what do a hypothesis is

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• 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

Verywell / Alex Dos Diaz

• The Scientific Method

Hypothesis Format

Falsifiability of a hypothesis.

• Operationalization

Hypothesis Types

Hypotheses examples.

• Collecting Data

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

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

At a Glance

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

The Hypothesis in the Scientific Method

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elements of a Good Hypothesis

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

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

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

How to Formulate a Good Hypothesis

To form a hypothesis, you should take these steps:

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

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

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

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

The Importance of Operational Definitions

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

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

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

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

Replicability

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

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

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

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

Hypothesis Checklist

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

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

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

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

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

A few examples of simple hypotheses:

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

Examples of a complex hypothesis include:

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

Examples of a null hypothesis include:

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

Examples of an alternative hypothesis:

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

Collecting Data on Your Hypothesis

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

Descriptive Research Methods

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

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

Experimental Research Methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Privacy Policy

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

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Definition:

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

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

Types of Hypothesis

Types of Hypothesis are as follows:

Research Hypothesis

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

Null Hypothesis

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

Alternative Hypothesis

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

Directional Hypothesis

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

Non-directional Hypothesis

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

Statistical Hypothesis

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

Composite Hypothesis

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

Empirical Hypothesis

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

Simple Hypothesis

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

Complex Hypothesis

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

Applications of Hypothesis

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

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

How to write a Hypothesis

Here are the steps to follow when writing a hypothesis:

Identify the Research Question

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

Conduct a Literature Review

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

Determine the Variables

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

Formulate the Hypothesis

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

Write the Null Hypothesis

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

Refine the Hypothesis

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

Examples of Hypothesis

Here are a few examples of hypotheses in different fields:

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

Purpose of Hypothesis

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

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

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

When to use Hypothesis

Here are some common situations in which hypotheses are used:

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

Characteristics of Hypothesis

Here are some common characteristics of a hypothesis:

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

Advantages of Hypothesis

Hypotheses have several advantages in scientific research and experimentation:

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

Limitations of Hypothesis

Some Limitations of the Hypothesis are as follows:

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

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Appendices – Writing Guide, Types and Examples

Critical Analysis – Types, Examples and Writing...

References in Research – Types, Examples and...

Implications in Research – Types, Examples and...

Appendix in Research Paper – Examples and...

Research Summary – Structure, Examples and...

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• 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

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

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 - Open Science - 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 ).

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of hypothesis in English

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

• abstraction
• accepted wisdom
• afterthought
• anthropocentrism
• determinist
• non-dogmatic
• non-empirical
• social Darwinism
• supersensible
• the domino theory

hypothesis | Intermediate English

Hypothesis | business english, examples of hypothesis, translations of hypothesis.

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

long weekend

Saturday and Sunday with at least one extra day added, either Friday or Monday.

It’s not really my thing (How to say you don’t like something)

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
• English    Noun
• Intermediate    Noun
• Business    Noun
• Translations
• All translations

To add hypothesis to a word list please sign up or log in.

Add hypothesis to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

• Daily Crossword
• Word Puzzle
• Word Finder
• Word of the Day
• Synonym of the Day
• Word of the Year
• Language stories
• All featured
• Gender and sexuality
• All pop culture
• Writing hub
• Grammar essentials
• Commonly confused
• All writing tips
• Pop culture
• Writing tips

Advertisement

[ hahy- poth - uh -sis , hi- ]

• a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation working hypothesis or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
• a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
• the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
• a mere assumption or guess.

/ haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs /

• a suggested explanation for a group of facts or phenomena, either accepted as a basis for further verification ( working hypothesis ) or accepted as likely to be true Compare theory
• an assumption used in an argument without its being endorsed; a supposition
• an unproved theory; a conjecture

/ hī-pŏth ′ ĭ-sĭs /

, Plural hypotheses hī-pŏth ′ ĭ-sēz′

• A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability.
• plur. hypotheses (heye- poth -uh-seez) In science, a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon. A hypothesis is tested by drawing conclusions from it; if observation and experimentation show a conclusion to be false, the hypothesis must be false. ( See scientific method and theory .)

Derived Forms

• hyˈpothesist , noun

Other Words From

• hy·pothe·sist noun
• counter·hy·pothe·sis noun plural counterhypotheses
• subhy·pothe·sis noun plural subhypotheses

Word History and Origins

Origin of hypothesis 1

Synonym Study

Example sentences.

Each one is a set of questions we’re fascinated by and hypotheses we’re testing.

Mousa’s research hinges on the “contact hypothesis,” the idea that positive interactions among rival group members can reduce prejudices.

Do more research on it, come up with a hypothesis as to why it underperforms, and try to improve it.

Now is the time to test your hypotheses to figure out what’s changing in your customers’ worlds, and address these topics directly.

Whether computing power alone is enough to fuel continued machine learning breakthroughs is a source of debate, but it seems clear we’ll be able to test the hypothesis.

Though researchers have struggled to understand exactly what contributes to this gender difference, Dr. Rohan has one hypothesis.

The leading hypothesis for the ultimate source of the Ebola virus, and where it retreats in between outbreaks, lies in bats.

In 1996, John Paul II called the Big Bang theory “more than a hypothesis.”

To be clear: There have been no double-blind or controlled studies that conclusively confirm this hair-loss hypothesis.

The bacteria-driven-ritual hypothesis ignores the huge diversity of reasons that could push someone to perform a religious ritual.

And remember it is by our hypothesis the best possible form and arrangement of that lesson.

Taken in connection with what we know of the nebulæ, the proof of Laplace's nebular hypothesis may fairly be regarded as complete.

What has become of the letter from M. de St. Mars, said to have been discovered some years ago, confirming this last hypothesis?

To admit that there had really been any communication between the dead man and the living one is also an hypothesis.

"I consider it highly probable," asserted Aunt Maria, forgetting her Scandinavian hypothesis.

Related Words

• explanation
• interpretation
• proposition
• supposition

More About Hypothesis

What is a hypothesis .

In science, a hypothesis is a statement or proposition that attempts to explain phenomena or facts. Hypotheses are often tested to see if they are accurate.

Crafting a useful hypothesis is one of the early steps in the scientific method , which is central to every field of scientific experimentation. A useful scientific hypothesis is based on current, accepted scientific knowledge and is testable.

Outside of science, the word hypothesis is often used more loosely to mean a guess or prediction.

Why is hypothesis important?

The first records of the term hypothesis come from around 1590. It comes from the Greek term hypóthesis , meaning “basis, supposition.”

Trustworthy science involves experiments and tests. In order to have an experiment, you need to test something. In science, that something is called a hypothesis . It is important to remember that, in science, a verified hypothesis is not actually confirmed to be an absolute truth. Instead, it is accepted to be accurate according to modern knowledge. Science always allows for the possibility that new information could disprove a widely accepted hypothesis .

Related to this, scientists will usually only propose a new hypothesis when new information is discovered because there is no reason to test something that is already accepted as scientifically accurate.

Did you know … ?

It can take a long time and even the discovery of new technology to confirm that a hypothesis is accurate. Physicist Albert Einstein ’s 1916 theory of relativity contained hypotheses about space and time that have only been confirmed recently, thanks to modern technology!

What are real-life examples of hypothesis ?

While in science, hypothesis has a narrow meaning, in general use its meaning is broader.

"This study confirms the hypothesis that individuals who have been infected with COVID-19 have persistent objectively measurable cognitive deficits." (N=81,337) Ventilation subgroup show 7-point reduction in IQ https://t.co/50xrNNHC5E — Claire Lehmann (@clairlemon) July 23, 2021

Not everyone drives. They can walk, cycle, catch a train, tram etc. That’s alternatives. What’s your alternative in your hypothesis? — Barry (@Bazzaboy1982) July 27, 2021

What other words are related to hypothesis ?

• scientific method
• scientific theory

Quiz yourself!

True or False?

In science, a hypothesis must be based on current scientific information and be testable.

What is a scientific hypothesis?

It's the initial building block in the scientific method.

Hypothesis basics

What makes a hypothesis testable.

• Types of hypotheses
• Hypothesis versus theory

Additional resources

Bibliography.

A scientific hypothesis is a tentative, testable explanation for a phenomenon in the natural world. It's the initial building block in the scientific method . Many describe it as an "educated guess" based on prior knowledge and observation. While this is true, a hypothesis is more informed than a guess. While an "educated guess" suggests a random prediction based on a person's expertise, developing a hypothesis requires active observation and background research. 

The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no predetermined outcome. For a solution to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be an idea that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. This concept, called falsifiability and testability, was advanced in the mid-20th century by Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper in his famous book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" (Routledge, 1959).

A key function of a hypothesis is to derive predictions about the results of future experiments and then perform those experiments to see whether they support the predictions.

A hypothesis is usually written in the form of an if-then statement, which gives a possibility (if) and explains what may happen because of the possibility (then). The statement could also include "may," according to California State University, Bakersfield .

Here are some examples of hypothesis statements:

• If garlic repels fleas, then a dog that is given garlic every day will not get fleas.
• If sugar causes cavities, then people who eat a lot of candy may be more prone to cavities.
• If ultraviolet light can damage the eyes, then maybe this light can cause blindness.

A useful hypothesis should be testable and falsifiable. That means that it should be possible to prove it wrong. A theory that can't be proved wrong is nonscientific, according to Karl Popper's 1963 book " Conjectures and Refutations ."

An example of an untestable statement is, "Dogs are better than cats." That's because the definition of "better" is vague and subjective. However, an untestable statement can be reworded to make it testable. For example, the previous statement could be changed to this: "Owning a dog is associated with higher levels of physical fitness than owning a cat." With this statement, the researcher can take measures of physical fitness from dog and cat owners and compare the two.

Types of scientific hypotheses

In an experiment, researchers generally state their hypotheses in two ways. The null hypothesis predicts that there will be no relationship between the variables tested, or no difference between the experimental groups. The alternative hypothesis predicts the opposite: that there will be a difference between the experimental groups. This is usually the hypothesis scientists are most interested in, according to the University of Miami .

For example, a null hypothesis might state, "There will be no difference in the rate of muscle growth between people who take a protein supplement and people who don't." The alternative hypothesis would state, "There will be a difference in the rate of muscle growth between people who take a protein supplement and people who don't."

If the results of the experiment show a relationship between the variables, then the null hypothesis has been rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, according to the book " Research Methods in Psychology " (​​BCcampus, 2015). 

There are other ways to describe an alternative hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis above does not specify a direction of the effect, only that there will be a difference between the two groups. That type of prediction is called a two-tailed hypothesis. If a hypothesis specifies a certain direction — for example, that people who take a protein supplement will gain more muscle than people who don't — it is called a one-tailed hypothesis, according to William M. K. Trochim , a professor of Policy Analysis and Management at Cornell University.

Sometimes, errors take place during an experiment. These errors can happen in one of two ways. A type I error is when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is true. This is also known as a false positive. A type II error occurs when the null hypothesis is not rejected when it is false. This is also known as a false negative, according to the University of California, Berkeley . 

A hypothesis can be rejected or modified, but it can never be proved correct 100% of the time. For example, a scientist can form a hypothesis stating that if a certain type of tomato has a gene for red pigment, that type of tomato will be red. During research, the scientist then finds that each tomato of this type is red. Though the findings confirm the hypothesis, there may be a tomato of that type somewhere in the world that isn't red. Thus, the hypothesis is true, but it may not be true 100% of the time.

Scientific theory vs. scientific hypothesis

The best hypotheses are simple. They deal with a relatively narrow set of phenomena. But theories are broader; they generally combine multiple hypotheses into a general explanation for a wide range of phenomena, according to the University of California, Berkeley . For example, a hypothesis might state, "If animals adapt to suit their environments, then birds that live on islands with lots of seeds to eat will have differently shaped beaks than birds that live on islands with lots of insects to eat." After testing many hypotheses like these, Charles Darwin formulated an overarching theory: the theory of evolution by natural selection.

"Theories are the ways that we make sense of what we observe in the natural world," Tanner said. "Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts." 

• Read more about writing a hypothesis, from the American Medical Writers Association.
• Find out why a hypothesis isn't always necessary in science, from The American Biology Teacher.
• Learn about null and alternative hypotheses, from Prof. Essa on YouTube .

Encyclopedia Britannica. Scientific Hypothesis. Jan. 13, 2022. https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-hypothesis

Karl Popper, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery," Routledge, 1959.

California State University, Bakersfield, "Formatting a testable hypothesis." https://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm  

Karl Popper, "Conjectures and Refutations," Routledge, 1963.

Price, P., Jhangiani, R., & Chiang, I., "Research Methods of Psychology — 2nd Canadian Edition," BCcampus, 2015.‌

University of Miami, "The Scientific Method" http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/161/evolution/161app1_scimethod.pdf  

William M.K. Trochim, "Research Methods Knowledge Base," https://conjointly.com/kb/hypotheses-explained/  

University of California, Berkeley, "Multiple Hypothesis Testing and False Discovery Rate" https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~hhuang/STAT141/Lecture-FDR.pdf  

University of California, Berkeley, "Science at multiple levels" https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_19

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

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

Large patch of the Atlantic Ocean near the equator has been cooling at record speeds — and scientists can't figure out why

Earth from space: Massive landslide dams Canadian river, trapping endangered fish on the wrong side

Ancient sea cow was killed by prehistoric croc then torn apart by a tiger shark

Most Popular

• 2 For C. diff, antibiotic resistance comes at a cost
• 3 Large patch of the Atlantic Ocean near the equator has been cooling at record speeds — and scientists can't figure out why
• 4 Gravitational waves hint at a 'supercool' secret about the Big Bang
• 5 New reactor could more than triple the yield of one of the world's most valuable chemicals

Definition of a Hypothesis

What it is and how it's used in sociology

• Key Concepts
• Major Sociologists
• News & Issues
• Research, Samples, and Statistics
• Recommended Reading
• Archaeology

A hypothesis is a prediction of what will be found at the outcome of a research project and is typically focused on the relationship between two different variables studied in the research. It is usually based on both theoretical expectations about how things work and already existing scientific evidence.

Within social science, a hypothesis can take two forms. It can predict that there is no relationship between two variables, in which case it is a null hypothesis . Or, it can predict the existence of a relationship between variables, which is known as an alternative hypothesis.

In either case, the variable that is thought to either affect or not affect the outcome is known as the independent variable, and the variable that is thought to either be affected or not is the dependent variable.

Researchers seek to determine whether or not their hypothesis, or hypotheses if they have more than one, will prove true. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they do not. Either way, the research is considered successful if one can conclude whether or not a hypothesis is true. 

Null Hypothesis

A researcher has a null hypothesis when she or he believes, based on theory and existing scientific evidence, that there will not be a relationship between two variables. For example, when examining what factors influence a person's highest level of education within the U.S., a researcher might expect that place of birth, number of siblings, and religion would not have an impact on the level of education. This would mean the researcher has stated three null hypotheses.

Alternative Hypothesis

Taking the same example, a researcher might expect that the economic class and educational attainment of one's parents, and the race of the person in question are likely to have an effect on one's educational attainment. Existing evidence and social theories that recognize the connections between wealth and cultural resources , and how race affects access to rights and resources in the U.S. , would suggest that both economic class and educational attainment of the one's parents would have a positive effect on educational attainment. In this case, economic class and educational attainment of one's parents are independent variables, and one's educational attainment is the dependent variable—it is hypothesized to be dependent on the other two.

Conversely, an informed researcher would expect that being a race other than white in the U.S. is likely to have a negative impact on a person's educational attainment. This would be characterized as a negative relationship, wherein being a person of color has a negative effect on one's educational attainment. In reality, this hypothesis proves true, with the exception of Asian Americans , who go to college at a higher rate than whites do. However, Blacks and Hispanics and Latinos are far less likely than whites and Asian Americans to go to college.

Formulating a Hypothesis

Formulating a hypothesis can take place at the very beginning of a research project , or after a bit of research has already been done. Sometimes a researcher knows right from the start which variables she is interested in studying, and she may already have a hunch about their relationships. Other times, a researcher may have an interest in ​a particular topic, trend, or phenomenon, but he may not know enough about it to identify variables or formulate a hypothesis.

Whenever a hypothesis is formulated, the most important thing is to be precise about what one's variables are, what the nature of the relationship between them might be, and how one can go about conducting a study of them.

Updated by Nicki Lisa Cole, Ph.D

• What It Means When a Variable Is Spurious
• Understanding Path Analysis
• Pilot Study in Research
• Simple Random Sampling
• Exploitation
• What Is Multiculturalism? Definition, Theories, and Examples
• Convenience Samples for Research
• What Is Cultural Capital? Do I Have It?
• What Does Consumerism Mean?
• Visualizing Social Stratification in the U.S.
• What Is Symbolic Interactionism?
• What Is Cultural Hegemony?
• Understanding Stratified Samples and How to Make Them
• What Is Groupthink? Definition and Examples
• What Is Ethnography?
• What Is a Reference Group?

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 ...

17 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

Hi” best wishes to you and your very nice blog” 

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

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 .

Choose Your Test

• Search Blogs By Category
• College Admissions
• AP and IB Exams
• GPA and Coursework

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

Trending Now

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?

ACT vs. SAT: Which Test Should You Take?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Get Your Free

Find Your Target SAT Score

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

How to Get a Perfect SAT Score, by an Expert Full Scorer

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading and Writing

How to Improve Your Low SAT Score

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading and Writing

Find Your Target ACT Score

Complete Official Free ACT Practice Tests

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

Get a 36 on ACT English

Get a 36 on ACT Math

Get a 36 on ACT Reading

Get a 36 on ACT Science

How to Improve Your Low ACT Score

Get a 24 on ACT English

Get a 24 on ACT Math

Get a 24 on ACT Reading

Get a 24 on ACT Science

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

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!

Look up a word, learn it forever.

Other forms: hypotheses

In science, a hypothesis is an idea or explanation that you then test through study and experimentation. Outside science, a theory or guess can also be called a hypothesis .

A hypothesis is something more than a wild guess but less than a well-established theory. In science, a hypothesis needs to go through a lot of testing before it gets labeled a theory. In the non-scientific world, the word is used a lot more loosely. A detective might have a hypothesis about a crime, and a mother might have a hypothesis about who spilled juice on the rug. Anyone who uses the word hypothesis is making a guess.

• noun a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory” synonyms: possibility , theory see more see less types: show 17 types... hide 17 types... hypothetical a hypothetical possibility, circumstance, statement, proposal, situation, etc. gemmule the physically discrete element that Darwin proposed as responsible for heredity framework , model , theoretical account a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process conjecture , speculation a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence) assumption , supposal , supposition a hypothesis that is taken for granted historicism a theory that social and cultural events are determined by history computer simulation , simulation (computer science) the technique of representing the real world by a computer program conclusion an intuitive assumption base , basis , cornerstone , foundation , fundament , groundwork the fundamental assumptions from which something is begun or developed or calculated or explained mean sun a theoretical sun that moves along the celestial equator at a constant speed and completes its annual course in the same amount of time the real sun takes at variable speeds Copernican system (astronomy) Copernicus' astronomical model in which the Earth rotates around the sun Ptolemaic system (astronomy) Ptolemy's model of the universe with the Earth at the center M-theory (particle physics) a theory that involves an eleven-dimensional universe in which the weak and strong forces and gravity are unified and to which all the string theories belong string theory (particle physics) a theory that postulates that subatomic particles are one-dimensional strings given , precondition , presumption an assumption that is taken for granted basic assumption , constatation , self-evident truth an assumption that is basic to an argument stochastic process a statistical process involving a number of random variables depending on a variable parameter (which is usually time) type of: concept , conception , construct an abstract or general idea inferred or derived from specific instances
• noun a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations see more see less type of: proposal something proposed (such as a plan or assumption)
• noun a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence synonyms: conjecture , guess , speculation , supposition , surmisal , surmise see more see less types: divination successful conjecture by unusual insight or good luck type of: opinion , view a message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof

Vocabulary lists containing hypothesis

How can you perform well on the reading section of the SAT if you don’t fully understand the language being used in the directions and in the questions? Learn this list of 25 words that are based on our analysis of the words likely to appear in question stems, answer options, and test directions. Following our Roadmap to the SAT ? Head back to see what else you should be learning this week.

Looking to build your vocabulary? Then practice this list of 100 "top words" — the kind that used to be tested on the SAT before 2016. If you're a high school student prepping for the SAT, check out Vocabulary.com's Roadmap to the SAT , which focuses on the vocabulary you'll need to ace today's SAT test.

Here are 68 Tier 2 words that are likely to be found on the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) ELA exams for 6th - 11th grades. These words may show up in the reading passages, but you are more likely to encounter them in the test questions and possible answers.

Sign up now (it’s free!)

Whether you’re a teacher or a learner, vocabulary.com can put you or your class on the path to systematic vocabulary improvement..

• School Guide
• Mathematics
• Number System and Arithmetic
• Trigonometry
• Probability
• Mensuration
• Maths Formulas
• Class 8 Maths Notes
• Class 9 Maths Notes
• Class 10 Maths Notes
• Class 11 Maths Notes
• Class 12 Maths Notes

Hypothesis | Definition, Meaning and Examples

Hypothesis is a hypothesis is fundamental concept in the world of research and statistics. It is a testable statement that explains what is happening or observed. It proposes the relation between the various participating variables.

Hypothesis is also called Theory, Thesis, Guess, Assumption, or Suggestion . Hypothesis creates a structure that guides the search for knowledge.

In this article, we will learn what hypothesis is, its characteristics, types, and examples. We will also learn how hypothesis helps in scientific research.

Table of Content

What is Hypothesis?

Characteristics of hypothesis, sources of hypothesis, types of hypothesis, functions of hypothesis, how hypothesis help in scientific research.

Hypothesis is a suggested idea or an educated guess or a proposed explanation made based on limited evidence, serving as a starting point for further study. They are meant to lead to more investigation.

It’s mainly a smart guess or suggested answer to a problem that can be checked through study and trial. In science work, we make guesses called hypotheses to try and figure out what will happen in tests or watching. These are not sure things but rather ideas that can be proved or disproved based on real-life proofs. A good theory is clear and can be tested and found wrong if the proof doesn’t support it.

Hypothesis Meaning

A hypothesis is a proposed statement that is testable and is given for something that happens or observed.

• It is made using what we already know and have seen, and it’s the basis for scientific research.
• A clear guess tells us what we think will happen in an experiment or study.
• It’s a testable clue that can be proven true or wrong with real-life facts and checking it out carefully.
• It usually looks like a “if-then” rule, showing the expected cause and effect relationship between what’s being studied.

Here are some key characteristics of a hypothesis:

• Testable: An idea (hypothesis) should be made so it can be tested and proven true through doing experiments or watching. It should show a clear connection between things.
• Specific: It needs to be easy and on target, talking about a certain part or connection between things in a study.
• Falsifiable: A good guess should be able to show it’s wrong. This means there must be a chance for proof or seeing something that goes against the guess.
• Logical and Rational: It should be based on things we know now or have seen, giving a reasonable reason that fits with what we already know.
• Predictive: A guess often tells what to expect from an experiment or observation. It gives a guide for what someone might see if the guess is right.
• Concise: It should be short and clear, showing the suggested link or explanation simply without extra confusion.
• Grounded in Research: A guess is usually made from before studies, ideas or watching things. It comes from a deep understanding of what is already known in that area.
• Flexible: A guess helps in the research but it needs to change or fix when new information comes up.
• Relevant: It should be related to the question or problem being studied, helping to direct what the research is about.
• Empirical: Hypotheses come from observations and can be tested using methods based on real-world experiences.

Hypotheses can come from different places based on what you’re studying and the kind of research. Here are some common sources from which hypotheses may originate:

• Existing Theories: Often, guesses come from well-known science ideas. These ideas may show connections between things or occurrences that scientists can look into more.
• Observation and Experience: Watching something happen or having personal experiences can lead to guesses. We notice odd things or repeat events in everyday life and experiments. This can make us think of guesses called hypotheses.
• Previous Research: Using old studies or discoveries can help come up with new ideas. Scientists might try to expand or question current findings, making guesses that further study old results.
• Literature Review: Looking at books and research in a subject can help make guesses. Noticing missing parts or mismatches in previous studies might make researchers think up guesses to deal with these spots.
• Problem Statement or Research Question: Often, ideas come from questions or problems in the study. Making clear what needs to be looked into can help create ideas that tackle certain parts of the issue.
• Analogies or Comparisons: Making comparisons between similar things or finding connections from related areas can lead to theories. Understanding from other fields could create new guesses in a different situation.
• Hunches and Speculation: Sometimes, scientists might get a gut feeling or make guesses that help create ideas to test. Though these may not have proof at first, they can be a beginning for looking deeper.
• Technology and Innovations: New technology or tools might make guesses by letting us look at things that were hard to study before.
• Personal Interest and Curiosity: People’s curiosity and personal interests in a topic can help create guesses. Scientists could make guesses based on their own likes or love for a subject.

Here are some common types of hypotheses:

Simple Hypothesis

Complex hypothesis, directional hypothesis.

• Non-directional Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis (H0)

Alternative hypothesis (h1 or ha), statistical hypothesis, research hypothesis, associative hypothesis, causal hypothesis.

Simple Hypothesis guesses a connection between two things. It says that there is a connection or difference between variables, but it doesn’t tell us which way the relationship goes. Example: Studying more can help you do better on tests. Getting more sun makes people have higher amounts of vitamin D.

Complex Hypothesis tells us what will happen when more than two things are connected. It looks at how different things interact and may be linked together. Example: How rich you are, how easy it is to get education and healthcare greatly affects the number of years people live. A new medicine’s success relies on the amount used, how old a person is who takes it and their genes.

Directional Hypothesis says how one thing is related to another. For example, it guesses that one thing will help or hurt another thing. Example: Drinking more sweet drinks is linked to a higher body weight score. Too much stress makes people less productive at work.

Non-Directional Hypothesis

Non-Directional Hypothesis are the one that don’t say how the relationship between things will be. They just say that there is a connection, without telling which way it goes. Example: Drinking caffeine can affect how well you sleep. People often like different kinds of music based on their gender.

Null hypothesis is a statement that says there’s no connection or difference between different things. It implies that any seen impacts are because of luck or random changes in the information. Example: The average test scores of Group A and Group B are not much different. There is no connection between using a certain fertilizer and how much it helps crops grow.

Alternative Hypothesis is different from the null hypothesis and shows that there’s a big connection or gap between variables. Scientists want to say no to the null hypothesis and choose the alternative one. Example: Patients on Diet A have much different cholesterol levels than those following Diet B. Exposure to a certain type of light can change how plants grow compared to normal sunlight.

Statistical Hypothesis are used in math testing and include making ideas about what groups or bits of them look like. You aim to get information or test certain things using these top-level, common words only. Example: The average smarts score of kids in a certain school area is 100. The usual time it takes to finish a job using Method A is the same as with Method B.

Research Hypothesis comes from the research question and tells what link is expected between things or factors. It leads the study and chooses where to look more closely. Example: Having more kids go to early learning classes helps them do better in school when they get older. Using specific ways of talking affects how much customers get involved in marketing activities.

Associative Hypothesis guesses that there is a link or connection between things without really saying it caused them. It means that when one thing changes, it is connected to another thing changing. Example: Regular exercise helps to lower the chances of heart disease. Going to school more can help people make more money.

Causal Hypothesis are different from other ideas because they say that one thing causes another. This means there’s a cause and effect relationship between variables involved in the situation. They say that when one thing changes, it directly makes another thing change. Example: Playing violent video games makes teens more likely to act aggressively. Less clean air directly impacts breathing health in city populations.

Hypotheses have many important jobs in the process of scientific research. Here are the key functions of hypotheses:

• Guiding Research: Hypotheses give a clear and exact way for research. They act like guides, showing the predicted connections or results that scientists want to study.
• Formulating Research Questions: Research questions often create guesses. They assist in changing big questions into particular, checkable things. They guide what the study should be focused on.
• Setting Clear Objectives: Hypotheses set the goals of a study by saying what connections between variables should be found. They set the targets that scientists try to reach with their studies.
• Testing Predictions: Theories guess what will happen in experiments or observations. By doing tests in a planned way, scientists can check if what they see matches the guesses made by their ideas.
• Providing Structure: Theories give structure to the study process by arranging thoughts and ideas. They aid scientists in thinking about connections between things and plan experiments to match.
• Focusing Investigations: Hypotheses help scientists focus on certain parts of their study question by clearly saying what they expect links or results to be. This focus makes the study work better.
• Facilitating Communication: Theories help scientists talk to each other effectively. Clearly made guesses help scientists to tell others what they plan, how they will do it and the results expected. This explains things well with colleagues in a wide range of audiences.
• Generating Testable Statements: A good guess can be checked, which means it can be looked at carefully or tested by doing experiments. This feature makes sure that guesses add to the real information used in science knowledge.
• Promoting Objectivity: Guesses give a clear reason for study that helps guide the process while reducing personal bias. They motivate scientists to use facts and data as proofs or disprovals for their proposed answers.
• Driving Scientific Progress: Making, trying out and adjusting ideas is a cycle. Even if a guess is proven right or wrong, the information learned helps to grow knowledge in one specific area.

Researchers use hypotheses to put down their thoughts directing how the experiment would take place. Following are the steps that are involved in the scientific method:

• Initiating Investigations: Hypotheses are the beginning of science research. They come from watching, knowing what’s already known or asking questions. This makes scientists make certain explanations that need to be checked with tests.
• Formulating Research Questions: Ideas usually come from bigger questions in study. They help scientists make these questions more exact and testable, guiding the study’s main point.
• Setting Clear Objectives: Hypotheses set the goals of a study by stating what we think will happen between different things. They set the goals that scientists want to reach by doing their studies.
• Designing Experiments and Studies: Assumptions help plan experiments and watchful studies. They assist scientists in knowing what factors to measure, the techniques they will use and gather data for a proposed reason.
• Testing Predictions: Ideas guess what will happen in experiments or observations. By checking these guesses carefully, scientists can see if the seen results match up with what was predicted in each hypothesis.
• Analysis and Interpretation of Data: Hypotheses give us a way to study and make sense of information. Researchers look at what they found and see if it matches the guesses made in their theories. They decide if the proof backs up or disagrees with these suggested reasons why things are happening as expected.
• Encouraging Objectivity: Hypotheses help make things fair by making sure scientists use facts and information to either agree or disagree with their suggested reasons. They lessen personal preferences by needing proof from experience.
• Iterative Process: People either agree or disagree with guesses, but they still help the ongoing process of science. Findings from testing ideas make us ask new questions, improve those ideas and do more tests. It keeps going on in the work of science to keep learning things.

People Also View:

Mathematics Maths Formulas Branches of Mathematics

Hypothesis is a testable statement serving as an initial explanation for phenomena, based on observations, theories, or existing knowledge . It acts as a guiding light for scientific research, proposing potential relationships between variables that can be empirically tested through experiments and observations.

The hypothesis must be specific, testable, falsifiable, and grounded in prior research or observation, laying out a predictive, if-then scenario that details a cause-and-effect relationship. It originates from various sources including existing theories, observations, previous research, and even personal curiosity, leading to different types, such as simple, complex, directional, non-directional, null, and alternative hypotheses, each serving distinct roles in research methodology .

The hypothesis not only guides the research process by shaping objectives and designing experiments but also facilitates objective analysis and interpretation of data , ultimately driving scientific progress through a cycle of testing, validation, and refinement.

Hypothesis – FAQs

What is a hypothesis.

A guess is a possible explanation or forecast that can be checked by doing research and experiments.

What are Components of a Hypothesis?

The components of a Hypothesis are Independent Variable, Dependent Variable, Relationship between Variables, Directionality etc.

What makes a Good Hypothesis?

Testability, Falsifiability, Clarity and Precision, Relevance are some parameters that makes a Good Hypothesis

Can a Hypothesis be Proven True?

You cannot prove conclusively that most hypotheses are true because it’s generally impossible to examine all possible cases for exceptions that would disprove them.

How are Hypotheses Tested?

Hypothesis testing is used to assess the plausibility of a hypothesis by using sample data

Can Hypotheses change during Research?

Yes, you can change or improve your ideas based on new information discovered during the research process.

What is the Role of a Hypothesis in Scientific Research?

Hypotheses are used to support scientific research and bring about advancements in knowledge.

Please Login to comment...

Similar reads.

• Geeks Premier League
• School Learning
• Geeks Premier League 2023
• Maths-Class-12
• How to Get a Free SSL Certificate
• Best SSL Certificates Provider in India
• Elon Musk's xAI releases Grok-2 AI assistant
• What is OpenAI SearchGPT? How it works and How to Get it?
• Content Improvement League 2024: From Good To A Great Article

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

What is Hypothesis? Definition, Meaning, Characteristics, Sources

• Post last modified: 10 January 2022
• Reading time: 18 mins read
• Post category: Research Methodology

• What is Hypothesis?

Hypothesis is a prediction of the outcome of a study. Hypotheses are drawn from theories and research questions or from direct observations. In fact, a research problem can be formulated as a hypothesis. To test the hypothesis we need to formulate it in terms that can actually be analysed with statistical tools.

As an example, if we want to explore whether using a specific teaching method at school will result in better school marks (research question), the hypothesis could be that the mean school marks of students being taught with that specific teaching method will be higher than of those being taught using other methods.

In this example, we stated a hypothesis about the expected differences between groups. Other hypotheses may refer to correlations between variables.

Table of Content

• 1 What is Hypothesis?
• 2 Hypothesis Definition
• 3 Meaning of Hypothesis
• 4.1 Conceptual Clarity
• 4.2 Need of empirical referents
• 4.3 Hypothesis should be specific
• 4.4 Hypothesis should be within the ambit of the available research techniques
• 4.5 Hypothesis should be consistent with the theory
• 4.6 Hypothesis should be concerned with observable facts and empirical events
• 4.7 Hypothesis should be simple
• 5.1 Observation
• 5.2 Analogies
• 5.4 State of Knowledge
• 5.5 Culture
• 5.6 Continuity of Research
• 6.1 Null Hypothesis
• 6.2 Alternative Hypothesis

Thus, to formulate a hypothesis, we need to refer to the descriptive statistics (such as the mean final marks), and specify a set of conditions about these statistics (such as a difference between the means, or in a different example, a positive or negative correlation). The hypothesis we formulate applies to the population of interest.

The null hypothesis makes a statement that no difference exists (see Pyrczak, 1995, pp. 75-84).

Hypothesis Definition

A hypothesis is ‘a guess or supposition as to the existence of some fact or law which will serve to explain a connection of facts already known to exist.’ – J. E. Creighton & H. R. Smart

Hypothesis is ‘a proposition not known to be definitely true or false, examined for the sake of determining the consequences which would follow from its truth.’ – Max Black

Hypothesis is ‘a proposition which can be put to a test to determine validity and is useful for further research.’ – W. J. Goode and P. K. Hatt

A hypothesis is a proposition, condition or principle which is assumed, perhaps without belief, in order to draw out its logical consequences and by this method to test its accord with facts which are known or may be determined. – Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language (1956)

Meaning of Hypothesis

From the above mentioned definitions of hypothesis, its meaning can be explained in the following ways.

• At the primary level, a hypothesis is the possible and probable explanation of the sequence of happenings or data.
• Sometimes, hypothesis may emerge from an imagination, common sense or a sudden event.
• Hypothesis can be a probable answer to the research problem undertaken for study. 4. Hypothesis may not always be true. It can get disproven. In other words, hypothesis need not always be a true proposition.
• Hypothesis, in a sense, is an attempt to present the interrelations that exist in the available data or information.
• Hypothesis is not an individual opinion or community thought. Instead, it is a philosophical means which is to be used for research purpose. Hypothesis is not to be considered as the ultimate objective; rather it is to be taken as the means of explaining scientifically the prevailing situation.

The concept of hypothesis can further be explained with the help of some examples. Lord Keynes, in his theory of national income determination, made a hypothesis about the consumption function. He stated that the consumption expenditure of an individual or an economy as a whole is dependent on the level of income and changes in a certain proportion.

Later, this proposition was proved in the statistical research carried out by Prof. Simon Kuznets. Matthus, while studying the population, formulated a hypothesis that population increases faster than the supply of food grains. Population studies of several countries revealed that this hypothesis is true.

Validation of the Malthus’ hypothesis turned it into a theory and when it was tested in many other countries it became the famous Malthus’ Law of Population. It thus emerges that when a hypothesis is tested and proven, it becomes a theory. The theory, when found true in different times and at different places, becomes the law. Having understood the concept of hypothesis, few hypotheses can be formulated in the areas of commerce and economics.

• Population growth moderates with the rise in per capita income.
• Sales growth is positively linked with the availability of credit.
• Commerce education increases the employability of the graduate students.
• High rates of direct taxes prompt people to evade taxes.
• Good working conditions improve the productivity of employees.
• Advertising is the most effecting way of promoting sales than any other scheme.
• Higher Debt-Equity Ratio increases the probability of insolvency.
• Economic reforms in India have made the public sector banks more efficient and competent.
• Foreign direct investment in India has moved in those sectors which offer higher rate of profit.
• There is no significant association between credit rating and investment of fund.

Characteristics of Hypothesis

Not all the hypotheses are good and useful from the point of view of research. It is only a few hypotheses satisfying certain criteria that are good, useful and directive in the research work undertaken. The characteristics of such a useful hypothesis can be listed as below:

Conceptual Clarity

Need of empirical referents, hypothesis should be specific, hypothesis should be within the ambit of the available research techniques, hypothesis should be consistent with the theory, hypothesis should be concerned with observable facts and empirical events, hypothesis should be simple.

The concepts used while framing hypothesis should be crystal clear and unambiguous. Such concepts must be clearly defined so that they become lucid and acceptable to everyone. How are the newly developed concepts interrelated and how are they linked with the old one is to be very clear so that the hypothesis framed on their basis also carries the same clarity.

A hypothesis embodying unclear and ambiguous concepts can to a great extent undermine the successful completion of the research work.

A hypothesis can be useful in the research work undertaken only when it has links with some empirical referents. Hypothesis based on moral values and ideals are useless as they cannot be tested. Similarly, hypothesis containing opinions as good and bad or expectation with respect to something are not testable and therefore useless.

For example, ‘current account deficit can be lowered if people change their attitude towards gold’ is a hypothesis encompassing expectation. In case of such a hypothesis, the attitude towards gold is something which cannot clearly be described and therefore a hypothesis which embodies such an unclean thing cannot be tested and proved or disproved. In short, the hypothesis should be linked with some testable referents.

For the successful conduction of research, it is necessary that the hypothesis is specific and presented in a precise manner. Hypothesis which is general, too ambitious and grandiose in scope is not to be made as such hypothesis cannot be easily put to test. A hypothesis is to be based on such concepts which are precise and empirical in nature. A hypothesis should give a clear idea about the indicators which are to be used.

For example, a hypothesis that economic power is increasingly getting concentrated in a few hands in India should enable us to define the concept of economic power. It should be explicated in terms of measurable indicator like income, wealth, etc. Such specificity in the formulation of a hypothesis ensures that the research is practicable and significant.

While framing the hypothesis, the researcher should be aware of the available research techniques and should see that the hypothesis framed is testable on the basis of them. In other words, a hypothesis should be researchable and for this it is important that a due thought has been given to the methods and techniques which can be used to measure the concepts and variables embodied in the hypothesis.

It does not however mean that hypotheses which are not testable with the available techniques of research are not to be made. If the problem is too significant and therefore the hypothesis framed becomes too ambitious and complex, it’s testing becomes possible with the development of new research techniques or the hypothesis itself leads to the development of new research techniques.

A hypothesis must be related to the existing theory or should have a theoretical orientation. The growth of knowledge takes place in the sequence of facts, hypothesis, theory and law or principles. It means the hypothesis should have a correspondence with the existing facts and theory.

If the hypothesis is related to some theory, the research work will enable us to support, modify or refute the existing theory. Theoretical orientation of the hypothesis ensures that it becomes scientifically useful. According to Prof. Goode and Prof. Hatt, research work can contribute to the existing knowledge only when the hypothesis is related with some theory.

This enables us to explain the observed facts and situations and also verify the framed hypothesis. In the words of Prof. Cohen and Prof. Nagel, “hypothesis must be formulated in such a manner that deduction can be made from it and that consequently a decision can be reached as to whether it does or does not explain the facts considered.”

If the research work based on a hypothesis is to be successful, it is necessary that the later is as simple and easy as possible. An ambition of finding out something new may lead the researcher to frame an unrealistic and unclear hypothesis. Such a temptation is to be avoided. Framing a simple, easy and testable hypothesis requires that the researcher is well acquainted with the related concepts.

Sources of Hypothesis

Hypotheses can be derived from various sources. Some of the sources is given below:

Observation

State of knowledge, continuity of research.

Hypotheses can be derived from observation from the observation of price behavior in a market. For example the relationship between the price and demand for an article is hypothesized.

Analogies are another source of useful hypotheses. Julian Huxley has pointed out that casual observations in nature or in the framework of another science may be a fertile source of hypotheses. For example, the hypotheses that similar human types or activities may be found in similar geophysical regions come from plant ecology.

This is one of the main sources of hypotheses. It gives direction to research by stating what is known logical deduction from theory lead to new hypotheses. For example, profit / wealth maximization is considered as the goal of private enterprises. From this assumption various hypotheses are derived’.

An important source of hypotheses is the state of knowledge in any particular science where formal theories exist hypotheses can be deduced. If the hypotheses are rejected theories are scarce hypotheses are generated from conception frameworks.

Another source of hypotheses is the culture on which the researcher was nurtured. Western culture has induced the emergence of sociology as an academic discipline over the past decade, a large part of the hypotheses on American society examined by researchers were connected with violence. This interest is related to the considerable increase in the level of violence in America.

The continuity of research in a field itself constitutes an important source of hypotheses. The rejection of some hypotheses leads to the formulation of new ones capable of explaining dependent variables in subsequent research on the same subject.

Null and Alternative Hypothesis

Null hypothesis.

The hypothesis that are proposed with the intent of receiving a rejection for them are called Null Hypothesis . This requires that we hypothesize the opposite of what is desired to be proved. For example, if we want to show that sales and advertisement expenditure are related, we formulate the null hypothesis that they are not related.

Similarly, if we want to conclude that the new sales training programme is effective, we formulate the null hypothesis that the new training programme is not effective, and if we want to prove that the average wages of skilled workers in town 1 is greater than that of town 2, we formulate the null hypotheses that there is no difference in the average wages of the skilled workers in both the towns.

Since we hypothesize that sales and advertisement are not related, new training programme is not effective and the average wages of skilled workers in both the towns are equal, we call such hypotheses null hypotheses and denote them as H 0 .

Alternative Hypothesis

Rejection of null hypotheses leads to the acceptance of alternative hypothesis . The rejection of null hypothesis indicates that the relationship between variables (e.g., sales and advertisement expenditure) or the difference between means (e.g., wages of skilled workers in town 1 and town 2) or the difference between proportions have statistical significance and the acceptance of the null hypotheses indicates that these differences are due to chance.

As already mentioned, the alternative hypotheses specify that values/relation which the researcher believes hold true. The alternative hypotheses can cover a whole range of values rather than a single point. The alternative hypotheses are denoted by H 1 .

Business Ethics

( Click on Topic to Read )

• What is Ethics?
• What is Business Ethics?
• Values, Norms, Beliefs and Standards in Business Ethics
• Indian Ethos in Management
• Ethical Issues in Marketing
• Ethical Issues in HRM
• Ethical Issues in IT
• Ethical Issues in Production and Operations Management
• Ethical Issues in Finance and Accounting
• What is Corporate Governance?
• What is Ownership Concentration?
• What is Ownership Composition?
• Types of Companies in India
• Internal Corporate Governance
• External Corporate Governance
• Corporate Governance in India
• What is Enterprise Risk Management (ERM)?
• What is Assessment of Risk?
• What is Risk Register?
• Risk Management Committee

Corporate social responsibility (CSR)

• Theories of CSR
• Arguments Against CSR
• Business Case for CSR
• Importance of CSR in India
• Drivers of Corporate Social Responsibility
• Developing a CSR Strategy
• Implement CSR Commitments
• CSR Marketplace
• CSR at Workplace
• Environmental CSR
• CSR with Communities and in Supply Chain
• Community Interventions
• CSR Monitoring
• CSR Reporting
• Voluntary Codes in CSR
• What is Corporate Ethics?

Lean Six Sigma

• What is Six Sigma?
• What is Lean Six Sigma?
• Value and Waste in Lean Six Sigma
• Six Sigma Team
• MAIC Six Sigma
• Six Sigma in Supply Chains
• What is Binomial, Poisson, Normal Distribution?
• What is Sigma Level?
• What is DMAIC in Six Sigma?
• What is DMADV in Six Sigma?
• Six Sigma Project Charter
• Project Decomposition in Six Sigma
• Critical to Quality (CTQ) Six Sigma
• Process Mapping Six Sigma
• Flowchart and SIPOC
• Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility
• Statistical Diagram
• Lean Techniques for Optimisation Flow
• Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
• What is Process Audits?
• Six Sigma Implementation at Ford
• IBM Uses Six Sigma to Drive Behaviour Change
• Research Methodology
• What is Research?
• Sampling Method
• Research Methods
• Data Collection in Research

Methods of Collecting Data

• Application of Business Research
• Levels of Measurement
• What is Sampling?

Hypothesis Testing

• Research Report
• What is Management?
• Planning in Management
• Decision Making in Management
• What is Controlling?
• What is Coordination?
• What is Staffing?
• Organization Structure
• What is Departmentation?
• Span of Control
• What is Authority?
• Centralization vs Decentralization
• Organizing in Management
• Schools of Management Thought
• Classical Management Approach
• Is Management an Art or Science?
• Who is a Manager?

Operations Research

• What is Operations Research?
• Operation Research Models
• Linear Programming
• Linear Programming Graphic Solution
• Linear Programming Simplex Method
• Linear Programming Artificial Variable Technique
• Duality in Linear Programming
• Transportation Problem Initial Basic Feasible Solution
• Transportation Problem Finding Optimal Solution
• Project Network Analysis with Critical Path Method
• Project Network Analysis Methods
• Project Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT)
• Simulation in Operation Research
• Replacement Models in Operation Research

Operation Management

• What is Strategy?
• What is Operations Strategy?
• Operations Competitive Dimensions
• Operations Strategy Formulation Process
• What is Strategic Fit?
• Strategic Design Process
• Focused Operations Strategy
• Corporate Level Strategy
• Expansion Strategies
• Stability Strategies
• Retrenchment Strategies
• Competitive Advantage
• Strategic Choice and Strategic Alternatives
• What is Production Process?
• What is Process Technology?
• What is Process Improvement?
• Strategic Capacity Management
• Production and Logistics Strategy
• Taxonomy of Supply Chain Strategies
• Factors Considered in Supply Chain Planning
• Operational and Strategic Issues in Global Logistics
• Logistics Outsourcing Strategy
• What is Supply Chain Mapping?
• Supply Chain Process Restructuring
• Points of Differentiation
• Re-engineering Improvement in SCM
• What is Supply Chain Drivers?
• Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model
• Customer Service and Cost Trade Off
• Internal and External Performance Measures
• Linking Supply Chain and Business Performance
• Netflix’s Niche Focused Strategy
• Disney and Pixar Merger
• Process Planning at Mcdonald’s

Service Operations Management

• What is Service?
• What is Service Operations Management?
• What is Service Design?
• Service Design Process
• Service Delivery
• What is Service Quality?
• Gap Model of Service Quality
• Juran Trilogy
• Service Performance Measurement
• Service Decoupling
• IT Service Operation
• Service Operations Management in Different Sector

Procurement Management

• What is Procurement Management?
• Procurement Negotiation
• Types of Requisition
• RFX in Procurement
• What is Purchasing Cycle?
• Vendor Managed Inventory
• Internal Conflict During Purchasing Operation
• Spend Analysis in Procurement
• Sourcing in Procurement
• Supplier Evaluation and Selection in Procurement
• Blacklisting of Suppliers in Procurement
• Total Cost of Ownership in Procurement
• Incoterms in Procurement
• Documents Used in International Procurement
• Transportation and Logistics Strategy
• What is Capital Equipment?
• Procurement Process of Capital Equipment
• Acquisition of Technology in Procurement
• What is E-Procurement?
• E-marketplace and Online Catalogues
• Fixed Price and Cost Reimbursement Contracts
• Contract Cancellation in Procurement
• Ethics in Procurement
• Legal Aspects of Procurement
• Global Sourcing in Procurement
• Intermediaries and Countertrade in Procurement

Strategic Management

• What is Strategic Management?
• What is Value Chain Analysis?
• Mission Statement
• Business Level Strategy
• What is SWOT Analysis?
• What is Competitive Advantage?
• What is Vision?
• What is Ansoff Matrix?
• Prahalad and Gary Hammel
• Strategic Management In Global Environment
• Competitor Analysis Framework
• Competitive Rivalry Analysis
• Competitive Dynamics
• What is Competitive Rivalry?
• Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy
• What is PESTLE Analysis?
• Fragmentation and Consolidation Of Industries
• What is Technology Life Cycle?
• What is Diversification Strategy?
• What is Corporate Restructuring Strategy?
• Resources and Capabilities of Organization
• Role of Leaders In Functional-Level Strategic Management
• Functional Structure In Functional Level Strategy Formulation
• Information And Control System
• What is Strategy Gap Analysis?
• Issues In Strategy Implementation
• Matrix Organizational Structure
• What is Strategic Management Process?

Supply Chain

• What is Supply Chain Management?
• Supply Chain Planning and Measuring Strategy Performance
• What is Warehousing?
• What is Packaging?
• What is Inventory Management?
• What is Material Handling?
• What is Order Picking?
• Receiving and Dispatch, Processes
• What is Warehouse Design?
• What is Warehousing Costs?

You Might Also Like

What is descriptive research types, features, cross-sectional and longitudinal research, what is measure of dispersion, what is scaling techniques types, classifications, techniques, what is causal research advantages, disadvantages, how to perform, what is research problem components, identifying, formulating,, research process | types, what is literature review importance, functions, process,, what is measurement scales, types, criteria and developing measurement tools, what is research design types, leave a reply cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

World's Best Online Courses at One Place

We’ve spent the time in finding, so you can spend your time in learning

Digital Marketing

Personal Growth

Development

• Scientific Methods

What is Hypothesis?

We have heard of many hypotheses which have led to great inventions in science. Assumptions that are made on the basis of some evidence are known as hypotheses. In this article, let us learn in detail about the hypothesis and the type of hypothesis with examples.

A hypothesis is an assumption that is made based on some evidence. This is the initial point of any investigation that translates the research questions into predictions. It includes components like variables, population and the relation between the variables. A research hypothesis is a hypothesis that is used to test the relationship between two or more variables.

Characteristics of Hypothesis

Following are the characteristics of the hypothesis:

• The hypothesis should be clear and precise to consider it to be reliable.
• If the hypothesis is a relational hypothesis, then it should be stating the relationship between variables.
• The hypothesis must be specific and should have scope for conducting more tests.
• The way of explanation of the hypothesis must be very simple and it should also be understood that the simplicity of the hypothesis is not related to its significance.

Sources of Hypothesis

Following are the sources of hypothesis:

• The resemblance between the phenomenon.
• Observations from past studies, present-day experiences and from the competitors.
• Scientific theories.
• General patterns that influence the thinking process of people.

Types of Hypothesis

There are six forms of hypothesis and they are:

• Simple hypothesis
• Complex hypothesis
• Directional hypothesis
• Non-directional hypothesis
• Null hypothesis
• Associative and casual hypothesis

Simple Hypothesis

It shows a relationship between one dependent variable and a single independent variable. For example – If you eat more vegetables, you will lose weight faster. Here, eating more vegetables is an independent variable, while losing weight is the dependent variable.

Complex Hypothesis

It shows the relationship between two or more dependent variables and two or more independent variables. Eating more vegetables and fruits leads to weight loss, glowing skin, and reduces the risk of many diseases such as heart disease.

Directional Hypothesis

It shows how a researcher is intellectual and committed to a particular outcome. The relationship between the variables can also predict its nature. For example- children aged four years eating proper food over a five-year period are having higher IQ levels than children not having a proper meal. This shows the effect and direction of the effect.

Non-directional Hypothesis

It is used when there is no theory involved. It is a statement that a relationship exists between two variables, without predicting the exact nature (direction) of the relationship.

Null Hypothesis

It provides a statement which is contrary to the hypothesis. It’s a negative statement, and there is no relationship between independent and dependent variables. The symbol is denoted by “H O ”.

Associative and Causal Hypothesis

Associative hypothesis occurs when there is a change in one variable resulting in a change in the other variable. Whereas, the causal hypothesis proposes a cause and effect interaction between two or more variables.

Examples of Hypothesis

Following are the examples of hypotheses based on their types:

• Consumption of sugary drinks every day leads to obesity is an example of a simple hypothesis.
• All lilies have the same number of petals is an example of a null hypothesis.
• If a person gets 7 hours of sleep, then he will feel less fatigue than if he sleeps less. It is an example of a directional hypothesis.

Functions of Hypothesis

Following are the functions performed by the hypothesis:

• Hypothesis helps in making an observation and experiments possible.
• It becomes the start point for the investigation.
• Hypothesis helps in verifying the observations.
• It helps in directing the inquiries in the right direction.

How will Hypothesis help in the Scientific Method?

Researchers use hypotheses to put down their thoughts directing how the experiment would take place. Following are the steps that are involved in the scientific method:

• Formation of question
• Doing background research
• Creation of hypothesis
• Designing an experiment
• Collection of data
• Result analysis
• Summarizing the experiment
• Communicating the results

Frequently Asked Questions – FAQs

What is hypothesis.

A hypothesis is an assumption made based on some evidence.

Give an example of simple hypothesis?

What are the types of hypothesis.

Types of hypothesis are:

• Associative and Casual hypothesis

State true or false: Hypothesis is the initial point of any investigation that translates the research questions into a prediction.

Define complex hypothesis..

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

Put your understanding of this concept to test by answering a few MCQs. Click ‘Start Quiz’ to begin!

Select the correct answer and click on the “Finish” button Check your score and answers at the end of the quiz

Visit BYJU’S for all Physics related queries and study materials

Your result is as below

Request OTP on Voice Call

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post My Comment

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

This is the Difference Between a Hypothesis and a Theory

What to Know A hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been done. It is formed so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. A theory is a principle formed to explain the things already shown in data. Because of the rigors of experiment and control, it is much more likely that a theory will be true than a hypothesis.

As anyone who has worked in a laboratory or out in the field can tell you, science is about process: that of observing, making inferences about those observations, and then performing tests to see if the truth value of those inferences holds up. The scientific method is designed to be a rigorous procedure for acquiring knowledge about the world around us.

In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

Toward that end, science employs a particular vocabulary for describing how ideas are proposed, tested, and supported or disproven. And that's where we see the difference between a hypothesis and a theory .

A hypothesis is an assumption, something proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.

In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a hypothesis.

What is a Hypothesis?

A hypothesis is usually tentative, an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.

When a character which has been lost in a breed, reappears after a great number of generations, the most probable hypothesis is, not that the offspring suddenly takes after an ancestor some hundred generations distant, but that in each successive generation there has been a tendency to reproduce the character in question, which at last, under unknown favourable conditions, gains an ascendancy. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species , 1859 According to one widely reported hypothesis , cell-phone transmissions were disrupting the bees' navigational abilities. (Few experts took the cell-phone conjecture seriously; as one scientist said to me, "If that were the case, Dave Hackenberg's hives would have been dead a long time ago.") Elizabeth Kolbert, The New Yorker , 6 Aug. 2007

What is a Theory?

A theory , in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data. It is used in the names of a number of principles accepted in the scientific community, such as the Big Bang Theory . Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, its likelihood as truth is much higher than that of a hypothesis.

It is evident, on our theory , that coasts merely fringed by reefs cannot have subsided to any perceptible amount; and therefore they must, since the growth of their corals, either have remained stationary or have been upheaved. Now, it is remarkable how generally it can be shown, by the presence of upraised organic remains, that the fringed islands have been elevated: and so far, this is indirect evidence in favour of our theory . Charles Darwin, The Voyage of the Beagle , 1839 An example of a fundamental principle in physics, first proposed by Galileo in 1632 and extended by Einstein in 1905, is the following: All observers traveling at constant velocity relative to one another, should witness identical laws of nature. From this principle, Einstein derived his theory of special relativity. Alan Lightman, Harper's , December 2011

Non-Scientific Use

In non-scientific use, however, hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably to mean simply an idea, speculation, or hunch (though theory is more common in this regard):

The theory of the teacher with all these immigrant kids was that if you spoke English loudly enough they would eventually understand. E. L. Doctorow, Loon Lake , 1979 Chicago is famous for asking questions for which there can be no boilerplate answers. Example: given the probability that the federal tax code, nondairy creamer, Dennis Rodman and the art of mime all came from outer space, name something else that has extraterrestrial origins and defend your hypothesis . John McCormick, Newsweek , 5 Apr. 1999 In his mind's eye, Miller saw his case suddenly taking form: Richard Bailey had Helen Brach killed because she was threatening to sue him over the horses she had purchased. It was, he realized, only a theory , but it was one he felt certain he could, in time, prove. Full of urgency, a man with a mission now that he had a hypothesis to guide him, he issued new orders to his troops: Find out everything you can about Richard Bailey and his crowd. Howard Blum, Vanity Fair , January 1995

And sometimes one term is used as a genus, or a means for defining the other:

Laplace's popular version of his astronomy, the Système du monde , was famous for introducing what came to be known as the nebular hypothesis , the theory that the solar system was formed by the condensation, through gradual cooling, of the gaseous atmosphere (the nebulae) surrounding the sun. Louis Menand, The Metaphysical Club , 2001 Researchers use this information to support the gateway drug theory — the hypothesis that using one intoxicating substance leads to future use of another. Jordy Byrd, The Pacific Northwest Inlander , 6 May 2015 Fox, the business and economics columnist for Time magazine, tells the story of the professors who enabled those abuses under the banner of the financial theory known as the efficient market hypothesis . Paul Krugman, The New York Times Book Review , 9 Aug. 2009

Incorrect Interpretations of "Theory"

Since this casual use does away with the distinctions upheld by the scientific community, hypothesis and theory are prone to being wrongly interpreted even when they are encountered in scientific contexts—or at least, contexts that allude to scientific study without making the critical distinction that scientists employ when weighing hypotheses and theories.

The most common occurrence is when theory is interpreted—and sometimes even gleefully seized upon—to mean something having less truth value than other scientific principles. (The word law applies to principles so firmly established that they are almost never questioned, such as the law of gravity.)

This mistake is one of projection: since we use theory in general use to mean something lightly speculated, then it's implied that scientists must be talking about the same level of uncertainty when they use theory to refer to their well-tested and reasoned principles.

The distinction has come to the forefront particularly on occasions when the content of science curricula in schools has been challenged—notably, when a school board in Georgia put stickers on textbooks stating that evolution was "a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." As Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, has said , a theory "doesn’t mean a hunch or a guess. A theory is a system of explanations that ties together a whole bunch of facts. It not only explains those facts, but predicts what you ought to find from other observations and experiments.”

While theories are never completely infallible, they form the basis of scientific reasoning because, as Miller said "to the best of our ability, we’ve tested them, and they’ve held up."

More Differences Explained

• Epidemic vs. Pandemic
• Diagnosis vs. Prognosis
• Treatment vs. Cure

Word of the Day

Mise-en-scène.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Games & Quizzes

Commonly Confused

'canceled' or 'cancelled', 'virus' vs. 'bacteria', your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, is it 'jail' or 'prison', 'deduction' vs. 'induction' vs. 'abduction', grammar & usage, every letter is silent, sometimes: a-z list of examples, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), the difference between 'i.e.' and 'e.g.', plural and possessive names: a guide, 31 useful rhetorical devices, pilfer: how to play and win, 8 words with fascinating histories, flower etymologies for your spring garden, 8 words for lesser-known musical instruments, it's a scorcher words for the summer heat.

Value Hypothesis Fundamentals: A Complete Guide

Last updated on Fri Aug 23 2024

Imagine spending months or even years developing a new feature only to find out it doesn’t resonate with your users, argh! This kind of situation could be any worst Product manager’s nightmare.

There's a way to fix this problem called the Value Hypothesis . This idea helps builders to validate whether the ideas they’re working on are worth pursuing and useful to the people they want to sell to.

This guide will teach you what you need to know about Value Hypothesis and a step-by-step process on how to create a strong one. At the end of this post, you’ll learn how to create a product that satisfies your users.

Are you ready? Let’s get to it!

How a Value Hypothesis Helps Product Managers

Scrutinizing this hypothesis helps you as a developer to come up with a product that your customers like and love to use.

Product managers use the Value Hypothesis as a north star, ensuring focus on client needs and avoiding wasted resources. For more on this, read about the product management process .

Definition and Scope of Value Hypothesis

Let's get into the step-by-step process, but first, we need to understand the basics of the Value Hypothesis:

What Is a Value Hypothesis?

A Value Hypothesis is like a smart guess you can test to see if your product truly solves a problem for your customers. It’s your way of predicting how well your product will address a particular issue for the people you’re trying to help.

You need to know what a Value Hypothesis is, what it covers, and its key parts before you use it. To learn more about finding out what customers need, take a look at our guide on discovering features .

The Value Hypothesis does more than just help with the initial launch, it guides the whole development process. This keeps teams focused on what their users care about helping them choose features that their audience will like.

Critical Components of a Value Hypothesis

A strong Value Hypothesis rests on three key components:

Value Proposition: The Value Proposition spells out the main advantage your product gives to customers. It explains the "what" and "why" of your product showing how it eases a particular pain point.

This proposition targets a specific group of consumers. To learn more, check out our guide on roadmapping .

Customer Segmentation: Knowing and grasping your target audience is essential. This involves studying their demographics, needs, behaviors, and problems. By dividing your market, you can shape your value proposition to address the unique needs of each group.

Customer feedback surveys can prove priceless in this process. Find out more about this in our customer feedback surveys guide.

Problem Statement : The Problem Statement defines the exact issue your product aims to fix. It should zero in on a real fixable pain point your target users face. For hands-on applications, see our product launch communication plan .

Here are some key questions to guide you:

What are the primary challenges and obstacles faced by your target users?

What existing solutions are available, and where do they fall short?

What unmet needs or desires does your target audience have?

For a structured approach to prioritizing features based on customer needs, consider using a feature prioritization matrix .

Crafting a Strong Value Hypothesis

Now that we've covered the basics, let's look at how to build a convincing Value Hypothesis. Here's a two-step method, along with value hypothesis templates, to point you in the right direction:

1. Research and Analysis

To start with, you need to carry out market research. By carrying out proper market research, you will have an understanding of existing solutions and identify areas in which customers' needs are yet to be met. This is integral to effective idea tracking .

Next, use customer interviews, surveys, and support data to understand your target audience's problems and what they want. Check out our list of tools for getting customer feedback to help with this.

2. Finding Out What Customers Need

Once you've completed your research, it's crucial to identify your customers' needs. By merging insights from market research with direct user feedback, you can pinpoint the key requirements of your customers.

Here are some key questions to think about:

What are the most significant challenges that your target users encounter daily?

Which current solutions are available to them, and how do these solutions fail to fully address their needs?

What specific pain points are your target users struggling with that aren't being resolved?

Are there any gaps or shortcomings in the existing products or services that your customers use?

What unfulfilled needs or desires does your target audience express that aren't currently met by the market?

To prioritize features based on customer needs in a structured way, think about using a feature prioritization matrix .

Validating the Value Hypothesis

Once you've created your Value Hypothesis with a template, you need to check if it holds up. Here's how you can do this:

MVP Testing

Build a minimum viable product (MVP)—a basic version of your product with essential functions. This lets you test your value proposition with actual users and get feedback without spending too much. To achieve the best outcomes, look into the best practices for customer feedback software .

Prototyping

Build mock-ups to show your product idea. Use these mock-ups to get user input on the user experience and overall value offer.

Metrics for Evaluation

After you've gathered data about your hypothesis, it's time to examine it. Here are some metrics you can use:

User Engagement : Monitor stats like time on the platform, feature use, and return visits to see how much users interact with your MVP or mock-up.

Conversion Rates : Check conversion rates for key actions like sign-ups, buys, or feature adoption. These numbers help you judge if your value offer clicks with users. To learn more, read our article on SaaS growth benchmarks .

Iterative Improvement of Value Hypothesis

The Value Hypothesis framework shines because you can keep making it better. Here's how to fine-tune your hypothesis:

Set up an ongoing system to gather user data as you develop your product.

Look at what users say to spot areas that need work then update your value proposition based on what you learn.

Read about managing product updates to keep your hypotheses current.

Adaptation to Market Changes

The market keeps changing, and your Value Hypothesis should too. Stay up to date on what's happening in your industry and watch how users' habits change. Tweak your value proposition to stay useful and ahead of the competition.

Here are some ways to keep your Value Hypothesis fresh:

Do market research often to keep up with what's happening in your industry and what your competitors are up to.

Keep an eye on what users are saying to spot new problems or things they need but don't have yet.

Try out different value statements and features to see which ones your audience likes best.

To keep your guesses up-to-date, check out our guide on handling product changes .

Common Mistakes to Avoid

While the Value Hypothesis approach is powerful, it's key to steer clear of these common traps:

Avoid Confirmation Bias : People tend to focus on data that backs up their initial guesses. But it's key to look at feedback that goes against your ideas and stay open to different views.

Watch out for Shiny Object Syndrome : Don't let the newest fads sway you unless they solve a main customer problem. Your value proposition should fix actual issues for your users.

Don't Cling to Your First Hypothesis : As the market changes, your value proposition should too. Be ready to shift your hypothesis when new evidence and user feedback comes in.

Don't Mix Up Busywork with Real Progress : Getting user feedback is key, but making sense of it brings real value. Look at the data to find useful insights that can shape your product. To learn more about this, check out our guide on handling customer feedback .

Value Hypothesis: Action Points

To build a product that succeeds, you need to know your target users inside out and understand how you help them. The Value Hypothesis framework gives you a step-by-step way to do this.

If you follow the steps in this guide, you can create a strong value proposition, check if it works, and keep improving it to ensure your product stays useful and important to your customers.

Keep in mind, a good Value Hypothesis changes as your product and market change. When you use data and put customers first, you're on the right track to create a product that works.

Want to put the Value Hypothesis framework into action? Check out our top templates for creating product roadmaps to streamline your process. Think about using featureOS to manage customer feedback. This tool makes it easier to collect, examine, and put user feedback to work.

Announcements

Privacy Policy

Terms of use

Competitor Comparisons

Canny vs Frill

Beamer vs Frill

Hello Next vs Frill

Our Roadmap

© 2024 Frill – Independent & Bootstrapped.

Things you buy through our links may earn Vox Media a commission.

The Asteroid-in-Spring Hypothesis

Two paleontologists have turned on each other, each claiming to have found new evidence about the worst day on earth..

This article was featured in One Great Story , New York ’s reading recommendation newsletter. Sign up here to get it nightly.

In August 2017, a bubbly Dutch pink-haired 28-year-old graduate student flew from Amsterdam to South Dakota, where empty fields rolled wide before her, towns of a hundred people and a single church. “You a celebrity or somethin’?” a man had said last time she was in the area, picking up a can of Monster at a truck stop. “Not to my knowledge,” she said. Melanie During had never been to New York, or Los Angeles, or Chicago, but she was already familiar with this particular landscape, dense with buried bone.

Also in town was a 70-year-old Dutch paleontologist named Jan Smit, a man she got to know the day she dissected an ostrich in his kitchen. With him was a stranger, a 35-year-old American graduate student. The three of them drove to what During casually calls “a triceratops mass grave,” at which point, to her surprise, Smit left.

For the next few days, it would be the two students and whatever the ground gave up. Her companion drove a 4Runner under the arc of a giant sky feathered with clouds, through panoramic prairie, fields of buffalo, mud buttes rising against the horizon. He pulled off a gravel road and right onto a ranch.

They got out of the truck. With each step, dry grass crunched under their feet and grasshoppers sprang in all directions. Through the knee-high thistle, it was hard to judge where each footfall would land. The grass stopped, and the earth dipped into a gnarled mass of rock and clay. The land was strange, full of odd textures, scaly in spots, darkly reptilian, and blanched out in others. He was proud of the place. While the site was not technically his property, it was spiritually his, shaped and carved and loved by him, and During was there with his permission. He called it Tanis, so everyone else did too.

Robert DePalma is solid and dark and affable and shares with During a certain kind of rough history, but he is, according to Smit, During’s foil. When During looks at a bone, she sees a chemical matrix waiting to be investigated. She sees an opportunity to extract information. When DePalma looks at a bone, he sees a narrative. He tells stories about the bones, some of them true.

“He is secretive,” says Smit. “Melanie cannot be more the opposite. She’s in all the social media. She makes herself known.” One way that she makes herself known is by posting pictures of herself cradling a model of a baby T. rex like a prehistoric Pietà (“sweet baby Jesus Rex,” she calls it on Instagram) or riding a giant reconstructed dinosaur like a cowboy atop a horse. “I have had a great deal of criticism directed at my work,” she once said, “which was actually criticism of my flamboyant personality, my big mouth.”

During would have only a handful of days at Tanis, but they were days unlike any she had seen before. On a normal dig, it is typical to find nothing of note for long stretches. “You pee in the bushes,” she says, “you get chased by snakes, you find no fossils.” Here, she would brush away clay and come upon a new texture and color — a precious fossil fish. The first sighting gave her goose bumps. Blowing on the fossil would have been too violent an approach; she might waft away the very thing she sought. She would begin to gently carve out sediment around the fossil, but there, astonishingly, would be another one. “A luxury problem,” she calls it, “stumbling on all these other fishes in the way.”

The exact location of the site remains secret, vulnerable as it is to poachers and rival paleontologists. Almost no one knew about the place in 2017, but a few years later there would be magazine features, multiple documentaries, conference presentations and journal papers. David Attenborough, science’s most beloved narrator, would tell his audience of a “truly extraordinary dig site” against a backdrop of an asteroid hurtling through space. “No one has ever found the fossil of a dinosaur that they know for certain died as a result of the impact,” Attenborough would say. “This place might hold evidence of one of the most dramatic events in all the four-and-a-half-billion-year history of our planet.” The New Yorker would publish a feature centering DePalma as a controversial young scientist with a major discovery.

During and DePalma both believed the fish at Tanis died in a violent flood less than an hour after an asteroid hit the Earth, killing off the non-avian dinosaurs. This is why they found fish pointing in both directions, their bodies broken and speared with debris; like a pool in an earthquake, the river rocked back and forth, throwing sea life upward to land wherever it might fall and be entombed in layers of mud. “A car crash frozen in place,” as During puts it, a freeze-frame from 66 million years back. They would both converge on the same mystery, tunneling toward greater precision: In what season had the asteroid struck?

DePalma had set up two tents for them off-site, close to town, where they would sleep and have downtime, though downtime is not something During has ever really appreciated (“I don’t sit down and watch things” is her take on TV). All day long, in temperatures inching toward 100, they crouched over the delicate petrified remains of sturgeon and paddlefish, trying to position their feet such that they could draw remnants from sediment without crushing something that had survived 66 million years intact. They smacked at biting flies. They dug through hot days and slept in tents that failed to keep out the rain.

“Personality-wise, and this is really not about personalities … I mean, I don’t want to make it about personalities,” DePalma told me years later, resisting further specificity. “Personality-wise, she wasn’t necessarily someone I would normally be friends with.”

“I don’t want to judge people for how they come across on a personal level,” During told me, declining to elaborate, “but there were moments where I thought, It would’ve been very helpful if I could have just had a word with someone else. ”

None of what follows will make sense absent a single social fact: The field of paleontology is mean. It has always been mean. It is, in the words of Uppsala University professor Per Ahlberg, “a honeypot of narcissists.” It is “a snake pit of personality disorders.” “An especially nasty area of academia,” the Field Museum’s Jingmai O’Connor calls it. Among the subfields, nastiness correlates with the size and carnivorousness of the creature under study, the comity possible among those who study ammonites being unlikely among those who study T. rex. A “social experimenter with a penchant for sadism” is how his biographer describes Sir Richard Owen, the man who coined the term dinosaur. The first two famous American paleontologists, the prickly academic Othniel Marsh and the gentleman naturalist Edward Cope, savaged each other in print, hired spies and counterspies, destroyed fossils, and generally worked harder to humiliate each other than to describe the boxes and boxes and boxes of remains they pulled from the extraordinarily rich fossil beds of the American West.

It would take years for the ten days During and DePalma spent together to spin into a scandal that consumed both of them. She would accuse him of research misconduct and fabricating data. He would accuse her of plagiarism and defamation. He would lose weight and have flashbacks to childhood bullies; stress would pose a risk to her first pregnancy. Disaster struck one day in the spring, they both decided in the end, and transformed everything that came after.

We don’t know how to read history in water; we know how to read it in bone. The West, in particular a 500-kilometer stretch of rock known as the Hell Creek Formation, is an ideal place to preserve fossils because it is given to collect sediment and it is dry. A bad place would be the tropics, where a dead animal is likely to be eaten before it can be buried. A bad place would be a mountain summit, where a skeleton would be swept off on the wind. A truly terrible place would be the waterlogged nation of the Netherlands, where amid all that peat and loam and sand only a single dinosaur species has been discovered and described. It is a strange place in which to be a paleontologist, but it is where Melanie During was born in 1989, in a land unsuited to fossilization to parents unsuited to parenting.

The little home in Langedijk was not one in which scientific insights seemed likely to develop. Melanie’s father was absent, and, according to her, “a twat.” Her mother was ADHD, autistic, and, by her own description, inadequate. “I was not fit to do the job alone,” she says, “and I was alone,” though she took pride in being a child with her four children, singing and painting and presenting them with great bags of clay they could, together, manifest into shape. Melanie’s ambition stood out to her family in North Holland. “She loves the spotlight,” says her sister, a trait perhaps more befitting the United States, the country that held all the treasure and the trouble to come.

The Dutch school system makes distinctions early, and 12-year-old Melanie was placed on the least intellectual of three tracks, headed not for university but for trade school. Did Melanie want to be a plumber or a hairdresser? No one in her family had been to university. The decision to place a student on such a path is made, sometimes, with the knowledge that not all parents are capable of helping with rigorous schoolwork. In Melanie’s telling, her mother forced the older sister out of the house, sent a younger sister to live with her father, and often disappeared herself, leaving 16-year-old Melanie alone to care for an autistic 6-year-old brother. She shoplifted soap and cheese and maxi pads. She stopped speaking for a time. She went into foster care.

After school, Melanie picked tulip bulbs, delivered newspapers, cut roses, waited tables. Social life was a struggle. “She had a feeling,” according to her mother, “that people didn’t like her.” When Melanie was about 15, her history teacher was concerned about the isolated, chubby girl who seemed to have surrendered the very idea of fitting in. “I was bullied, too,” the teacher told me. In front of the class, the teacher crumpled a piece of paper into a ball and flattened it back out. This, she said, is what happens when you bully someone and then apologize. The paper is never quite right again.

Melanie told the history teacher that she would like to go to university but doubted this would be possible. The history teacher devised a complicated plan of tests and classes. Melanie followed the plan and thrived. Having had to take care of herself for much of her childhood, find a bed, find dinner, she was too independent for her foster parents and successfully petitioned to be emancipated at the age of 17.

By 2017, During was a master’s student in earth sciences at Amsterdam’s Vrije Universiteit working on her thesis. She was examining rocks from a Dutch quarry using a method called stable-isotope analysis. To her great disappointment, she could not find anything earth-shattering to share. “All I could say,” she recalls, “was it was very hot and it was very saline.”

Avoiding work, During attended a lecture by Jan Smit on the occasion of his receiving the Netherlands’ highest award for earth sciences. Smit was talking about his trip to an extraordinary new paleontological site in North Dakota. The site was called Tanis. It occurred to her that if one performed stable-isotope analysis on the bones of the fish at Tanis, one could discover something about the moment in which they had died. Maybe she could find something more to say than: It was hot and salty. She began composing an email to Smit on her phone, right there in her seat, during his talk.

Smit already knew of this teaching assistant. She was the one who had asked him whether he had a pot large enough in which to boil an ostrich after she had procured an ostrich carcass and decided to dissect it for fun. “Somebody who wants to do something like that,” says Smit, “that’s a girl I like, who’s not afraid to do the experiment, is not afraid to make her hands dirty.” Smit told DePalma he had a student familiar with stable-isotope analysis, a subject in which DePalma had no particular training, and DePalma said she could visit. During had lots of ideas and no money. All her travel-grant applications were denied. Smit lent her the money to go to North Dakota.

The knowledge that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs is knowledge recently acquired; most paleontologists working today did not grow up learning that a rock six miles wide slammed into Earth and ended T. rex. The “Alvarez Hypothesis” was published in 1980, shortly after scientists found a layer of iridium locked in rock the world over and surmised that it could only have come from space. It is called the Alvarez Hypothesis and not the Smit Hypothesis because Luis Alvarez and his son Walter got their paper out before Jan Smit. As Peter Brannen put it in his excellent The Ends of the World, “The Alvarezes published first and were immortalized. Jan Smit doesn’t have a Wikipedia page.” Smit does seem to have acquired a page since the publication of Brannen’s book; under the heading “Known For,” the page reads: ALVAREZ HYPOTHESIS.

This is not to say that the idea was readily accepted; it sounded ridiculous, bombastic, childlike in its sudden simplicity, and the Alvarezes spent the ’80s arguing against those who attributed the end of the Cretaceous to excitable Indian volcanoes. In order to support his theory about a space rock with the force of 4.5 billion atomic bombs killing off giant reptiles, Alvarez had to find a crater the size of Connecticut. He looked in Iowa. He looked in the ocean; he was pretty sure it was in the ocean. He could not find it. If you’re so sure a massive asteroid felled the dinosaurs, the volcanists asked, why can’t you find this giant gaping hole? How hard could that even be? Conferences were held and concluded, craterless.

In fact, the crater had already been found, in the Yucatán, by a gregarious, eccentric oil-seeking PEMEX geophysicist named Glen Penfield. Penfield noted anomalies in a magnetic field, charted it with paper and a pencil, found a circle the size of Connecticut, and surmised, before anyone else, that he had found the crater in question. He called Walter Alvarez, left a message, and got no response. (“A mediocre geologist,” Penfield calls him now.) He tried telling NASA and was rebuffed. He had been trying to share the news about it for a decade, but the attitude, according to Penfield, was “This kid doesn’t even have a doctorate” and it’s “not worth talking to some oil guy.” He spent a considerable amount of time, he told me, depressed that no one would hear him, not even a mediocre geologist whose reputation hinged on this very information. He named the crater Chicxulub specifically “to give the academics and NASA naysayers a challenging time pronouncing it after a decade of their dismissals.” Yucatán Crater would have been too easy for them.

It was before grass, before beans, before the 24-hour day. In film, this has been represented as a man gazing into the sky as a rock floats into his field of vision, but this is a confusion born of our inability to understand speed and scale. You would have not had a moment to turn toward the sky; as Brannen explains, the rock, six miles long, shot from the height of an airborne 747 to the ground in .3 seconds and continued onward toward the center of the Earth, 12 miles into crust. In its wake it left a vacuum that sucked in shattered and melted masses of this planet and shot them into space. The shock traveled through the oceans; tsunamis hundreds of feet tall rose skyward. Bits of earth, ejected into space, fell back through our atmosphere on fire, a rain of flame. The surface of the planet grew hot as an oven set to broil. T. rex , triceratops: These were not creatures designed to hide. A layer of iridium settled over the globe, to be buried by millions of years of sediment and discovered by Jan Smit 66 million years and a few weeks too late. In the same layer, known as the K-Pg Boundary, geologists would find tektites — bits of earth that shot into space when the asteroid hit, turned glassy with the heat of the atmosphere, and fell back to the surface. Smit called the smallest ones spherules. That DePalma claims to have found spherules all over Tanis is some of the strongest evidence for the site being a historical record of impact. Spherules appear in sediment like gnarled bits of clay. They look sometimes like BBs; when they’ve fused together, they look like Nerds.

DePalma did not find Tanis. The site was found on a piece of private property by two prospectors who had a modest business bringing fossil enthusiasts to the Dakotas. A good day for Steve Nicklas or Rob Sula, who paid ranchers for access to the site, would mean coming upon a fish tooth or a fragment of fish spine. Most fossil finds are a pile of puzzle pieces. On a single day at the ranch in 2008, they came upon a fragment of a sturgeon skull, brushed off some sediment, and found an entire articulated sturgeon. “We knew it was important right then,” says Sula. “Three-dimensional. There were scales on this thing. It was obviously super-gentle preservation.” Nicklas and Sula began to dig it out with a scalpel. “Once we uncovered the first fish,” he says, “there was another one.” There were, in fact, dozens and dozens of 66-million-year-old fish, “stacked up like cordwood, multiple matrices with multiple densities.” It was difficult, thrilling work. “The single fully articulated sturgeon was the first time I’d ever seen anything like that,” says Sula, “let alone stacks of them!”

At least this much is indisputable: Nicklas and Sula located a Lagerstätte : a site of extraordinary preservation. They sent some fish to the Field Museum and called in an academic to assess what they had found. Nicklas called his friend, a dinosaur prospector named Ron Frithiof. Nicklas and Frithiof had something in common: They liked underdogs and distrusted institutions. Frithiof, in particular, feels “most academics are arrogant assholes.” But he knew one he liked, an academic who seemed like “a regular person.” His name was Robert DePalma, and he was just a kid, really — a graduate student in paleontology at the University of Kansas.

In Nicklas and Sula’s view, they had done DePalma a favor, and they continued to share the site with him for seven years. They were thus shocked, in 2019, to find themselves described in his celebratory New Yorker feature as private collectors who thought the site was “a bust” and so cluelessly passed it on to DePalma, who deemed them irresponsible for failing to properly excavate a dinosaur’s hip bone.

“That put me in a super-dark place,” Sula told me. “It was astounding how in a couple of sentences, they managed to marginalize us and omit us from history.”

Sula was upset enough to call The New Yorker and complain. Soon after that, a woman who helped run the ranch told Sula and Nicklas they weren’t welcome back; the family felt they weren’t following rules regarding fire safety. Sula was devastated. “It was a personal thing,” he says. “I loved that place. It was beautiful, and it was part of who I was.”

He still loves the place, but he’s not convinced it’s a record of the day the dinosaurs died. He thinks it might be what he always thought it was, a “fish site” with spectacular preservation. A lot of people do.

It remains a matter of dispute when and where and with what antecedent Melanie During came up with the idea for determining the season the asteroid killed the dinosaurs. But the idea was this: Sturgeon bones grow like tree rings, and the bone cells grow thickest in summer, when food is most plentiful. A slice of bone, then, should reveal a succession of seasons. Months of plenty would be thicker, as the fish grew fat on plankton. The outermost bone, the last stage of bone growth before the asteroid, should reveal the season of death.

During had a single year to finish her master’s thesis after her 2017 visit to Tanis, and she did not have the money to extend the time. If she did not finish the thesis, she would not graduate and would not be able to apply to Ph.D. programs. “When people tell you ‘Relax,’ I’m like, What’s that?  ” she told me. “What do you mean? Do I sit down and do nothing?”

She was not an expert in fossil fish, or histology, or the Late Cretaceous; she had learned isotope-analysis methodology only the previous year from her adviser, Jeroen van der Lubbe. She was a few years out of undergrad — not even a doctoral student. The demise of the non-avian dinosaurs is perhaps the best-known division in all of paleontology, a historical moment that reaches beyond the classroom into childhood nurseries. It is constituent of the way our culture structures the history of the universe, basic to the way we have come to categorize time itself. For a Dutch 20-something to believe she would contribute new information regarding this moment in a master’s thesis was potentially delusional, but During felt the fish from Tanis contained long-hidden knowledge the right methods might evoke.

Her first attempt to measure the growth lines was a failure, four months lost on a faulty technique. “It was a waste of my time to continue,” she says. “I don’t cry over spilled milk.” She had to beg and wheedle for equipment; she was expert in very little but unafraid to ask for help. In order to understand the chemical composition of her samples, she needed to understand what was the original bone and what was a chemical artifact of the process of fossilization. To do that required a Micro XRF spectrometer, which she did not have, but a friend in Brussels had access to one; she drove to Brussels, and there, for the first time, she clearly saw the growth lines in slices of bone.

During’s naïveté would be, over and over, her strength. She intended to measure the isotopic ratio between two molecules at different points in the growth lines. In a university building that still stands only because there is a nuclear reactor in the basement, in a room with a window taped against the wind, During positioned and repositioned a tiny slice of fish bone in a micromill. She came into the little room before dawn and left when it was dark. “You’re still here,” the lab manager, Suzan Warmerdam-Verdegaal, would say on her way out of the building. The mill produced specks of fossil, smaller than a grain of sand. One day, after she had labored for many hours to collect a few samples, a colleague opened the door. The samples wafted into the room, lost to her. That day, she did cry.

A bit of luck: At a dinner for During’s partner on the occasion of his doctoral defense, another scientist with connections to the European Synchrotron Facility offered her some time there — a valuable and vanishingly rare opportunity for a young academic. She told DePalma, and he mailed her a fish skull. She brought the skull to an 844-meter tunnel for speeding electrons, and shot through it beams of light a million times brighter than the sun. The scan revealed the interior and inside the gills, incredibly, little bits of trapped clay: spherules that had traveled from the Yucatán to space and fallen back to Earth to be inhaled by a doomed paddlefish.

Back in Amsterdam, During worked at the mill, but the bits of precious dust failed to accumulate in the way she had hoped. It was April; she was a student only until late August. She didn’t have money to continue her studies. It was Warmerdam-Verdegaal, the lab manager, who devised a solution. Even with very few samples, the isotopic analysis could be made to work with a cold trap, a piece of equipment the lab had but that no one in the lab had ever used for this purpose. She called During one day in May. “We have results to the end,” she said. During screamed and biked to the lab. After days of plotting graphs, she had it: These fish, the isotopic results confirmed, had died in spring.

She defended her master’s thesis in a dress she had sewn herself, in a print with triceratops and ankylosauruses marching across palm trees. It was late August, and the department was mostly empty; her adviser walked through the corridor pulling people into her defense so she would have someone to defend to. She had not only found seasonality but helped develop a new way to combine osteohistology and isotopic dating. Twelve years earlier, she had been a kid in foster care.

The thesis won the Dutch Escher Prize for the most outstanding master’s thesis in earth sciences. She sent it to DePalma and his co-authors, asking that they keep quiet because she planned on publishing the work later, with DePalma as a co-author, since he controlled the site and provided the fish.

Not long after, Smit received a lengthy email from DePalma. “I was naturally surprised to see that Melanie’s entire thesis, even the title, apparently became refocused specifically on determining the time of year,” he wrote. “There are serious ethical concerns here.” He claimed that the subject and methods had been “extracted directly” from the ongoing work of his research team. The idea for using histology to determine time of year, he said, originated with his colleague Gregory Erickson; she “explored a concept, technique, and research goals that were already being written up by us.” He wrote in a tone of deep agitation unsuccessfully masked by politesse. “I hope all of this gets sorted out in the best way possible” he concluded, “and I now have some valuable insight into what it is like to work with Melanie.”

Smit related the email to During, suggesting that it was all a misunderstanding soon to be resolved. But During was devastated. Now, she would never publish a paper on her work because the results would be contested, the path to a Ph.D. less clear. Now, someone else, someone equally ambitious and working against her, had the method she and her advisers had developed. I sent him, she thought, a fucking cookbook.

I get these all the time from crazy people,” says Kirk Johnson, the director of the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. “People are always saying, ‘I discovered the Ark of the Covenant.’” He received such an email in 2012 from Robert DePalma when DePalma was a 30-year-old graduate student. “It was a very weird kind of secretive, extraordinarily hyperbolic email that said, ‘Look, I’ve made the most amazing discovery in the history of the planet. I found all this stuff that’ll change the way we view science in the world.’” This guy’s nuts, Johnson thought, and did not respond. The next time he came across DePalma was at a gathering of paleontologists and ranchers in Montana in 2016. DePalma clicked through pictures of himself and his old-style tent. He was writing by hand, on a table strewn with a pipe and a porcelain teacup. “With a lantern!” Johnson recalls. “Nobody uses a lantern!” DePalma described what he had found in Hell Creek. “He said, ‘I actually found a complete gecko in amber.’” In the published literature to date, no one has ever found a large section of amber in Hell Creek; one tends to find tiny pieces and in them microfossils. “To find an entire gecko in amber is, like, the holy grail,” says Johnson. This would have been a major, history-making discovery. “And he flashes this fuzzy image up on the screen and then takes it off, and then he leaves. And we’re all like, What the fuck was that?  ”

DePalma says he showed crisp slides of a partial gecko in a peanut-size nub of amber (and provided clear slides to New York ) but does not dispute the lantern. Cosplay is a word that comes up often in conversations about him; he favors an impractical leather hat, suspenders, dramatic looks into the distance. He digs with a pick possibly owned by an associate of Othniel Marsh, the original rapacious paleontologist, though he prefers the Quaker Cope. If many people, in discussing Robert DePalma’s sartorial choices, will feel the need to explain that Indiana Jones was not even a paleontologist (he was an archaeologist), it is worth noting that the field of paleontology has always had an element of costume.

While a grad student at the University of Kansas, DePalma led a research team that unearthed what he called Dakota-raptor, a 17-foot flightless winged carnivore he described to The Guardian as “the Ferrari of competitors” and “the most lethal animal you can possibly imagine into the paleoecology of that time period.” In the pictures he provided to the paper he wears a suit vest and holds a shovel like a 19th-century showman. Pretty much as soon as DePalma unveiled it, Dakotaraptor was controversial. Other researchers pointed out that the bones he had assembled contained a turtle shell. Such mistakes are easy to make; Marsh made fun of Cope mercilessly and repeatedly for attaching a plesiosaur’s skull to the end of its tail. DePalma, always sensitive to criticism, was attacked online for his possibly chimerical discovery. This was part of the reason Frithiof decided to give DePalma the tip about the “fish site.” He thought DePalma had been badly treated. He thought the kid deserved a break.

In the fall of 2016, DePalma publicly announced, at the annual Geological Society of America meeting, that he had found a mass grave full of spherules. The site had been created, he said, from a giant, deadly flood minutes to hours after the asteroid hit. It was the scene of our greatest natural disaster, hidden from us until now. Audible gasps rose from the crowd.

“I was incredulous,” says Johnson, who has been studying Hell Creek for decades, discovered in 1987 the first K-Pg Boundary site in North Dakota, wrote a book about Hell Creek, found a post-asteroid boundary layer with spherules fewer than two miles from Tanis, and is generally the leading expert on the geology and paleobiology of the region. After the conference, Johnson continued to hear of claims DePalma was making. “He proceeded to list a bunch of things that were outrageous. Like, ‘I found an egg of a pterosaur; I found dinosaur feathers.’”

On a trip to Hell Creek in 2016, when DePalma had the lease on Tanis but had not yet made his dramatic claims about it, Johnson and fellow paleontologist Tyler Lyson were engaged in a project to map the K-Pg Boundary along the entirety of Hell Creek. “I’ve been thinking about this sort of stuff basically my whole life,” says Lyson, a curator at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science who grew up fewer than 20 miles from Tanis. They ran into Sula and Nicklas, who invited them to check out the “fish site.” Lyson and Johnson measured its elevation. After the GSA talk, Lyson went back to his notes. “And I’m like, Dang, it’s much, much lower than you would expect. ” At first glance, at least, one would expect a site at that elevation would be older than 66 million years.

Even before his announcement at the GSA, DePalma began to bring journalists and scientists to Tanis. As a student working toward his Ph.D., DePalma contacted none other than Walter Alvarez, the man most associated with the asteroid itself. Alvarez visited the site, was convinced, and became a supporter. DePalma also contacted the novelist Douglas Preston, who visited the site in 2013 and wrote the article that would eventually appear in The New Yorker. Preston’s account is full of finds as shocking and world-shattering as the gecko in amber: a fossil feather, a dinosaur egg, and the remains of a mammal inside the very place it would have hid during the impact.

“Is that a burrow?” Preston asks in the piece.

“You’re darn right it is,” says DePalma.

Paleontologists were skeptical at the time, but their quotes to the media were measured: Let’s wait and see what he publishes. They would judge the findings by the peer-reviewed papers to come. Tyler Lyson did his own investigating. After the explosive GSA talk, Lyson got a three-by-two-foot block of Tanis dirt from Rob Sula, who had removed it before ceding control to DePalma. Lyson hadn’t opened it, but after reading the New Yorker article he prepped it in his museum in Denver. He found fish. He did not find spherules inside the fish. He did not find, in the dirt around those fish, a single spherule. His suspicion grew.

There have been, in the decade since DePalma claimed to have found a dinosaur feather, a mammal burrow, and a pterosaur egg, no resultant publications on these particular finds. Academic paleontologists must keep their fossils publicly accessible; they might be kept at the Field Museum or the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. They are given accession numbers, attached to a museum or university, which researchers use to refer to and request them, as with library books. DePalma is associated with the Palm Beach Museum of Natural History, which is a storefront in a mall, but his finds are not displayed there. When Frost Museum paleontologist Cary Woodruff called the Palm Beach Museum of Natural History asking for a cast of a Dakotaraptor claw DePalma had found, he was put off for about three years by an “exasperated and apologetic” museum employee. Finally, he says he was told by the museum that DePalma kept the bones in his home, in a safe. “As paleontologists,” Woodruff says, incredulous, “we do not store fossils at our house.” (DePalma, asked if he has kept bones at his home, suggests the employee was joking.) When I asked about the staggering fossils described in The New Yorker, DePalma said they were at Florida Atlantic University, where he teaches, and which did not respond to requests for comment.

Paleontologists who might have felt cautiously skeptical in 2019 are now openly and vocally baffled. “No one’s ever published a dinosaur feather from anywhere in North America,” says Johnson. “He has dinosaur feathers. Why didn’t he show us a picture of them? That’d be the cover of Nature. If he had a pterosaur egg, why didn’t he publish? These would be amazing, major discoveries if they were true. “

In the New Yorker feature, DePalma unwraps “a sixteen-inch fossil feather” and holds it “in his palms like a piece of Lalique glass.” “I mean this is just some cartoon, made-up idea of what paleontology is like,” says Jingmai O’Conner, the Field Museum curator who spent ten years working in China, where most fossil feathers have been found. “Fossil feathers don’t preserve three dimensionally in ways that you could hold them, unless they’re in amber. But then you’re actually holding a chunk of amber.”

Greg Wilson Mantilla of the University of Washington is the foremost expert on Late Cretaceous mammals of Hell Creek, a subject he has studied intensively for 25 years. In a day of digging, he says, “you might find a molar of a mammal and know that the mammal was contemporaneous with all the other little pieces that you’re finding. At best we’ll find a jaw that has a couple of teeth in it. That’s a red-letter day.” DePalma has claimed to have not only found a mammal jaw and shoulder bone, but to have found them inside an intact mammal burrow that crosses the K-Pg Boundary. Wilson Mantilla, having devoted his life to this narrow realm of study, would very much like to see the fossils, but his extensive efforts to coordinate with DePalma have not borne out. When they met at a conference, Wilson Mantilla says, DePalma was solicitous and admiring. “He said, ‘I’d love to get you out to the site and, you know, get you the specimen to look at.’ And so I followed up with him. But this began a series of, um, basically exchanges that never amounted to anything. He either didn’t respond to me or promised that I could come out to the field site, just contact him when I get out to Montana, and then I’d link up with him in North Dakota. And it just — everything always fell through.”

The questions swirling around DePalma necessarily implicate his most fundamental claim: the legitimacy of Tanis as the single site known to record the last moments of the Cretaceous. In 2019, DePalma published for the first time on Tanis, in the journal PNAS. This paper, which made the case that Tanis records a brief time after the asteroid hit but did not reference the specific fossils mentioned earlier, was greeted skeptically, though both Jan Smit and Walter Alvarez were co-authors. “I’m not a great geologist,” Woodruff told me, “but Ray Charles could see the geology didn’t make sense the way they described it.” “No one I’ve talked to who’s not involved in the project,” says University of Alabama geologist Tom Tobin, “was convinced by that first paper.”

Those who buy into Tanis tend to focus on the considerable authority of Smit and Alvarez, giants in the field who stand by DePalma’s claims. Smit says he has seen the Tanis spherules, right there in the dirt, and the dinosaur feather in person. But DePalma’s reputation is such that even this does not settle the question. “You can buy spherules at the Tucson mineral show,” one paleontologist told me.

The person capable of making the best case for Tanis is neither Smit nor Alvarez but someone who has accused DePalma, publicly, of faking data. “I will admit,” Woodruff says, “I didn’t think in my professional opinion that any of Tanis was legitimate.” And yet Woodruff is less sure today because he trusts Melanie During, whose work stands, ironically, as the site’s best defense. In During’s synchrotron scan, her fish head appears to have, lodged in the gills, Nerds-like objects.

“How the hell do you plant them in a fish?” says Woodruff. “Like, I don’t think that can really happen. Melanie’s stuff is the only time that I’ve been like What if? and Huh! ”

DePalma has been working Tanis since 2012, talking about seasonality since at least 2013, and first encountered the concept of using histology to determine the season of the asteroid in conversation with paleobiologist Gregory Erickson in 2016. When During visited a year later, DePalma says he provided her with orientation materials that read “The Fall of the Cretaceous: Month Scale Timing of the Cretaceous Apocalypse,” predicted a “late spring to late summer” mass death, and mentioned “histological and isotopic results,” though it had equal emphasis on locating the flora that died at the same time. DePalma requires an “application” for visiting Tanis, which he says is typical but a number of other paleontologists say they have never before encountered. On her application, During indicated she would be investigating the fish’s various injuries, a fact DePalma noted when he expressed surprise that her thesis, which she sent him only after it was completed, was fully oriented toward pinpointing the season at spring.

“After reading your whole email, I can imagine you’re upset!” wrote Smit in response to DePalma. “Apologies for that, but to tell you the truth, we (Melanie’s supervisors) were also surprised by her last moment change of title. She clearly was carried away with the possibilities of the scans she made!”

In DePalma’s view and that of his colleagues, she had lied about her intentions, come to his site at his invitation, stayed in his tent, investigated fish that he packed up and sent her, concealed the subject of her thesis, and stolen his idea. This was outrageous to him, but it was something he could tolerate so long as the results were confined to an unpublished thesis. That she would publish them as first author was intolerable. “It was his idea,” says Pete Larson, the president of the Black Hills Institute and a co-author on DePalma’s paper. “It wasn’t her idea. That’s the thing that really kind of irks me — she did not come up with that idea on her own.”

Smit knew finding asteroid seasonality was DePalma’s plan, but he also knew the histological isotopic techniques had been developed, through trial and error, by During and others in the lab at Amsterdam. He suggested they write two separate papers and merge them into one. DePalma said he would send his manuscript; it was, he said, almost ready. It never, according to Smit, arrived. DePalma maintains that During never accepted the idea of merged manuscripts.

“Maybe I didn’t want to work with someone who accused me of theft,” During says to this. She concedes that the idea was DePalma’s. In her telling, it was he who suggested she search out the season of the asteroid in the ancient bones, and he was supportive of her work until he suddenly became hostile. Robert told her to “fill in whatever” on the application, she says, so she gestured generally toward her research interests.

In 2019 During applied for jobs and received a string of rejections. Eventually she found a role with Per Ahlberg at Uppsala University in Sweden. Ahlberg hired her, in part, because he thought she had been badly treated. He thought she deserved a break.

DePalma was a threat to During’s reputation, disastrous on a job market with many Ph.D.’s and few jobs, and by 2020 this was a massive source of stress. When she discovered that she was pregnant, she and her partner decided that she should step away from the issue of the unpublished Tanis research. She sewed a felt dinosaur mobile for the son she would soon have. She painted three marine reptiles underwater. She painted a long-necked dinosaur cradling a baby and a T. rex in the sun. Along with all the dinosaurs, she painted exactly one rocket ship. (“He doesn’t have to be a paleontologist,” she told me.) In between being induced and giving birth, she painted three more paintings of birds. The baby would be named Odin, an anagram of dino.

In 2021, Ahlberg encouraged During to submit the paper for publication despite the friction with DePalma. She emailed him to ask whether he wanted to be listed as an author, and weeks later, when he still had not responded, deleted his name.

“She waited for two years before she published anything,” Smit says. “I mean, two years is a long time in a scientist’s life.”

When he heard During was about to publish, a co-author of his told me, DePalma began to rush. His own paper would try to prove the asteroid-in-spring hypothesis through a number of separate overlapping methods, including showing what flora were found in the area, so as to leave little room for criticism.

During was 32 when, six months later, she read the email granting her paper a preliminary acceptance in Nature. Her master’s thesis — not even Ph.D. work — would be published in the world’s most prestigious scientific journal. It was too much to lose. She thought, Something will go wrong. It will never happen. Instead of celebrating, she focused on cleaning her house; her sister, terribly allergic to dust, was coming for a visit.

Two days later, as she was finishing up work, late to pick up her son from day care and her sister from the airport, her phone lit up with a text from Smit. “I should not have clicked the link,” she says, but she did click the link. DePalma had published his paper in the journal Scientific Reports. He was first. He was Alvarez; she was Smit. She drove through a blizzard with her son in the back of the car, working hard to see the road. Okay, she thought. I’m not going to publish. She ran out of wiper fluid, and the wipers could not keep up with the slush. He scooped me. It’s done.

As a child, Robert was, he says, “absolutely mercilessly bullied.” He spent a lot of time at home, though that entailed dealing with his parents’ divorce and custody battles. Alone in his room, he constructed hobby-store dioramas and small models of long-extinct beings. He adored cuckoo clocks; either he would be a cuckoo-clock-maker, he reasoned, or a paleontologist. Something in his body was conversant with matter, with bones. His father, an endodontist, operated on teeth for a living. His great-uncle, an orthopedic surgeon, wrote books with titles such as Diseases of the Knee. Robert did not care for sports, and the other children evidently did not care for clockwork. “I did not get a moment of peace from them,” he says. “I couldn’t even eat lunch.” He was born and raised in Florida, a barely surfaced peninsula in which not a single dinosaur fossil has ever been found.

In early adolescence, Robert found his first close friend, a boy named Terry he’d met outside. Terry was overweight, had also been excluded by other children, and adored microfossils — the little stuff, according to Robert, “that people usually don’t pay any attention to.” The boys volunteered as assistants at a local archaeology museum together. On school breaks, they left Florida for places with climates more given to preservation. They dug fossils in Wyoming and found trail ruts made a century back by Conestoga wagons. In 2004, when Robert was 22, they undertook a dig in South Dakota, unearthing a collection of plant and dinosaur fossils. They were thrilled. While they were at U-Haul getting a trailer on which to load all their new finds, Terry collapsed. Robert called an ambulance and Terry disappeared into the hospital. “A lady came in, and I thought she was going to say, ‘All right, he’s in rough shape, but you can see him in a couple hours.’ She said he was gone.”

There had been a heart condition. “No one had any goddamn idea,” says DePalma, apologizing for his tears. “All of the wonderful stuff that had gone on for both of us was just gone in an instant. It’s like the world disappears for you.”

After long days together looking at the remnants of other creatures, the boys had talked about what to do with their own bodies when they passed. Robert made a mold from the remains of a duck-billed dinosaur, the last dinosaur remnant Terry ever found, mixed his ashes with resin, and encased them in the shape of the fossil.

He found comfort in the field. “There are so many spots where you don’t see anything manmade at all,” he tells me. “And when you’re there, especially without a phone signal, despite the fact that you’re wearing something modern, you look around and you can literally feel like you are in that time period. I would be back there in a heartbeat.”

In July, I met DePalma in Bowman, North Dakota, and joined him on the short drive to Tanis. He had come all the way from Boca Raton for a single day to help a boyish graduate student in need of soil samples for a thesis. He was wearing a leather hat, thick suspenders, and a red backpack that once belonged to Terry. A long scar he didn’t want to talk about ran through his right eyebrow and continued under his eye. Every time someone asks about the scar, he gives a different story. Aliens, he’ll say. A Kraken.

“I’m not used to all this technology,” he said, messing with the dated screen on the rental-car console as mourning doves rose up from the grass. We passed grazing buffalo, horses, cows: “Cows when they’re born are so flippin’ cute.” Prairie chickens hopped along a fence. “I can’t imagine what it would be like to drive a wagon out here,” he said, clearly imagining it. He pointed out distant hills, turned orange by ancient fire. His thoughts flickered in and out of the present.

“Living history,” DePalma told me once, “is definitely one of my passions.” So is “flint napping,” which involves carving flint into stone tools. Robert’s comfort with matter — his facility with rocks and models — does not extend to strings of electrons beneath the threshold of visibility. “I avoided computers for a long time,” he told me, “and most of the first drafts of my papers were on pen and paper.” Still, he loves the lab and is perfectly comfortable at the synchrotron. “I’m like Alan Grant from Jurassic Park, ” he says, “struggling with the seat belt in the helicopter.”

At a lonely white church guarded by a filthy sheepdog, we met up with Erickson, the paleobiologist who first came up with the idea During allegedly stole, and two graduate students. Pete Larson, DePalma’s co-author from the Black Hills Institute, followed in his own truck as we drove onto the ranch.

“Is this a road?” I asked as we pulled onto the grass and our bodies pitched back and forth in the truck.

“This is a good road,” said Erickson.

We followed a fence line. In the soft breeze of a summer day it was easy to follow the story DePalma told: The grass, rippling in the wind, had once been a river, and this pile of gnarled stone the bank on which the river deposited its dead. Rocked by the asteroid, the rivers would have flooded and the fish pitched onto higher ground. Moments after we arrived, DePalma was already inside the place, leaning against the hill with a brush in one hand and a trowel in the other, carving through sediment as he explained dip angles and bedding traces to the students. In the ashen rock, a fish fossil appears rust red, a subtle change in color and texture barely visible to the layperson. “Oh, check it out,” he said. “There’s another fish coming out right there. Right there. And right here, too. That’s the skull of a sturgeon right there. Hey Greg, we got more fish right there.”

“We can’t decide if that’s the start of a footprint or not,” he said, gesturing at what may have been an herbivorous-dinosaur imprint but I would have thought a perfectly ordinary rock, “but we do find footprints in this horizon. It could be. I mean, that’s definitely soft-sediment deformation.”

He worked away some land and unveiled, across the black soil, a white line. “The boundary,” he said, full of asteroid, a weirdly literal transition between the age of dinosaurs and that of mammals. Later he would take a sample out of his pocket, tip dirt onto a microscope, and show me Nerds-like objects he says he gathered from the site. “Melted Yucatán,” he said, “airmailed from Mexico.”

It became clear during our time together that DePalma is beloved in Bowman; a husky-voiced, cigarette-slim worker -stocking shelves at the gas-station convenience store hugged him the moment we walked in (“A fascinating woman,” he called her), and the mohawked, lip-ringed chef who ran one of the only two restaurants open in town on Monday nights did the same. There is a kind of innocent charisma. DePalma is cordial, formal, quaint, an elder millennial clean of our generation’s collective linguistic tics. “Gosh,” he is given to say. “Son of a gun!” He is earnest in a way that engenders a watchful instinct in others.

“He has a history of getting burned by misplacing his trust,” says Liam O’Meallie, a claims adjuster who often accompanies DePalma on digs. “I’ve been protecting him from behind the scenes for a long time.”

When I ask him to tell me the true story of the scar, DePalma hesitates and gives in. It was a car accident. There had been a pileup in another lane. “It was happening so quickly,” he says, “and I crane my head around idiotically, thinking, Oh, I wonder what the hell is going on over there? Let’s have a look! ” A piece of debris flew into his open window, “smacks me right in the face, destroys that side of my glasses.” He drove home using the one eye not covered in blood.

He did not go to the doctor. “I didn’t want to do insurance,” he says, “I didn’t want to go through cops, I didn’t want to do anything. I didn’t want to deal with bureaucracy, screwing around with all the powers that be, the paperwork.” Cops, insurance, a hospital: all the annoying frictions, the tedious conflicts inherent in the time in which Robert actually lives. They struck him as so stressful and time-consuming as to be intolerable. Instead of stitches, then, there would be only Band-Aids and a scar people will ask him about for the rest of his life.

“I wanted,” he says, “to be left alone.”

Academic publishing is not an ideal realm in which to hide from minor conflict. DePalma’s paper had problems During could see as soon as she took the time to look. Some were immediately obvious to those who skimmed it: The isotopes were off. 18C, an isotope that does not exist, is mentioned multiple times. “Even if it’s just a typo,” says Tobin, the Alabama geologist, “it’s a typo that’s consistent throughout in a way that makes you think, Does anyone on this paper know about isotopes?  ”

Others were less obvious and more concerning. During wondered where he had done this analysis; it is hard to acquire these tools. What mass spectrometer had he used? Why were the graphs so perfect, so seesaw in their uniformity? The figures seemed inconsistent with real-world results, or at least results produced with a computer. Some data points were listed twice. It looked to her as if the fish had eaten exactly the same amount every year.

Nature did not, in fact, retract During’s preliminary acceptance, and her paper came out that February. Her paper cited DePalma’s work nine times; it was built on his claims about Tanis, centered on specimens he had sent her, and ultimately rested on his integrity, which she would spend the next several years attacking.

During wrote to Scientific Reports with her concerns about DePalma’s paper, and on Christmas Eve 2021 DePalma received a disturbing email from the journal asking, among other things, about the isotope data. He was “gutted, full of anxiety,” his holiday ruined. Scientific Reports wanted to know the provenance of the raw data, but he did not have it because the person who had handled the data, Curtis McKinney, had died in 2017 before During even got to Tanis. McKinney worked at Miami Dade College. The college did not have a mass spectrometer, so McKinney would have had to do the analysis somewhere else. No one, including DePalma, could say where that was.

No one who knew McKinney seemed to remember him working on such a project. From a certain distance, it could look very much like DePalma had simply found a dead man to whom to attribute work never done. Even his defenders would find the lack of a paper trail a problem. After asking Scientific Reports for more information about the data used in the paper and making no progress in a year’s time, During and Ahlberg were done waiting. They took the extraordinary step of making public a technical 25-page response that was also an accusation. “We are compelled to ask,” they wrote, “whether the data may be fabricated, created to fit an already known conclusion.” (“It was way too personal for my taste,” says Smit. “It was not an objective scientific statement.”) The accusation was covered by Science magazine. In a response to Science, DePalma said the graphs were a bit off because he had plotted them, extraordinarily, by hand. It seemed to him that he was being attacked from all sides. He lost weight. He lost sleep. He was reminded, he tells me, of being bullied as a child.

During and Ahlberg formally complained to the University of Manchester, where DePalma had transferred, alleging misconduct. DePalma formally complained to Uppsala University, where During was a graduate student, alleging plagiarism. “Robert DePalma created these ideas and methods, and … over a period of years Melanie During progressively claimed these ideas for herself, culminating now in these false and shameless accusations against Robert DePalma,” wrote Professor Roy Wogelius in an internal statement to the University of Manchester. “I have been a professional scientist for 40 years and I have never encountered such an unwarranted, unhinged, and hypocritical attack on a colleague.”

“I think she treated Robert very badly,” Larson tells me, “and she, in doing so, probably ruined her own career, which is super-sad for me because she’s a bright young lady.”

DePalma was scheduled to give a talk at TEDx Boca Raton, but he postponed. During gave a talk at TEDx Stockholm. “I knew it was my responsibility to blow the whistle,” she told the crowd. “And why is it important to stand up for science? Because science denial is rampant. Being a researcher means more than doing research … it also takes the backbone to call out misconduct when you see it.”

To his university, now compelled to investigate its own student, DePalma provided copies of the materials he says he gave to During in 2017 when she arrived at Tanis. (She denies having received them.) A page of those materials mentioned “work from Curtis,” strong evidence that McKinney had not been summoned to operate a mass spectrometer from beyond the grave, though to this day no one knows where that analysis took place.

Robert DePalma is, in 2024, 43 years old and still a graduate student, despite having been handed what may or may not be the most spectacular paleontological site in the country. He is by many accounts a brilliant geologist. A student of his I spoke to described him as an extraordinary teacher. But he is not academic. He struggles with parts of paleontology that do not belong in a living-history segment. He does not enjoy publishing; he sees forward to the possibility of criticism. “The dread is, Oh God, then there’s going to be jealous people, ” he says. “There’s going to be people kicking you in the tail over it.” DePalma’s master’s thesis is, according to Smit, unreadable.

In our time in the field, DePalma would almost never mention, without prompting, the world of academic paleontology. He talked about how cool it would be to 3-D print a fossil. He talked about making a film, maybe anime, maybe CGI, from the perspective of an animal that died when the asteroid struck. He showed me a delicate, in-process reconstruction of a rattlesnake. Once in grad school, he had gone to enormous lengths to reconstruct a model of a lungfish in its burrow. “Why did you do this?” he recalls a professor asking him. “Are you studying this? Is this for a paper?”

“I told him time and again,” Smit says, “‘You lay your claims by going to a conference, give a talk, give an abstract.’ And apparently he thought, No, no, no. Then I’m giving away the science. And I couldn’t convince him of the contrary. It’s an imaginary problem for him, so he kept silent about it for a long time. He kept silent about the feathers. He kept silent about the discoveries. And now with Melanie, it sort of overtakes him. I mean, you cannot keep silent for eight years and then not publish anything. That’s not what you do in the modern world. That’s why I say he is a Romantic from the 19th century, but not in a modern, highly competitive field of science. And Melanie is quite the opposite.”

Tanis is so low, DePalma says, because it was part of a river that sliced deep into the land. If Tanis were part of a waterway, that waterway would once have continued onward, and one might therefore find other sites along the ghost of the river packed with petrified carcasses, showered in spherules. In 2023, During and Clint Boyd, a senior paleontologist at the North Dakota Geological Survey, parked a truck next to the ranch where Tanis is located and where Robert was then excavating. They would hike on public land to a Tanis-adjacent spot, also on public land, that During had a feeling about. The hike was hard, over grassy knolls and soft buttes that crumbled under their feet, in part because it was so important to stay on the section line, which was public, though that stretch of land was not always easiest to traverse. They kept checking Boyd’s phone to make sure they weren’t wandering onto someone’s property, until the phone was close to dead. Two hours later, they arrived. Melanie could see the three horns of a triceratops skull sticking out of the side of a hill. They felt more certain this was a solid spot, but it was late in the afternoon and they had a two-hour walk back. They decided to return the next day.

When they were almost back to the truck, a sedan approached. A woman rolled down the passenger-side window. “Better not go in Robert’s section,” she said. It was the woman who helped run the ranch, who had forced out Rob Sula long ago.

From the sedan, the woman gestured behind her.

“I don’t know what those guys want,” she said.

Next to Boyd’s truck were now two pickups and two men. One yelled at them for “trespassing,” spewing a string of expletives; the other paced back and forth to his truck. During was worried about what was in the truck. She hid behind Boyd, whose response to all the yelling was to calmly explain, with an interest that bordered on passion, the complicated rules of North Dakota backcountry private-public byways.

The younger guy got closer to Boyd’s face, waved his arms in protest. Boyd said they would leave.

“You can leave,” he said, “and we are going to watch you leave.”

The men watched them leave. Boyd did not think it was a good idea to go back to the spot on that trip. During flew home.

In December, the University of Manchester’s investigation finally concluded that its doctoral student Robert DePalma had not fabricated data and was probably already working on seasonality before During showed up. The university did say he was guilty of “poor research practice” regarding the mysterious origins of the isotope data. In May, Uppsala University concluded that its doctoral student Melanie During was not guilty of plagiarism, unfair representations of authorship, or deviations from good research practice.

“It has been one of the most hurtful and unexpected and discouraging situations of my life,” DePalma says when pressed about his state of mind, years after all of this started. “It has changed my views of optimism about how people will operate. I’m studying the impact that ended the world for so many different species. And it’s almost ironic that that’s the project that destroyed my soul.”

In June of this year, During returned to North Dakota, searching for a new Tanis. She and Boyd hiked against relentless wind, back toward the hill where she had seen the triceratops skull. It was loud and endless; by the end of an hour and a half of hiking, During’s sunglasses were scratched from flying debris. They gathered gallons of dirt from different sections of the hill and hiked back. Later, sifting through the debris back at the lab, watching it crumble through her fingers, During would find no clear evidence of spherules. But the trip had other pleasures. The wind had blown a salamander vertebrate right out of her palm. They’d found a crocodilian jaw with a tooth in it, just lying there on the surface, the spaces where other teeth had been as straight and uniform as a Battleship grid. They’d found three triceratops (“the cows of the Cretaceous,” During calls them), and Boyd had yanked a Chasmosaurus humerus straight out of a hill. They had found two sets of Thescelosaurus vertebrae. Thescelosaurus, long, heavy bipedal dinosaurs, appeared at the very end of the Late Cretaceous, just before the asteroid that would kill them off.

After the asteroid, surviving birds would carry on the genetic legacy of giant reptiles and the continent would enter the strange age of mammals. There would be a superfast 12-foot-tall bear and a muscular, strong-jawed giant pig. There would be a dog-size horse and beavers six feet long. Camels would evolve right here on the plains, and American lions bigger than African ones. The species that took it upon itself to figure it all out, to make a story of the past, would largely overlook these creatures in favor of T. rex and triceratops. The species would construct elaborate rules that govern who may and may not tread on particular pieces of land. It would evolve a complex economy of prestige to accompany the discovery of truths about all that had come before — a shadowy interplay of gatekeeping, mentorship, and recognition. There would be reason for everyone, on every side of a small discovery of a single fact, to feel overlooked and underappreciated, awake to the vastness of time and vulnerable to the smallest slight.

Correction: A previous version of this story misstated that the Field Museum is part of the University of Chicago.

• hard paywall
• social studies
• environment
• new york magazine
• one great story
• audio article

Most Viewed Stories

• J.D. Vance Blames Staff for Disastrous Doughnut-Shop Visit
• What Trump Said in His Vulgar and Unhinged Truth Social Spree
• The Right-Wing Crusade Against DEI Isn’t Actually Working
• What We Know About the Trump Campaign’s Arlington National Cemetery Incident
• The Bitter Feud at the Heart of the Paleontology World  

Editor’s Picks

Most Popular

• J.D. Vance Blames Staff for Disastrous Doughnut-Shop Visit By Margaret Hartmann
• What Trump Said in His Vulgar and Unhinged Truth Social Spree By Margaret Hartmann
• The Right-Wing Crusade Against DEI Isn’t Actually Working By Kevin T. Dugan
• What We Know About the Trump Campaign’s Arlington National Cemetery Incident By Nia Prater
• The Bitter Feud at the Heart of the Paleontology World   By Kerry Howley

What is your email?

This email will be used to sign into all New York sites. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy and to receive email correspondence from us.

Sign In To Continue Reading

Create your free account.

Password must be at least 8 characters and contain:

• Lower case letters (a-z)
• Upper case letters (A-Z)
• Numbers (0-9)
• Special Characters (!@#$%^&*)

As part of your account, you’ll receive occasional updates and offers from New York , which you can opt out of anytime.