Characteristics of A Good Hypothesis
Uploaded by, document information, description:, original title, available formats, share this document, share or embed document, sharing options.
- Share on Facebook, opens a new window Facebook
- Share on Twitter, opens a new window Twitter
- Share on LinkedIn, opens a new window LinkedIn
- Share with Email, opens mail client Email
- Copy Link Copy Link
Did you find this document useful?
Is this content inappropriate, original title:, reward your curiosity.
- Share on Facebook, opens a new window
- Share on Twitter, opens a new window
- Share on LinkedIn, opens a new window
- Share with Email, opens mail client
Research Hypothesis pdf | Step by Step Guide to Write Hypothesis
This article will take you through the definition of research hypothesis, and provides you with detailed step-by-step guide that would help you write a research hypothesis based on your research question .
Before formulating a hypothesis, it is important to carefully read the literature and take notes. After narrowing your focus to a specific problem area, you can formulate several research hypotheses based on what is already known about the topic.
Table of Contents
What is Hypothesis?
A hypothesis is a guess or prediction about how something works. In science, a hypothesis is an idea that can be tested through research.
Why do leaves change color in the fall?
Steps for Developing Research hypothesis
Here are the steps in developing a hypothesis: 1. Identify the problem or question that you want to answer 2. Review the literature related to your problem or question 3. Formulate your hypothesis 4. Refine your hypothesis 5. Phrase your hypothesis
Step 1: Ask a Question
The process of creating a hypothesis starts with a research question that you hope to address. Within the parameters of your study, the question should be focused, precise, and researchable. Consider this example:
Step 2: Do some preliminary research
Do some background research. Once you’ve chosen your topic, it’s important to conduct preliminary research so that you have a better understanding of the issue at hand.
Step 3: Formulate your hypothesis
After you know what to expect, you can start looking. Your initial response should be expressed in one clear, concise sentence.
Step 4: Refine your hypothesis
Step 5: phrase your hypothesis in three ways.
You can create a straightforward if…then prediction to pinpoint the factors.
Example of an if-then
In academic research, it is more typical to express hypotheses in terms of correlations or effects, where you explicitly indicate the expected link between variables.
If you are comparing two groups, your hypothesis can describe the difference you foresee between the groups to be.
Consider submitting a null hypothesis if your research incorporates statistical hypothesis testing. The default assumption under the null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between the variables.
The amount of lectures graduate students attend has a beneficial impact on their final exam grades, as an example of an alternate hypothesis, H1.
Examples of hypothesis
Characteristics of a hypothesis:.
1. A good hypothesis must be testable. This means that it can be measured and observed.
4. A good hypothesis must be falsifiable, which means that it can be proven wrong if the results of the experiment do not support it.
Importance of Research Hypothesis
A research hypothesis is a statement of what the researcher expects to find in a study. It is typically based on previous research and states a relationship between two or more variables.
It is also important to remember that the hypothesis should be testable; otherwise, there is no way to determine whether or not the results support the original idea.
Checklist for Developing a Hypothesis
1. Make sure your hypothesis is testable. It should be possible to design an experiment or study that will allow you to test whether your hypothesis is correct.
4. Make sure your hypothesis is based on existing knowledge and research in the field.
By the end of this article you have learnt what research hypothesis, and you have learned step-by-step guide that would help you write a research hypothesis based on your research question.
13 thoughts on “Research Hypothesis pdf | Step by Step Guide to Write Hypothesis”
Leave a comment cancel reply.
Characteristics & Qualities of a Good Hypothesis
A good hypothesis possesses the following certain attributes.
Power of Prediction
One of the valuable attribute of a good hypothesis is to predict for future. It not only clears the present problematic situation but also predict for the future that what would be happened in the coming time. So, hypothesis is a best guide of research activity due to power of prediction.
Closest to observable things
A hypothesis must have close contact with observable things. It does not believe on air castles but it is based on observation. Those things and objects which we cannot observe, for that hypothesis cannot be formulated. The verification of a hypothesis is based on observable things.
A hypothesis should be so dabble to every layman, P.V young says, “A hypothesis wo0uld be simple, if a researcher has more in sight towards the problem”. W-ocean stated that, “A hypothesis should be as sharp as razor’s blade”. So, a good hypothesis must be simple and have no complexity.
A hypothesis must be conceptually clear. It should be clear from ambiguous information’s. The terminology used in it must be clear and acceptable to everyone.
A good hypothesis should be tested empirically. It should be stated and formulated after verification and deep observation. Thus testability is the primary feature of a good hypothesis.
Relevant to Problem
If a hypothesis is relevant to a particular problem, it would be considered as good one. A hypothesis is guidance for the identification and solution of the problem, so it must be accordance to the problem.
It should be formulated for a particular and specific problem. It should not include generalization. If generalization exists, then a hypothesis cannot reach to the correct conclusions.
Relevant to available Techniques
Hypothesis must be relevant to the techniques which is available for testing. A researcher must know about the workable techniques before formulating a hypothesis.
Fruitful for new Discoveries
It should be able to provide new suggestions and ways of knowledge. It must create new discoveries of knowledge J.S. Mill, one of the eminent researcher says that “Hypothesis is the best source of new knowledge it creates new ways of discoveries”.
Consistency & Harmony
Internal harmony and consistency is a major characteristic of good hypothesis. It should be out of contradictions and conflicts. There must be a close relationship between variables which one is dependent on other.
Solar power, types, advantages & disadvantages of solar power, constitutional council in french constitution.
2.4 Developing a Hypothesis
- Distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis.
- Discover how theories are used to generate hypotheses and how the results of studies can be used to further inform theories.
- Understand the characteristics of a good hypothesis.
Theories and Hypotheses
Before describing how to develop a hypothesis it is imporant to distinguish betwee a theory and a hypothesis. A theory is a coherent explanation or interpretation of one or more phenomena. Although theories can take a variety of forms, one thing they have in common is that they go beyond the phenomena they explain by including variables, structures, processes, functions, or organizing principles that have not been observed directly. Consider, for example, Zajonc’s theory of social facilitation and social inhibition. He proposed that being watched by others while performing a task creates a general state of physiological arousal, which increases the likelihood of the dominant (most likely) response. So for highly practiced tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make correct responses, but for relatively unpracticed tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make incorrect responses. Notice that this theory—which has come to be called drive theory—provides an explanation of both social facilitation and social inhibition that goes beyond the phenomena themselves by including concepts such as “arousal” and “dominant response,” along with processes such as the effect of arousal on the dominant response.
Outside of science, referring to an idea as a theory often implies that it is untested—perhaps no more than a wild guess. In science, however, the term theory has no such implication. A theory is simply an explanation or interpretation of a set of phenomena. It can be untested, but it can also be extensively tested, well supported, and accepted as an accurate description of the world by the scientific community. The theory of evolution by natural selection, for example, is a theory because it is an explanation of the diversity of life on earth—not because it is untested or unsupported by scientific research. On the contrary, the evidence for this theory is overwhelmingly positive and nearly all scientists accept its basic assumptions as accurate. Similarly, the “germ theory” of disease is a theory because it is an explanation of the origin of various diseases, not because there is any doubt that many diseases are caused by microorganisms that infect the body.
A hypothesis , on the other hand, is a specific prediction about a new phenomenon that should be observed if a particular theory is accurate. It is an explanation that relies on just a few key concepts. Hypotheses are often specific predictions about what will happen in a particular study. They are developed by considering existing evidence and using reasoning to infer what will happen in the specific context of interest. Hypotheses are often but not always derived from theories. So a hypothesis is often a prediction based on a theory but some hypotheses are a-theoretical and only after a set of observations have been made, is a theory developed. This is because theories are broad in nature and they explain larger bodies of data. So if our research question is really original then we may need to collect some data and make some observation before we can develop a broader theory.
Theories and hypotheses always have this if-then relationship. “ If drive theory is correct, then cockroaches should run through a straight runway faster, and a branching runway more slowly, when other cockroaches are present.” Although hypotheses are usually expressed as statements, they can always be rephrased as questions. “Do cockroaches run through a straight runway faster when other cockroaches are present?” Thus deriving hypotheses from theories is an excellent way of generating interesting research questions.
But how do researchers derive hypotheses from theories? One way is to generate a research question using the techniques discussed in this chapter and then ask whether any theory implies an answer to that question. For example, you might wonder whether expressive writing about positive experiences improves health as much as expressive writing about traumatic experiences. Although this question is an interesting one on its own, you might then ask whether the habituation theory—the idea that expressive writing causes people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings—implies an answer. In this case, it seems clear that if the habituation theory is correct, then expressive writing about positive experiences should not be effective because it would not cause people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings. A second way to derive hypotheses from theories is to focus on some component of the theory that has not yet been directly observed. For example, a researcher could focus on the process of habituation—perhaps hypothesizing that people should show fewer signs of emotional distress with each new writing session.
Among the very best hypotheses are those that distinguish between competing theories. For example, Norbert Schwarz and his colleagues considered two theories of how people make judgments about themselves, such as how assertive they are (Schwarz et al., 1991)  . Both theories held that such judgments are based on relevant examples that people bring to mind. However, one theory was that people base their judgments on the number of examples they bring to mind and the other was that people base their judgments on how easily they bring those examples to mind. To test these theories, the researchers asked people to recall either six times when they were assertive (which is easy for most people) or 12 times (which is difficult for most people). Then they asked them to judge their own assertiveness. Note that the number-of-examples theory implies that people who recalled 12 examples should judge themselves to be more assertive because they recalled more examples, but the ease-of-examples theory implies that participants who recalled six examples should judge themselves as more assertive because recalling the examples was easier. Thus the two theories made opposite predictions so that only one of the predictions could be confirmed. The surprising result was that participants who recalled fewer examples judged themselves to be more assertive—providing particularly convincing evidence in favor of the ease-of-retrieval theory over the number-of-examples theory.
The primary way that scientific researchers use theories is sometimes called the hypothetico-deductive method (although this term is much more likely to be used by philosophers of science than by scientists themselves). A researcher begins with a set of phenomena and either constructs a theory to explain or interpret them or chooses an existing theory to work with. He or she then makes a prediction about some new phenomenon that should be observed if the theory is correct. Again, this prediction is called a hypothesis. The researcher then conducts an empirical study to test the hypothesis. Finally, he or she reevaluates the theory in light of the new results and revises it if necessary. This process is usually conceptualized as a cycle because the researcher can then derive a new hypothesis from the revised theory, conduct a new empirical study to test the hypothesis, and so on. As Figure 2.2 shows, this approach meshes nicely with the model of scientific research in psychology presented earlier in the textbook—creating a more detailed model of “theoretically motivated” or “theory-driven” research.
Figure 2.2 Hypothetico-Deductive Method Combined With the General Model of Scientific Research in Psychology Together they form a model of theoretically motivated research.
As an example, let us consider Zajonc’s research on social facilitation and inhibition. He started with a somewhat contradictory pattern of results from the research literature. He then constructed his drive theory, according to which being watched by others while performing a task causes physiological arousal, which increases an organism’s tendency to make the dominant response. This theory predicts social facilitation for well-learned tasks and social inhibition for poorly learned tasks. He now had a theory that organized previous results in a meaningful way—but he still needed to test it. He hypothesized that if his theory was correct, he should observe that the presence of others improves performance in a simple laboratory task but inhibits performance in a difficult version of the very same laboratory task. To test this hypothesis, one of the studies he conducted used cockroaches as subjects (Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman, 1969)  . The cockroaches ran either down a straight runway (an easy task for a cockroach) or through a cross-shaped maze (a difficult task for a cockroach) to escape into a dark chamber when a light was shined on them. They did this either while alone or in the presence of other cockroaches in clear plastic “audience boxes.” Zajonc found that cockroaches in the straight runway reached their goal more quickly in the presence of other cockroaches, but cockroaches in the cross-shaped maze reached their goal more slowly when they were in the presence of other cockroaches. Thus he confirmed his hypothesis and provided support for his drive theory. (Zajonc also showed that drive theory existed in humans (Zajonc & Sales, 1966)  in many other studies afterward).
Incorporating Theory into Your Research
When you write your research report or plan your presentation, be aware that there are two basic ways that researchers usually include theory. The first is to raise a research question, answer that question by conducting a new study, and then offer one or more theories (usually more) to explain or interpret the results. This format works well for applied research questions and for research questions that existing theories do not address. The second way is to describe one or more existing theories, derive a hypothesis from one of those theories, test the hypothesis in a new study, and finally reevaluate the theory. This format works well when there is an existing theory that addresses the research question—especially if the resulting hypothesis is surprising or conflicts with a hypothesis derived from a different theory.
To use theories in your research will not only give you guidance in coming up with experiment ideas and possible projects, but it lends legitimacy to your work. Psychologists have been interested in a variety of human behaviors and have developed many theories along the way. Using established theories will help you break new ground as a researcher, not limit you from developing your own ideas.
Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis
There are three general characteristics of a good hypothesis. First, a good hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable . We must be able to test the hypothesis using the methods of science and if you’ll recall Popper’s falsifiability criterion, it must be possible to gather evidence that will disconfirm the hypothesis if it is indeed false. Second, a good hypothesis must be logical. As described above, hypotheses are more than just a random guess. Hypotheses should be informed by previous theories or observations and logical reasoning. Typically, we begin with a broad and general theory and use deductive reasoning to generate a more specific hypothesis to test based on that theory. Occasionally, however, when there is no theory to inform our hypothesis, we use inductive reasoning which involves using specific observations or research findings to form a more general hypothesis. Finally, the hypothesis should be positive. That is, the hypothesis should make a positive statement about the existence of a relationship or effect, rather than a statement that a relationship or effect does not exist. As scientists, we don’t set out to show that relationships do not exist or that effects do not occur so our hypotheses should not be worded in a way to suggest that an effect or relationship does not exist. The nature of science is to assume that something does not exist and then seek to find evidence to prove this wrong, to show that really it does exist. That may seem backward to you but that is the nature of the scientific method. The underlying reason for this is beyond the scope of this chapter but it has to do with statistical theory.
- A theory is broad in nature and explains larger bodies of data. A hypothesis is more specific and makes a prediction about the outcome of a particular study.
- Working with theories is not “icing on the cake.” It is a basic ingredient of psychological research.
- Like other scientists, psychologists use the hypothetico-deductive method. They construct theories to explain or interpret phenomena (or work with existing theories), derive hypotheses from their theories, test the hypotheses, and then reevaluate the theories in light of the new results.
- Practice: Find a recent empirical research report in a professional journal. Read the introduction and highlight in different colors descriptions of theories and hypotheses.
- Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 , 195–202. ↵
- Zajonc, R. B., Heingartner, A., & Herman, E. M. (1969). Social enhancement and impairment of performance in the cockroach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13 , 83–92. ↵
- Zajonc, R.B. & Sales, S.M. (1966). Social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2 , 160-168. ↵
Share This Book
- Increase Font Size
Topic –Research Hypothesis -Meaning, Nature & Importance-. Characteristics of Good a Hypothesis. Hypothesis-The research activities are planned to verify
NATURE & CHARACTERISTICS OF A GOOD HYPOTHESIS. Degree Course (Three Years). Psychology Honours. B. A. Part– III Honours Paper VI: Group A (Research
involved in the study. ... called theory law, facts, assumption and postulate. ... sciences or pure science. ... are oriented towards the verification of the
A research hypothesis is quite often a predictive statement, which is capable of being tested using scientific methods that involve an independent and some
Characteristics of a Hypothesis: · 1. A good hypothesis must be testable. · 2. A good hypothesis should be specific and clear. · 3. A good hypothesis should be
Characteristics & Qualities of a Good Hypothesis · Power of Prediction · Closest to observable things · Simplicity · Clarity · Testability · Relevant to Problem.
Formulating Hypotheses. Variables of Interest. Selecting Levels of an Independent Variable. Selecting a Dependent Variable. Characteristics of a Good
those variables that can be empirically tested. ... sugges ons in order to extend exis ng knowledge. ... It gives direc on to an inves ga on
A good hypothesis can only be derived from experience in research. ... this term refers to the measurable characteristics, qualities, traits, or attributes
First, a good hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. We must be able to test the hypothesis using the methods of science and if you'll recall Popper's