directional Hypothesis: Plants exposed to more sunlight will grow taller than those exposed to less sunlight.

6. Ensure Testability

Make sure your hypothesis can be tested through experiments or observations. It should be measurable and falsifiable.

Example: Plants will be grown under different levels of sunlight, and their growth will be measured over time.

7. Write the Hypothesis

Write your hypothesis in a clear, concise, and specific manner. It should include the variables and the expected relationship between them.

Example: If plants are exposed to increased sunlight, then they will grow taller compared to plants that receive less sunlight.

8. Refine the Hypothesis

Ensure that your hypothesis is specific and narrow enough to be testable but broad enough to cover the scope of your research.

Example: If tomato plants are exposed to 8 hours of sunlight per day, then they will grow taller and produce more fruit compared to tomato plants exposed to 4 hours of sunlight per day.

How Do You Formulate a Hypothesis?

To formulate a hypothesis, identify the research question, review existing literature, define variables, and create a testable statement predicting the relationship between the variables.

What Is the Difference Between Null and Alternative Hypotheses?

The null hypothesis (H0) states there is no effect or relationship, while the alternative hypothesis (H1) proposes that there is an effect or relationship.

Why Is a Hypothesis Important in Research?

A hypothesis provides a clear focus for the study, guiding the research design, data collection, and analysis, ultimately helping to draw meaningful conclusions.

Can a Hypothesis Be Proven True?

A hypothesis cannot be proven true; it can only be supported or refuted through experimentation and analysis. Even if supported, it remains open to further testing.

What Makes a Good Hypothesis?

A good hypothesis is clear, concise, specific, testable, and based on existing knowledge. It should predict a relationship between variables that can be measured.

How Is a Hypothesis Tested?

A hypothesis is tested through experiments or observations, collecting and analyzing data to determine if the results support or refute the hypothesis.

What Are the Types of Hypotheses?

Types of hypotheses include null, alternative, simple, complex, directional, non-directional, statistical, causal, and associative.

What Is a Directional Hypothesis?

A directional hypothesis specifies the expected direction of the relationship between variables, indicating whether the effect will be positive or negative.

What Is a Non-Directional Hypothesis?

A non-directional hypothesis states that a relationship exists between variables but does not specify the direction of the relationship.

How Do You Refine a Hypothesis?

Refine a hypothesis by ensuring it is specific, measurable, and testable. Remove any vague terms and focus on a single independent and dependent variable.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

Scientific Method: Step 3: HYPOTHESIS

• Step 1: QUESTION
• Step 2: RESEARCH
• Step 3: HYPOTHESIS
• Step 4: EXPERIMENT
• Step 5: DATA
• Step 6: CONCLUSION

Step 3: State your hypothesis

Now it's time to state your hypothesis . The hypothesis is an educated guess as to what will happen during your experiment. 

The hypothesis is often written using the words "IF" and "THEN." For example, " If I do not study, then I will fail the test." The "if' and "then" statements reflect your independent and dependent variables . 

The hypothesis should relate back to your original question and must be testable .

A word about variables...

Your experiment will include variables to measure and to explain any cause and effect. Below you will find some useful links describing the different types of variables.

• "What are independent and dependent variables" NCES
• [VIDEO] Biology: Independent vs. Dependent Variables (Nucleus Medical Media) Video explaining independent and dependent variables, with examples.

Resource Links

• What is and How to Write a Good Hypothesis in Research? (Elsevier)
• Hypothesis brochure from Penn State/Berks

• << Previous: Step 2: RESEARCH
• Next: Step 4: EXPERIMENT >>
• Last Updated: Jun 21, 2024 4:43 PM
• URL: https://harford.libguides.com/scientific_method

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Published: 19 June 2024

Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought

• Evelina Fedorenko   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3823-514X 1 , 2 ,
• Steven T. Piantadosi 3 &
• Edward A. F. Gibson 1  

Nature volume  630 ,  pages 575–586 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

9669 Accesses

850 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Human behaviour

Language is a defining characteristic of our species, but the function, or functions, that it serves has been debated for centuries. Here we bring recent evidence from neuroscience and allied disciplines to argue that in modern humans, language is a tool for communication, contrary to a prominent view that we use language for thinking. We begin by introducing the brain network that supports linguistic ability in humans. We then review evidence for a double dissociation between language and thought, and discuss several properties of language that suggest that it is optimized for communication. We conclude that although the emergence of language has unquestionably transformed human culture, language does not appear to be a prerequisite for complex thought, including symbolic thought. Instead, language is a powerful tool for the transmission of cultural knowledge; it plausibly co-evolved with our thinking and reasoning capacities, and only reflects, rather than gives rise to, the signature sophistication of human cognition.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

The language network as a natural kind within the broader landscape of the human brain

An investigation across 45 languages and 12 language families reveals a universal language network

Two views on the cognitive brain

Barham, L. & Everett, D. Semiotics and the origin of language in the Lower Palaeolithic. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 28 , 535–579 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Hockett, C. F. The origin of speech. Sci. Am. 203 , 88–97 (1960). A classic overview of the relationship between key features of human language and communication systems found in other species, with a focus on distinctive and shared properties .

Jackendoff, R. & Pinker, S. The faculty of language: what’s special about it? Cognition 95 , 201–236 (2005).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hurford, J. R. Language in the Light of Evolution: Volume 1, The Origins of Meaning (Oxford Univ. Press, 2007).

Kirby, S., Cornish, H. & Smith, K. Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: an experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105 , 10681–10686 (2008). This behavioural investigation introduces an experimental paradigm based on iterated learning of artificial languages for studying the cultural evolution of language; the findings suggest that languages evolve to maximize their transmissibility by becoming easier to learn and more structured .

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Seyfarth, R. M. & Cheney, D. L. The Social Origins of Language (Princeton Univ. Press, 2018).

Gibson, E. et al. How efficiency shapes human language. Trends Cogn. Sci. 23 , 389–407 (2019).

Chomsky, N. The Minimalist Program (MIT Press, 1995).

Carruthers, P. The cognitive functions of language. Behav. Brain Sci. 25 , 657–674 (2002). This comprehensive review discusses diverse language-for-thought views and puts forward a specific proposal whereby language has a critical role in cross-domain integration .

Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought (MIT Press, 2003).

Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. B. & Levinson, S. C. Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends Cogn. Sci. 8 , 108–114 (2004).

Vygotsky, L. S. Thought and Language (MIT Press, 2012).

Lupyan, G. The centrality of language in human cognition. Lang. Learn. 66 , 516–553 (2016).

Davidson, D. in Mind and Language (ed. Guttenplan, S.) 1975–1977 (Oxford Univ. Press, 1975).

Dummett, M. Origins of Analytical Philosophy (Harvard Univ. Press, 1994).

Gleitman, L. & Papafragou, A. in The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (eds Holyoak, K. J. & Morrison, R. G.) 633–661 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005).

de Villiers, J. in Understanding Other Minds: Perspectives from Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience (eds Baron-Cohen, S. et al.) 83–123 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2000).

Gentner, D. in Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought (eds Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S.) 3–14 (MIT Press, 2003). This position piece articulates one version of a language-for-thought hypothesis, whereby human intelligence is due to a combination of our analogical reasoning ability, possession of symbolic representations, and the ability of relational language to improve analogical reasoning abilities .

Buller, D. J. Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature (MIT Press, 2005).

Gould, S. J. & Vrba, E. S. Exaptation—a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8 , 4–15 (1982).

Shannon, C. E. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27 , 379–423 (1948). This article introduces a formal framework for systems of information transfer, with core concepts such as channel capacity, and lays a foundation for the field of information theory .

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Goldberg, A. E. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure (Univ. Chicago Press, 1995).

Jackendoff, R. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution (Oxford Univ. Press, 2002).

Geschwind, N. The organization of language and the brain: language disorders after brain damage help in elucidating the neural basis of verbal behavior. Science 170 , 940–944 (1970).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Friederici, A. D. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6 , 78–84 (2002).

Bates, E. et al. Voxel-based lesion–symptom mapping. Nat. Neurosci. 6 , 448–450 (2003).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hagoort, P. The neurobiology of language beyond single-word processing. Science 366 , 55–58 (2019).

Fedorenko, E., Ivanova, A. I. & Regev, T. I. The language network as a natural kind within the broader landscape of the human brain. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 25 , 289–312 (2024).

Neville, H. J. et al. Cerebral organization for language in deaf and hearing subjects: biological constraints and effects of experience. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95 , 922–929 (1998).

Fedorenko, E., Hsieh, P.-J., Nieto-Castañon, A., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S. & Kanwisher, N. A new method for fMRI investigations of language: defining ROIs functionally in individual subjects. J. Neurophysiol. 104 , 1177–1194 (2010).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Vagharchakian, L., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Pallier, C. & Dehaene, S. A temporal bottleneck in the language comprehension network. J. Neurosci. 32 , 9089–9102 (2012).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Regev, M., Honey, C. J., Simony, E. & Hasson, U. Selective and invariant neural responses to spoken and written narratives. J. Neurosci. 33 , 15978–15988 (2013).

Hu, J. et al. Precision fMRI reveals that the language-selective network supports both phrase-structure building and lexical access during language production. Cereb. Cortex 33 , 4384–4404 (2022).

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Menenti, L., Gierhan, S. M. E., Segaert, K. & Hagoort, P. Shared language: overlap and segregation of the neuronal infrastructure for speaking and listening revealed by functional MRI. Psychol. Sci. 22 , 1173–1182 (2011). This fMRI investigation establishes that language comprehension and language production draw on the same brain areas in the left frontal and temporal cortex .

Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. & Fitch, W. T. The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298 , 1569–1579 (2002).

Pallier, C., Devauchelle, A. D. & Dehaene, S. Cortical representation of the constituent structure of sentences. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108 , 2522–2527 (2011).

Bozic, M., Fonteneau, E., Su, L. & Marslen‐Wilson, W. D. Grammatical analysis as a distributed neurobiological function. Hum. Brain Mapp. 36 , 1190–1201 (2015).

Rodd, J. M., Vitello, S., Woollams, A. M. & Adank, P. Localising semantic and syntactic processing in spoken and written language comprehension: an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis. Brain Lang. 141 , 89–102 (2015).

Blank, I., Balewski, Z., Mahowald, K. & Fedorenko, E. Syntactic processing is distributed across the language system. NeuroImage 127 , 307–323 (2016).

Fedorenko, E. et al. Neural correlate of the construction of sentence meaning. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113 , E6256–E6262 (2016).

Nelson, M. J. et al. Neurophysiological dynamics of phrase-structure building during sentence processing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114 , E3669–E3678 (2017).

Fedorenko, E., Blank, I. A., Siegelman, M. & Mineroff, Z. Lack of selectivity for syntax relative to word meanings throughout the language network. Cognition 203 , 104348 (2020). This fMRI investigation establishes that every part of the language network that is sensitive to syntactic structure building is also sensitive to word meanings and comprehensively reviews literature relevant to the syntax selectivity debate .

Giglio, L., Ostarek, M. O., Weber, K. & Hagoort, P. Commonalities and asymmetries in the neurobiological infrastructure for language production and comprehension. Cereb. Cortex 32 , 1405–1418 (2022).

Heilbron, M., Armeni, K., Schoffelen, J. M., Hagoort, P. & De Lange, F. P. A hierarchy of linguistic predictions during natural language comprehension. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119 , e2201968119 (2022).

Shain, C., Blank, I. A., Fedorenko, E., Gibson, E. & Schuler, W. Robust effects of working memory demand during naturalistic language comprehension in language-selective cortex. J. Neurosci. 42 , 7412–7430 (2022).

Desbordes, T. et al. Dimensionality and ramping: signatures of sentence integration in the dynamics of brains and deep language models. J. Neurosci. 43 , 5350–5364 (2023).

Shain, C. et al. Distributed sensitivity to syntax and semantics throughout the language network. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 22 , 1–43 (2024). This fMRI investigation establishes distributed sensitivity to cognitive demands associated with lexical access, syntactic structure building and semantic composition across the language network.

Tuckute, G. et al. Driving and suppressing the human language network using large language models. Nat. Hum. Behav. 8 , 544–561 (2024).

Gentner, D. Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cogn. Sci. 7 , 155–170 (1983).

Google Scholar  

Duncan, J. How Intelligence Happens (Yale Univ. Press, 2012).

Varley, R. A., Klessinger, N. J., Romanowski, C. A. & Siegal, M. Agrammatic but numerate. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102 , 3519–3524 (2005). Patients with acquired damage to the language network display aphasia and linguistic deficits (including severe grammatical difficulties) but perform at the level of neurotypical control participants on diverse numerical reasoning tasks .

Klessinger, N., Szczerbinski, M. & Varley, R. Algebra in a man with severe aphasia. Neuropsychologia 45 , 1642–1648 (2007).

Lecours, A. & Joanette, Y. Linguistic and other psychological aspects of paroxysmal aphasia. Brain and Language 10 , 1–23 (1980).

Kertesz, A. in Thought Without Language (ed. Weiskrantz, L.) 451–463 (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988).

Varley, R. & Siegal, M. Evidence for cognition without grammar from causal reasoning and ‘theory of mind’ in an agrammatic aphasic patient. Curr. Biol. 10 , 723–726 (2000).

Siegal, M., Varley, R. & Want, S. C. Mind over grammar: reasoning in aphasia and development. Trends Cogn. Sci. 5 , 296–301 (2001).

Varley, R. In Cognitive Bases of Science (eds Carruthers, P. et al.) 99–116 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002).

Woolgar, A., Duncan, J., Manes, F. & Fedorenko, E. Fluid intelligence is supported by the multiple-demand system not the language system. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2 , 200–204 (2018).

Dronkers, N. F., Ludy, C. A. & Redfern, B. B. Pragmatics in the absence of verbal language: descriptions of a severe aphasic and a language-deprived adult. J. Neurolinguistics 11 , 179–190 (1998).

Varley, R., Siegal, M. & Want, S. C. Severe impairment in grammar does not preclude theory of mind. Neurocase 7 , 489–493 (2001).

Apperly, I. A., Samson, D., Carroll, N., Hussain, S. & Humphreys, G. Intact first-and second-order false belief reasoning in a patient with severely impaired grammar. Soc. Neurosci. 1 , 334–348 (2006). A person with acquired damage to the language network and consequent aphasia exhibits linguistic deficits but performs at the level of neurotypical control participants on theory of mind tasks .

Willems, R. M., Benn, Y., Hagoort, P., Toni, I. & Varley, R. Communicating without a functioning language system: Implications for the role of language in mentalizing. Neuropsychologia 49 , 3130–3135 (2011).

Bek, J., Blades, M., Siegal, M. & Varley, R. Language and spatial reorientation: evidence from severe aphasia. J. Exp. Psychol. 36 , 646 (2010).

Caramazza, A., Berndt, R. S. & Brownell, H. H. The semantic deficit hypothesis: Perceptual parsing and object classification by aphasic patients. B. Lang. 15 , 161–189 (1982).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Chertkow, H., Bub, D., Deaudon, C. & Whitehead, V. On the status of object concepts in aphasia. Brain Lang. 58 , 203–232 (1997).

Saygın, A. P., Wilson, S. M., Dronkers, N. F. & Bates, E. Action comprehension in aphasia: linguistic and non-linguistic deficits and their lesion correlates. Neuropsychologia 42 , 1788–1804 (2004).

Jefferies, E. & Lambon Ralph, M. A. Semantic impairment in stroke aphasia versus semantic dementia: a case-series comparison. Brain 129 , 2132–2147 (2006).

Dickey, M. W. & Warren, T. The influence of event-related knowledge on verb-argument processing in aphasia. Neuropsychologia 67 , 63–81 (2015).

Ivanova, A. A. et al. The language network is recruited but not required for nonverbal event semantics. Neurobiol. Lang. 2 , 176–201 (2021). In this fMRI study, semantic processing of event pictures in neurotypical individuals engages the language network, but less than verbal descriptions of the same events; however, individuals with acquired damage to the language network and consequent aphasia perform at the level of neurotypical control participants on a non-verbal semantic task .

Benn, Y. et al. The language network is not engaged in object categorization. Cereb. Cortex 33 , 10380–10400 (2023).

Varley, R. Reason without much language. Lang. Sci. 46 , 232–244 (2014).

Dehaene, S., Spelke, E., Pinel, P., Stanescu, R. & Tsivkin, S. Sources of mathematical thinking: behavioral and brain-imaging evidence. Science 284 , 970–974 (1999).

Hermer, L. & Spelke, E. Modularity and development: the case of spatial reorientation. Cognition 61 , 195–232 (1996).

Lupyan, G. Extracommunicative functions of language: verbal interference causes selective categorization impairments. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 16 , 711–718 (2009).

Braga, R. M., DiNicola, L. M., Becker, H. C. & Buckner, R. L. Situating the left-lateralized language network in the broader organization of multiple specialized large-scale distributed networks. J. Neurophysiol. 124 , 1415–1448 (2020). This fMRI investigation of the language network establishes this network as one of the intrinsic large-scale networks in the human brain, distinct from nearby cognitive networks .

Fedorenko, E. & Blank, I. A. Broca’s area is not a natural kind. Trends Cogn. Sci. 24 , 270–284 (2020).

Fedorenko, E., Behr, M. K. & Kanwisher, N. Functional specificity for high-level linguistic processing in the human brain. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108 , 16428–16433 (2011). This fMRI investigation finds that arithmetic addition, demanding executive function tasks and music processing do not engage the language areas, thus establishing their selectivity for linguistic input over non-linguistic inputs and tasks .

Monti, M. M., Parsons, L. M. & Osherson, D. N. Thought beyond language: neural dissociation of algebra and natural language. Psychol. Sci. 23 , 914–922 (2012).

Amalric, M. & Dehaene, S. A distinct cortical network for mathematical knowledge in the human brain. NeuroImage 189 , 19–31 (2019).

Monti, M. M., Osherson, D. N., Martinez, M. J. & Parsons, L. M. Functional neuroanatomy of deductive inference: a language-independent distributed network. NeuroImage 37 , 1005–1016 (2007).

Monti, M. M., Parsons, L. M. & Osherson, D. N. The boundaries of language and thought in deductive inference. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106 , 12554–12559 (2009). This fMRI investigation finds largely non-overlapping activations of brain regions to language processing and logical processing, thus establishing the selectivity of language areas for linguistic input over logic statements .

Ivanova, A. A. et al. Comprehension of computer code relies primarily on domain-general executive brain regions. eLife 9 , e58906 (2020).

Liu, Y. F., Kim, J., Wilson, C. & Bedny, M. Computer code comprehension shares neural resources with formal logical inference in the fronto-parietal network. eLife 9 , e59340 (2020).

Paunov, A. M., Blank, I. A. & Fedorenko, E. Functionally distinct language and theory of mind networks are synchronized at rest and during language comprehension. J. Neurophysiol. 121 , 1244–1265 (2019).

Paunov, A. M. et al. Differential tracking of linguistic vs. mental state content in naturalistic stimuli by language and theory of mind (ToM) brain networks. Neurobiol. Lang. 3 , 413–440 (2022).

Shain, C., Paunov, A., Chen, X., Lipkin, B. & Fedorenko, E. No evidence of theory of mind reasoning in the human language network. Cereb. Cortex 33 , 6299–6319 (2023).

Sueoka, Y., Paunov, A., Ivanova, A., Blank, I. A. & Fedorenko, E. The language network reliably “tracks” naturalistic meaningful non-verbal stimuli. Neurobiol. Lang. https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00135 (2024).

Piaget, J. The Language and Thought of the Child (Harcourt Brace, 1926).

Gentner, D. & Loewenstein, J. in Language, Literacy, and Cognitive Development: The Development and Consequences of Symbolic Communication (eds Amsel, E. & Byrnes, J. P.) 89–126 (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002).

Appleton, M. & Reddy, V. Teaching three year‐olds to pass false belief tests: a conversational approach. Soc. Dev. 5 , 275–291 (1996).

Slaughter, V. & Gopnik, A. Conceptual coherence in the child’s theory of mind: training children to understand belief. Child Dev. 67 , 2967–2988 (1996).

Hiersche, K. J., Schettini, E., Li, J. & Saygin, Z. M. (2022). Functional dissociation of the language network and other cognition in early childhood. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.11.503597 (2023).

Hiersche, K. J. Functional Organization and Modularity of the Superior Temporal Lobe in Children . Masters thesis, The Ohio State University (2023).

Hall, W. C. What you don’t know can hurt you: the risk of language deprivation by impairing sign language development in deaf children. Matern. Child Health J. 21 , 961–965 (2017).

Hall, M. L., Hall, W. C. & Caselli, N. K. Deaf children need language, not (just) speech. First Lang. 39 , 367–395 (2019).

Bedny, M. & Saxe, R. Insights into the origins of knowledge from the cognitive neuroscience of blindness. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 29 , 56–84 (2012).

Grand, G., Blank, I. A., Pereira, F. & Fedorenko, E. Semantic projection recovers rich human knowledge of multiple object features from word embeddings. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6 , 975–987 (2022).

Jackendoff, R. How language helps us think. Pragmat. Cogn. 4 , 1–34 (1996).

Jackendoff. R. The User’s Guide to Meaning (MIT Press, 2012).

Curtiss, S. Genie: A Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern-day Wild Child (Academic Press, 1977).

Peterson, C. C. & Siegal, M. Representing inner worlds: theory of mind in autistic, deaf, and normal hearing children. Psychol. Sci. 10 , 126–129 (1999).

Richardson, H. et al. Reduced neural selectivity for mental states in deaf children with delayed exposure to sign language. Nat. Commun. 11 , 3246 (2020).

Spelke, E. S. What Babies Know: Core Knowledge and Composition , Vol. 1 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2022).

Cheney, D. L. & Seyfarth, R. M. How Monkeys See the World: Inside the Mind of Another Species (Univ. Chicago Press, 1990).

Herrmann, E., Call, J., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., Hare, B. & Tomasello, M. Humans have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: the cultural intelligence hypothesis. Science 317 , 1360–1366 (2007).

Tomasello, M. & Herrmann, E. Ape and human cognition: what’s the difference? Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 19 , 3–8 (2010).

Fischer, J. Monkeytalk: Inside the Worlds and Minds of Primates (Univ. Chicago Press, 2017).

Krupenye, C. & Call, J. Theory of mind in animals: current and future directions. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 10 , e1503 (2019).

Shimizu, T. Why can birds be so smart? Background, significance, and implications of the revised view of the avian brain. Comparat. Cogn. Behav. Rev. 4 , 103–115 (2009).

Güntürkün, O. & Bugnyar, T. Cognition without cortex. Trends Cogn. Sci. 20 , 291–303 (2016).

Hart, B. L., Hart, L. A. & Pinter-Wollman, N. Large brains and cognition: where do elephants fit in? Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 32 , 86–98 (2008).

Godfrey-Smith, P. Other Minds: The Octopus and the Evolution of Intelligent Life (William Collins, 2016).

Schnell, A. K., Amodio, P., Boeckle, M. & Clayton, N. S. How intelligent is a cephalopod? Lessons from comparative cognition. Biol. Rev. 96 , 162–178 (2021).

Gallistel, C. R. Prelinguistic thought. Lang. Learn. Dev. 7 , 253–262 (2011).

Fitch, W. T. Animal cognition and the evolution of human language: why we cannot focus solely on communication. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 375 , 20190046 (2020).

Yamada, J. E. & Marshall, J. C. Laura: A Case Study for the Modularity of Language (MIT Press, 1990).

Rondal, J. A. Exceptional Language Development in Down Syndrome (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995).

Bellugi, U., Lichtenberger, L., Jones, W., Lai, Z. & St George, M. The neurocognitive profile of Williams syndrome: a complex pattern of strengths and weaknesses. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 12 , 7–29 (2000).

Little, B. et al. Language in schizophrenia and aphasia: the relationship with non-verbal cognition and thought disorder. Cogn. Neuropsychiatry 24 , 389–405 (2019).

Mahowald, K. et al. Dissociating language and thought in large language models. Trends Cogn. Sci. 28 , 517–540(2024).

Chomsky, N., Belleti, A. & Rizzi, L. in On Nature and Language (eds Belleti, A. & Rizzi, L.) 92–161 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002).

Schwartz, J. L., Boë, L. J., Vallée, N. & Abry, C. The dispersion–focalization theory of vowel systems. J. Phonetics 25 , 255–286 (1997).

Diehl, R. L. Acoustic and auditory phonetics: the adaptive design of speech sound systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 363 , 965–978 (2008).

Everett, C., Blasi, D. E. & Roberts, S. G. Climate, vocal folds, and tonal languages: Connecting the physiological and geographic dots. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112 , 1322–1327 (2015).

Blasi, D. E. et al. Human sound systems are shaped by post-Neolithic changes in bite configuration. Science 363 , eaav3218 (2019).

Dautriche, I., Mahowald, K., Gibson, E., Christophe, A. & Piantadosi, S. T. Words cluster phonetically beyond phonotactic regularities. Cognition 163 , 128–145 (2017).

Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H. & Gibson, E. Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108 , 3526–3529 (2011).

Levelt, W. J. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation (MIT Press, 1993).

Kemp, C. & Regier, T. Kinship categories across languages reflect general communicative principles. Science 336 , 1049–1054 (2012). This study provides a computational demonstration that the kinship systems across world’s languages trade off between simplicity and informativeness in a near-optimal way, and argue that these principles also characterize other category systems .

Gibson, E. et al. Color naming across languages reflects color use. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114 , 10785–10790 (2017).

Zaslavsky, N., Kemp, C., Regier, T. & Tishby, N. Efficient compression in color naming and its evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115 , 7937–7942 (2018).

Kemp, C., Gaby, A. & Regier, T. Season naming and the local environment. Proc. 41st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 539–545 (2019).

Xu, Y., Liu, E. & Regier, T. Numeral systems across languages support efficient communication: From approximate numerosity to recursion. Open Mind 4 , 57–70 (2020).

Denić, M., Steinert-Threlkeld, S. & Szymanik, J. Complexity/informativeness trade-off in the domain of indefinite pronouns. Semant. Linguist. Theor. 30 , 166–184 (2021).

Mollica, F. et al. The forms and meanings of grammatical markers support efficient communication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118 , e2025993118 (2021).

van de Pol, I., Lodder, P., van Maanen, L., Steinert-Threlkeld, S. & Szymanik, J. Quantifiers satisfying semantic universals have shorter minimal description length. Cognition 232 , 105150 (2023).

Clark, H. H. in Context in Language Learning and Language Understanding (eds Malmkj’r, K. & Williams, J.) 63–87) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998).

Winter, B., Perlman, M. & Majid, A. Vision dominates in perceptual language: English sensory vocabulary is optimized for usage. Cognition 179 , 213–220 (2018).

von Humboldt, W. Uber die Verschiedenheit des Menschlichen Sprachbaues (1836).

Hurford, J. R. Linguistic Evolution Through Language Acquisition: Formal and Computational Models (ed. Briscoe, E.) 301–344 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002).

Smith, K., Brighton, H. & Kirby, S. Complex systems in language evolution: the cultural emergence of compositional structure. Adv. Complex Syst. 6 , 537–558 (2003).

Piantadosi, S. T. & Fedorenko, E. Infinitely productive language can arise from chance under communicative pressure. J. Lang. Evol. 2 , 141–147 (2017).

Gibson, E. Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68 , 1–76 (1998).

Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S. & Van Dyke, J. A. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends Cogn. Sci. 10 , 447–454 (2006).

Liu, H. Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. J. Cogn. Sci. 9 , 151–191 (2008).

ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Futrell, R., Mahowald, K. & Gibson, E. Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112 , 10336–10341 (2015). This investigation of syntactic dependency lengths across 37 diverse languages suggests that dependencies are predominantly local cross-linguistically, presumably because non-local dependencies are cognitively costly in both production and comprehension .

Dryer, M. S. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68 , 81–138 (1992).

Hahn, M., Jurafsky, D. & Futrell, R. Universals of word order reflect optimization of grammars for efficient communication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117 , 2347–2353 (2020).

Goldin-Meadow, S., Wing, C. S., Özyürek, A. & Mylander, C. The natural order of events: how speakers of different languages represent events nonverbally. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105 , 9163–9168 (2008).

Senghas, A., Kita, S. & Ozyürek, A. Children creating core properties of language: evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science 305 , 1779–1782 (2004).

Sandler, W., Meir, I., Padden, C. & Aronoff, M. The emergence of grammar: systematic structure in a new language. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102 , 2661–2665 (2005).

Gibson, E. et al. A noisy-channel account of crosslinguistic word-order variation. Psychol. Sci. 24 , 1079–1088 (2013).

Levy, R. A noisy-channel model of human sentence comprehension under uncertain input. In Proc. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 234–243 (2008).

Gibson, E., Bergen, L. & Piantadosi, S. T. Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110 , 8051–8056 (2013). This behavioural investigation demonstrates that language comprehension is robust to noise: in the presence of corrupt linguistic input, listeners and readers rely on a combination of prior expectations about messages that are likely to be communicated and knowledge of how linguistic signals can get corrupted by noise .

Futrell, R., Levy, R. P. & Gibson, E. Dependency locality as an explanatory principle for word order. Language 96 , 371–412 (2020).

Hahn, M. & Xu, Y. Crosslinguistic word order variation reflects evolutionary pressures of dependency and information locality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119 , e2122604119 (2022).

Hahn, M., Futrell, R., Levy, R. & Gibson, E. A resource-rational model of human processing of recursive linguistic structure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119 , e2122602119 (2022).

Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H. & Gibson, E. The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition 122 , 280–291 (2012).

Quijada, J. A grammar of the Ithkuil language—introduction. ithkuil.net https://ithkuil.net/00_intro.html (accessed 27 February 2022).

Srinivasan, M. & Rabagliati, H. The implications of polysemy for theories of word learning. Child Dev. Perspect. 15 , 148–153 (2021).

Bizzi, E. Motor control revisited: a novel view. Curr. Trends Neurol. 10 , 75–80 (2016).

Darwin, C. On the Origin of Species–A Facsimile of the First Edition (Harvard Univ. Press, 1964).

Herculano-Houzel, S. The remarkable, yet not extraordinary, human brain as a scaled-up primate brain and its associated cost. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109 , 10661–10668 (2012).

White, L. T. The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science 155 , 1203–1207 (1967).

Article   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

King, M. C. & Wilson, A. C. Evolution at two levels in humans and chimpanzees. Science 188 , 107–116 (1975).

Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature 437 , 69–87 (2005).

Buckner, R. L. & Krienen, F. M. The evolution of distributed association networks in the human brain. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17 , 648–665 (2013). This review presents the evidence for the disproportionate expansion of the association cortex relative to other brain areas in humans .

Duncan, J., Assem, M. & Shashidhara, S. Integrated intelligence from distributed brain activity. Trends Cogn. Sci. 24 , 838–852 (2020).

Saxe, R. & Kanwisher, N. People thinking about thinking people: the role of the temporo-parietal junction in “theory of mind”. NeuroImage 19 , 1835–1842 (2003).

Buckner, R. L. & DiNicola, L. M. The brain’s default network: updated anatomy, physiology and evolving insights. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 20 , 593–608 (2019).

Deen, B. & Freiwald, W. A. Parallel systems for social and spatial reasoning within the cortical apex. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.23.461550 (2021).

Mitchell, D. J. et al. A putative multiple-demand system in the macaque brain. J. Neurosci. 36 , 8574–8585 (2016).

Cantlon, J. & Piantadosi, S. Uniquely human intelligence arose from expanded information capacity. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 3 , 275–293 (2024).

Tomasello, M. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition (Harvard Univ. Press, 2009).

Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J. & Henrich, J. The cultural niche: Why social learning is essential for human adaptation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108 , 10918–10925 (2011).

Henrich, J. The Secret of Our Success: How Culture is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter (Princeton Univ. Press, 2016).

Heyes, C. Cognitive Gadgets (Harvard Univ. Press, 2018).

Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, S. C. (eds). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996).

Piaget, J. Language and Thought of the Child: Selected Works , Vol. 5 (Routledge, 2005).

Gleitman, L. R. & Papafragou, A. in Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (eds Holyoak, K. & Morrison, R.) 2nd edn (Oxford Univ. Press, 2016).

Fedorenko, E. & Varley, R. Language and thought are not the same thing: evidence from neuroimaging and neurological patients. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1369 , 132–153 (2016).

Gentner, D. Language as cognitive tool kit: How language supports relational thought. Am. Psychol. 71 , 650 (2016).

Frank, M. C., Everett, D. L., Fedorenko, E. & Gibson, E. Number as a cognitive technology: Evidence from Pirahã language and cognition. Cognition 108 , 819–824 (2008).

Wernicke, C. The aphasic symptom-complex: a psychological study on an anatomical basis. Arch. Neurol. 22 , 280–282 (1869).

Lichteim, L. On aphasia. Brain 7 , 433–484 (1885).

Poeppel, D., Emmorey, K., Hickok, G. & Pylkkänen, L. Towards a new neurobiology of language. J. Neurosci. 32 , 14125–14131 (2012).

Tremblay, P. & Dick, A. S. Broca and Wernicke are dead, or moving past the classic model of language neurobiology. Brain Lang. 162 , 60–71 (2016).

Hillis, A. E. et al. Re‐examining the brain regions crucial for orchestrating speech articulation. Brain 127 , 1479–1487 (2004).

Flinker, A. et al. Redefining the role of Broca’s area in speech. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112 , 2871–2875 (2015).

Long, M. A. et al. Functional segregation of cortical regions underlying speech timing and articulation. Neuron 89 , 1187–1193 (2016).

Guenther, F. H. Neural Control of Speech (MIT Press, 2016).

Basilakos, A., Smith, K. G., Fillmore, P., Fridriksson, J. & Fedorenko, E. Functional characterization of the human speech articulation network. Cereb. Cortex 28 , 1816–1830 (2018).

Obleser, J., Zimmermann, J., Van Meter, J. & Rauschecker, J. P. Multiple stages of auditory speech perception reflected in event-related fMRI. Cereb. Cortex 17 , 2251–2257 (2007).

Mesgarani, N., Cheung, C., Johnson, K. & Chang, E. F. Phonetic feature encoding in human superior temporal gyrus. Science 343 , 1006–1010 (2014).

Norman-Haignere, S., Kanwisher, N. G. & McDermott, J. H. Distinct cortical pathways for music and speech revealed by hypothesis-free voxel decomposition. Neuron 88 , 1281–1296 (2015).

Overath, T., McDermott, J., Zarate, J. & Poeppel, D. The cortical analysis of speech-specific temporal structure revealed by responses to sound quilts. Nat. Neurosci. 18 , 903–911 (2015).

Norman-Haignere, S. V. et al. A neural population selective for song in human auditory cortex. Curr. Biol. 32 , 1470–1484.e12 (2022).

Hickok, G. & Poeppel, D. The cortical organization of speech processing. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 8 , 393–402 (2007).

Friederici, A. D. The cortical language circuit: from auditory perception to sentence comprehension. Trends Cogn. Sci. 16 , 262–268 (2012).

Wilson, S. M. et al. Recovery from aphasia in the first year after stroke. Brain 146 , 1021–1039 (2023).

Radford, A. et al. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog 1 , 9 (2019).

Jain, S. & Huth, A. Incorporating context into language encoding models for fMRI. in Proc. 32nd International Conf. Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Bengio, S. et al.) (Curran Associates, 2018).

Schrimpf, M. et al. The neural architecture of language: Integrative modeling converges on predictive processing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118 , e2105646118 (2021).

Caucheteux, C. & King, J. R. Brains and algorithms partially converge in natural language processing. Commun. Biol. 5 , 134 (2022).

Goldstein, A. et al. Shared computational principles for language processing in humans and deep language models. Nat. Neurosci. 25 , 369–380 (2022).

Tuckute, T., Kanwisher, N. & Fedorenko, E. Language in brains, minds, and machines. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-120623-101142 (2024).

Paulk, A. C. et al. Large-scale neural recordings with single neuron resolution using Neuropixels probes in human cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 25 , 252–263 (2022).

Leonard, M. K. et al. Large-scale single-neuron speech sound encoding across the depth of human cortex. Nature 626 , 593–602 (2024).

Fodor, J. A. The Language of Thought (Crowell, 1975).

Fodor, J. A. & Pylyshyn, Z. W. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: a critical analysis. Cognition 28 , 3–71 (1988).

Rule, J. S., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Piantadosi, S. T. The child as hacker. Trends Cogn. Sci. 24 , 900–915 (2020).

Quilty-Dunn, J., Porot, N. & Mandelbaum, E. The best game in town: the reemergence of the language-of-thought hypothesis across the cognitive sciences. Behav. Brain Sci. 46 , e261 (2023).

Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L. & PDP Research Group. Parallel Distributed Processing, Vol. 1: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition: Foundations (MIT Press, 1986).

Smolensky, P. & Legendre, G. The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality–Theoretic Grammar Vol. 1: Cognitive Architecture (MIT Press, 2006).

Frankland, S. M. & Greene, J. D. Concepts and compositionality: in search of the brain’s language of thought. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 71 , 273–303 (2020).

Lake, B. M. & Baroni, M. Human-like systematic generalization through a meta-learning neural network. Nature 623 , 115–121 (2023).

Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Dehaene, S. & Hertz-Pannier, L. Functional neuroimaging of speech perception in infants. Science 298 , 2013–2015 (2002).

Pena, M. et al. Sounds and silence: an optical topography study of language recognition at birth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100 , 11702–11705 (2003).

Cristia, A., Minagawa, Y. & Dupoux, E. Responses to vocalizations and auditory controls in the human newborn brain. PLoS ONE 9 , e115162 (2014).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank A. Ivanova, R. Jackendoff, N. Kanwisher, K. Mahowald, R. Seyfarth, C. Shain and N. Zaslavsky for helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript; N. Caselli, M. Coppola, A. Hillis, L. Menn, R. Varley and S. Wilson for comments on specific sections; C. Casto, T. Regev, F. Mollica and R. Futrell for help with the figures; and S. Swords, N. Jhingan, H. S. Kim and A. Sathe for help with references. E.F. was supported by NIH awards DC016607 and DC016950 from NIDCD, NS121471 from NINDS, and from funds from MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Simons Center for the Social Brain, and Quest for Intelligence.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

Evelina Fedorenko & Edward A. F. Gibson

Speech and Hearing in Bioscience and Technology Program at Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA

Evelina Fedorenko

University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

Steven T. Piantadosi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to conceiving, writing and revising this piece.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evelina Fedorenko .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature thanks Angelika Kratzer and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Fedorenko, E., Piantadosi, S.T. & Gibson, E.A.F. Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought. Nature 630 , 575–586 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07522-w

Download citation

Received : 15 February 2023

Accepted : 03 May 2024

Published : 19 June 2024

Issue Date : 20 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07522-w

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

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Exploring Our Fluid Earth

Teaching science as inquiry.

• Create new account
• Reset your password

For more option use      Advanced Search

Practices of Science: Opinion, Hypothesis & Theory

An opinion is a statement describing a personal belief or thought that cannot be tested (or has not been tested) and is unsupported by evidence. A hypothesis is usually a prediction based on some observation or evidence. Hypotheses must be testable, and once tested, they can be supported by evidence. If a statement is made that cannot be tested and disproved, then it is not a hypothesis. Sometimes it is possible to restate an opinion so that it can become a hypothesis.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been extensively tested, evaluated by the scientific community, and is strongly supported. Theories often describe a large set of observations, and provide a cohesive explanation for those observations. An individual cannot come up with a theory. Theories require extensive testing and agreement within the scientific community. Theories are not described as true or right, but as the best-supported explanation of the world based on evidence.

SF Fig. 7.9. Alfred Wegener first proposed the idea of continental drift.

Image courtesy of Deutsches Dokumentationszentrum für Kunstgeschichte - Bildarchiv Foto Marburg, Wikimedia Commons

German-born geophysicist Alfred Wegener is credited with proposing a hypothesis of continental drift in the late 1800’s, but it was not until the 1960’s that his concept became widely accepted by the scientific community. Part of the problem Wegener faced in presenting his hypothesis of continental drift was that he did not have a sufficient evidence to be able to propose the mechanism of continental movement. Wegener suggested that the continents moved across the ocean floor, but the lack of disturbance on the ocean floor did not support this part of his hypothesis. The elevation of continental drift to the status of a theory came largely from evidence supporting new ideas about the mechanism of plate movement: plate tectonics. It was only over time, as more scientists evaluated and added to Wegener’s original hypothesis, that it became widely accepted as a theory.

• Arc-shaped island chains like the Aleutian Islands are found at subduction zones.
• Dinosaurs were mean animals.
• Mammals are superior to reptiles.
• An asteroid impact contributed to the extinction of dinosaurs.
• Science can answer any question.
• The climate on Antarctica was once warmer than it is now.
• The center of the earth is made of platinum.  
• You have a hypothesis that the land near your school was once at the bottom of the ocean, but due to continental movement, it is now miles inland from any water source. How would you test your hypothesis? What evidence would you use to support your claim?

Authors & Partners

Partner Organizations

Exploring Our Fluid Earth, a product of the Curriculum Research & Development Group (CRDG), College of Education. © University of Hawai‘i, . This document may be freely reproduced and distributed for non-profit educational purposes.

June 25, 2024

11 min read

Advanced Meditation Alters Consciousness and Our Basic Sense of Self

An emerging science of advanced meditation could transform mental health and our understanding of consciousness

By Matthew D. Sacchet & Judson A. Brewer

Anand Purohit/Getty Images

M illions worldwide practice mindfulness meditation, not just for their mental health but as a means to enhance their general well-being, reduce stress and be more productive at work. The past decade has seen an extraordinary broadening of our understanding of the neuroscience underlying meditation; hundreds of clinical studies have highlighted its health benefits. Mindfulness is no longer a fringe activity but a mainstream health practice: the U.K.’s National Health Service has endorsed mindfulness-based therapy for depression. Mobile apps have brought meditation techniques to smartphones, enabling a new era in meditative practice.

The approach to research on meditation has been evolving in equal measure. Looking back, we can identify distinct “waves.” The first wave, from ap­­prox­imate­ly the mid-1990s into the early 2000s, assessed meditation’s clinical and therapeutic potential for treating a broad set of psychological and physical health concerns. The second wave, starting in the early 2000s, focused on mechanisms of mindfulness’s effectiveness , revealing why it yields benefits for mental health that are at times comparable to those achieved with pharmaceuticals. Meditation science is now entering a third wave , exploring what we call ad­­vanced meditation—deeper and more intense states and stages of practice that often require extended training and can be experienced through increasing mastery. University research programs are being established to study these altered mental states, similar to new academic endeavors to investigate the merits of psychedelic drugs for personal well-being and a variety of medical conditions.

In the media and in academia, meditation is often seen as a tool primarily for managing the stresses of modern life and work. But our research suggests it can be used for much more. Although meditation can help people improve their psychological well-being, it also can be a gateway to experiences that lead to deep psychological transformation.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The term “advanced meditation” might evoke images of monks in robes, but these experiences are not limited to ascetics isolated from the world.

People often come to meditation because of some kind of suffering. Others are drawn to it because they perceive a lack of meaning in the materialism of the modern world. Still others may feel a pull toward “something greater” when they realize that a self-absorbed pursuit of “happiness” has its limitations.

Meditation’s potential has been demonstrated by numerous contemplative, philosophical, religious and spiritual traditions that teach it as a core element that leads to enlightenment or salvation. Buddhism, Vedic and Hindu practices, Jewish kabbalism, Islamic Su­f­ism and shamanism, among others, have all ex­­plored meditation in their traditions. Some of them have multimillennia-long histories and en­­compass experiences that include states of ecstasy, insights into the nature of the self and the world around us, the cultivation of empathy, and the pursuit of altruistic goals. Such experiences have also been reported to sometimes lead to a sense of transcendence.

The experiences and personal trans­formations that practitioners describe are thought to undergird entirely new psy­chological perspectives and ways of existing in the world. Ad­vanced medi­tation may help inspire people and provide deep insight and clarity about how to achieve meaning in life. It is not un­common, in fact, for individuals to reassess their careers or life goals after a meditation retreat and go on to pursue a path that is more fulfilling and that is more aligned with their deeper values and perspectives.

The term “advanced meditation” might evoke images of monks in robes, but these experiences are not limited to ascetics isolated from the rest of the world . Laypeople who lead secular lives can become practitioners of advanced medi­tation and achieve a sense of profound well-being. In the new and emerging science of this third wave, advanced meditation includes deeper states and stages of meditation that a person may pro­gress through with in­creasing mastery over time.

The study of advanced medi­tation exa­mines medi­­tative development—the un­folding of advanced meditative states and stages of practice. Then there is re­search on medi­tative endpoints, which represent the outcomes of advanced medi­tation. In Buddhist traditions, one outcome may be called enlightenment or awakening.

We believe that advanced meditation has potentially broad implications for people’s understanding of what it means to be human and for interventions for mental health and well-being, and it therefore deserves the attention of the scientific community. One of us (Sacchet) leads an effort at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School named the Meditation Research Program, established to develop a comprehensive multidisciplinary understanding of advanced meditation states and stages of practice related to well-being and clinical outcomes (meditative endpoints). We use a rich array of state-of-the-art scientific approaches. Our intention is to expand the program into a much larger research and educational effort and establish the first center dedicated to the study and training of advanced meditation.

Another research endeavor on ad­vanced meditation has been taking place at Brown University’s Mindfulness Center (led by Brewer). Scientists there have dis­covered signatures of brain activity during several forms of medi­tation used in Tibetan Buddhism that are able to produce feelings of timelessness and states of heightened awareness. Research on ad­vanced medi­tation is also taking place elsewhere and is expected to grow rapidly in the coming years.

All of these investigations promise to help us find new ways to train people in advanced meditation. We envision de­veloping specific programs that leverage insights from the science of advanced meditation to directly train people with certain clinical diagnoses. These programs could offer new therapeutic avenues for treating persistent cycles of negative thoughts in patients with major de­pression or the chronic worrying that characterizes generalized anxiety dis­order. The idea is not just to manage symp­toms but to foster a sense of deep and pervasive well-being that affects all as­pects of a practitioner’s life.

Our findings are starting to inform models of how advanced meditation af­fects and changes the brain, paving the way for a more comprehensive grasp of these practices. In time, our research may lead to a new generation of mental health interventions that could be as simple as a set of verbal instructions or as techno­logically sophisticated as neurofeedback or brain stimulation.

Advanced meditation lends itself to modern, empirical scientific study for several reasons, one of which is the robust research foundation provided by decades of studies from the prior waves. This research included initial attempts to characterize the brain activity of ex­perienced meditators. Notable examples can be seen in the seminal work of teams led by Richard ­Davidson of the University of Wisconsin–­Madison and Sara Lazar of Massachusetts General and Harvard Medical School . Their work with long-term meditators included electro­en­cephalography (EEG) and the first mag­netic resonance imaging study of brain activity in such prac­titioners. A major limitation of this early research, however, was that it did not explore the rich firsthand descriptions of what people ex­perience during advanced meditation , encompassing states of mind in which consciousness itself may vanish.

The latest wave of research coincides with a broader surge of interest in altered states of consciousness, including those studied in psychedelic research. From a technical perspective, the study of ad­vanced meditation has been facilitated by the recognition that certain altered states can be induced at will by adept practitioners. Advanced meditation, once considered on the scientific fringe, has now made it possible to scientifically understand practices previously limited to monks and mystics.

Our team at Massachusetts General and Harvard’s Meditation Research Pro­gram has begun to integrate advanced meditation into rigorous experimental paradigms using cutting-edge methods such as neuroimaging. Studying the neu­­ral activity of practitioners in deep meditative states is important because it provides evidence for the biological existence of these states—a first step toward un­derstanding and gaining wide­spread access to advanced meditation and its benefits.

An array of electrodes can be used for electroencephalography (EEG) to study electrical activity in the brains of advanced meditators.

BSIP/Getty Images

To cite one example, our group at Harvard recently conducted a study on the experiences and neuroscientific under­pinnings of what we have classified as advanced concentrative absorption meditation (ACAM), one form of which is jhana from Theravada Buddhism. Prac­titioners of jhana report unfettered calmness, clarity of mind and self-­tran­scend­ence (going beyond the concept of the self and perceiving diminishing boundaries be­tween oneself and others). They also usher in open consciousness, a state of mind that is receptive, adaptable and accepting of perspectives beyond the existing nar­rative that shapes how someone sees the world.

To investigate these states, we used a powerful, seven-tesla MRI machine at Massachusetts General— a first in medi­tation research . Seven-tesla MRI lets us map the entire brain at high resolution. Its deep-brain imaging extends to the brain stem and cerebellum, areas crucial for healthy mental and physiological func­tioning that are difficult to study with conventional MRI at lower magnetic field strengths. Brain stem activity, which con­trols breathing and heart rate, is a prere­quisite for consci­ousness and alertness, so it was a primary target for our work.

Our aim was to create a detailed map of the brain’s activity during ACAM and link it to the meditator’s reported experiences. We conducted an intensive case study of ACAM spanning 27 MRI data-collection periods that were completed over the course of five days. The case study was of a meditator who had more than 25 years of experience with ACAM and had com­pleted more than 20,000 hours of meditation. We identified distinctive patterns of brain activity in the cortex, subcortex, brain stem and cerebellum regions that were active during ACAM.

Furthermore, we observed correla­tions between brain activity and certain qualities of ACAM related to attention, joy, mental ease, equanimity, narrative processing (the organization of infor­mation into a structured story), and formlessness (in which the sensation of inhabiting the body completely falls away). We also highlighted the distinct nature of brain activity during ACAM compared with that in several non­meditative states. We found that patterns of local activity across brain regions were unique during advanced concentrative absorption meditation and that they were different from those we observed during ordinary states of consciousness.

After a cessation event, the practitioner undergoes a profound shift in mental perspective and well-being, including deep mental clarity and a sense of renewal.

I n another study, conducted at the University of Massachusetts’s Center for Meditation, researchers employed EEG to investigate 30 advanced meditators using practices from the Tibetan Buddhist tradition . Four advanced meditation states were characterized by self-transcendence, emptiness (a state of awareness beyond the mind’s constant word patter) and com­passion. This study, on which Brewer was the senior researcher, is important in part because these characteristics are associated with psychological well-being and are disrupted in people with certain mental illnesses. The results indicated that the density of EEG currents was lower during advanced meditation. This effect was strongest in brain regions involved in self-referential processing (self-related mental activities)and executive-control regions. There is some evidence that advanced meditation practices may dampen self-referential processes and reduce the mind’s focus on the self.

We found from this research that a deeper meditation state was associated with increases in high-frequency brain activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, precuneus and superior parietal lobule and with elevation of the beta-band brain wave in the insula. Together, these results provide initial evidence for specific electrophysiological markers relevant to advanced practices. These brain-activity signatures have particular relevance to non-self-referential states advanced meditators can attain, known as nondual states. This study is also notable because it is an example of research on advanced meditation informed by Tibetan Buddhism. It will be a crucial development for the field to compare advanced medi­tative states among diverse con­tem­plative traditions that historically have been separated geographically, culturally and philosophically.

In a third study, our Harvard/Mas­sachusetts General team investigated, for the first time , what are called cessation events. We used EEG combined with a novel investigative approach that involves the meditators’ description of their own ex­periences, with the goal of finding a neural signature of these advanced meditation experiences. Cessations are radically altered states characterized by a full loss of consciousness. They are thought to result from deep mastery of a mindfulness-based meditation that is part of the vipassana tradition in Thera­vada Buddhism.

When we discuss the loss of consci­ousness during advanced meditation cessation events, it is crucial to differ­entiate it from unconsciousness that is caused by anesthesia, coma (including medically induced coma), physical trauma such as head injuries, and naturally oc­curring events such as sleep. Unlike these states, cessation events in advanced meditation represent a peak meditative experience in which ordinary self-aware­ness and sensory processing are tempor­arily suspended.

After a cessation event, the practitioner undergoes a profound shift in mental perspective and well-being, including deep mental clarity and a sense of renewal. In Theravada Buddhism, these events are known as nirodha and represent an im­portant meditative endpoint.

For our study, we examined cessations experienced by a single advanced medi­tator with more than 23,000 hours of meditation training. We analyzed EEG data for 37 cessation events recorded during numerous sessions. Immediately after each EEG run, the participant graded different qualities of any ces­sations that had occurred. We used a unique ap­­proach in which we tied the practitioner’s first-person descriptions of the meditation experience to our ob­jective neuro­imaging data. We found that specific EEG sig­natures—notably, one called alpha spectral power and another called alpha functional con­nectivity—started to de­crease ap­prox­imately 40 seconds before a ces­sation and returned to normal about 40 seconds after it ended.

The lowest levels of alpha power and connectivity occurred immediately before and after cessation. The results of this study are consistent with the suggestion that this type of meditation diminishes hierarchical predictive processing—that is, the mind’s tendency to predict and rank self-related narratives and beliefs. The cessation process can ultimately result in the ab­sence of con­sciousness and the emer­gence of a deeply present form of aware­ness and thought that accepts whatever arises, whether positive or negative. Our findings provide preliminary in­sight into the mechanisms underlying the highly un­usual capacity to induce a mo­mentary lapse of consci­ousness during cessations, suggesting it involves mea­surable changes in brain activity.

Much like psychedelics, advanced meditation is sometimes linked to chal­lenging psychological disturbances, so it needs to be practiced along with the gui­dance of properly skilled practitioners. Initial forays into the science of advanced meditation we’ve described here lay the groundwork for further investigation. One of our objectives is to achieve a scientific understanding that facilitates broader accessibility to these practices. Like simpler forms of mindfulness meditation, advanced meditation can be practiced in diverse settings, when seated on the floor or a chair, with eyes open or closed.

Advanced meditation holds re­markable promise for supporting well-being in both clinical and nonmedical settings. This domain of meditation has the potential to massively reduce or otherwise alter narrative and self-referential thinking, improve attention, and foster feelings of self-generated joy and contentment far beyond what is cur­rently understood in the domain of “mindfulness” research and practice—qualities that are often difficult for people with mental health conditions to attain. Mindfulness meditation has indeed helped millions of people, but advanced meditation research could revamp the field of mental health, offering entirely new avenues for the treatment of psy­chiatric disorders and, more generally, fostering a sense of well-being.

Evidence is growing for the efficacy of psychedelics as treatments for some psychiatric conditions, especially de­pression and post-traumatic stress dis­order. We think that people can make similar progress through meditation. Future research may benefit from ex­amining how ACAM and other forms of advanced meditative states relate to psychedelic experiences and how they may similarly help to alleviate symptoms of psychopathology.

Advanced meditation interventions could be integrated with established mindfulness-based techniques, novel meditation-based therapies, and in­no­vative technologies designed to mod­ulate specific neural networks through neurofeedback and brain stim­ulation. These methods may make it possible for people to have the experience of an ad­vanced meditative state without under­going extensive training.

Advanced meditation therefore holds significant and untapped opportunities to diminish suffering and help people flourish. It may even provide a gateway to entirely new ways of understanding our basic humanity.

As interest in meditation continues to grow, so does the potential to explore its full spectrum of possibilities for bettering the mental and physical health of individuals and society. Our work in the new wave of advanced meditation research is not just about coping with the stress of modern living. It could improve our understanding of and approach to the mind, mental health and well-being, allowing each of us to lead a more fulfilled, compassionate and “en­lightened” life.