development of working hypothesis in research methodology

2.4 Developing a Hypothesis

Learning objectives.

• Distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis.
• Discover how theories are used to generate hypotheses and how the results of studies can be used to further inform theories.
• Understand the characteristics of a good hypothesis.

Theories and Hypotheses

Before describing how to develop a hypothesis it is imporant to distinguish betwee a theory and a hypothesis. A  theory  is a coherent explanation or interpretation of one or more phenomena. Although theories can take a variety of forms, one thing they have in common is that they go beyond the phenomena they explain by including variables, structures, processes, functions, or organizing principles that have not been observed directly. Consider, for example, Zajonc’s theory of social facilitation and social inhibition. He proposed that being watched by others while performing a task creates a general state of physiological arousal, which increases the likelihood of the dominant (most likely) response. So for highly practiced tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make correct responses, but for relatively unpracticed tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make incorrect responses. Notice that this theory—which has come to be called drive theory—provides an explanation of both social facilitation and social inhibition that goes beyond the phenomena themselves by including concepts such as “arousal” and “dominant response,” along with processes such as the effect of arousal on the dominant response.

Outside of science, referring to an idea as a theory often implies that it is untested—perhaps no more than a wild guess. In science, however, the term theory has no such implication. A theory is simply an explanation or interpretation of a set of phenomena. It can be untested, but it can also be extensively tested, well supported, and accepted as an accurate description of the world by the scientific community. The theory of evolution by natural selection, for example, is a theory because it is an explanation of the diversity of life on earth—not because it is untested or unsupported by scientific research. On the contrary, the evidence for this theory is overwhelmingly positive and nearly all scientists accept its basic assumptions as accurate. Similarly, the “germ theory” of disease is a theory because it is an explanation of the origin of various diseases, not because there is any doubt that many diseases are caused by microorganisms that infect the body.

A  hypothesis , on the other hand, is a specific prediction about a new phenomenon that should be observed if a particular theory is accurate. It is an explanation that relies on just a few key concepts. Hypotheses are often specific predictions about what will happen in a particular study. They are developed by considering existing evidence and using reasoning to infer what will happen in the specific context of interest. Hypotheses are often but not always derived from theories. So a hypothesis is often a prediction based on a theory but some hypotheses are a-theoretical and only after a set of observations have been made, is a theory developed. This is because theories are broad in nature and they explain larger bodies of data. So if our research question is really original then we may need to collect some data and make some observation before we can develop a broader theory.

Theories and hypotheses always have this  if-then  relationship. “ If   drive theory is correct,  then  cockroaches should run through a straight runway faster, and a branching runway more slowly, when other cockroaches are present.” Although hypotheses are usually expressed as statements, they can always be rephrased as questions. “Do cockroaches run through a straight runway faster when other cockroaches are present?” Thus deriving hypotheses from theories is an excellent way of generating interesting research questions.

But how do researchers derive hypotheses from theories? One way is to generate a research question using the techniques discussed in this chapter  and then ask whether any theory implies an answer to that question. For example, you might wonder whether expressive writing about positive experiences improves health as much as expressive writing about traumatic experiences. Although this  question  is an interesting one  on its own, you might then ask whether the habituation theory—the idea that expressive writing causes people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings—implies an answer. In this case, it seems clear that if the habituation theory is correct, then expressive writing about positive experiences should not be effective because it would not cause people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings. A second way to derive hypotheses from theories is to focus on some component of the theory that has not yet been directly observed. For example, a researcher could focus on the process of habituation—perhaps hypothesizing that people should show fewer signs of emotional distress with each new writing session.

Among the very best hypotheses are those that distinguish between competing theories. For example, Norbert Schwarz and his colleagues considered two theories of how people make judgments about themselves, such as how assertive they are (Schwarz et al., 1991) [1] . Both theories held that such judgments are based on relevant examples that people bring to mind. However, one theory was that people base their judgments on the  number  of examples they bring to mind and the other was that people base their judgments on how  easily  they bring those examples to mind. To test these theories, the researchers asked people to recall either six times when they were assertive (which is easy for most people) or 12 times (which is difficult for most people). Then they asked them to judge their own assertiveness. Note that the number-of-examples theory implies that people who recalled 12 examples should judge themselves to be more assertive because they recalled more examples, but the ease-of-examples theory implies that participants who recalled six examples should judge themselves as more assertive because recalling the examples was easier. Thus the two theories made opposite predictions so that only one of the predictions could be confirmed. The surprising result was that participants who recalled fewer examples judged themselves to be more assertive—providing particularly convincing evidence in favor of the ease-of-retrieval theory over the number-of-examples theory.

Theory Testing

The primary way that scientific researchers use theories is sometimes called the hypothetico-deductive method  (although this term is much more likely to be used by philosophers of science than by scientists themselves). A researcher begins with a set of phenomena and either constructs a theory to explain or interpret them or chooses an existing theory to work with. He or she then makes a prediction about some new phenomenon that should be observed if the theory is correct. Again, this prediction is called a hypothesis. The researcher then conducts an empirical study to test the hypothesis. Finally, he or she reevaluates the theory in light of the new results and revises it if necessary. This process is usually conceptualized as a cycle because the researcher can then derive a new hypothesis from the revised theory, conduct a new empirical study to test the hypothesis, and so on. As  Figure 2.2  shows, this approach meshes nicely with the model of scientific research in psychology presented earlier in the textbook—creating a more detailed model of “theoretically motivated” or “theory-driven” research.

Figure 2.2 Hypothetico-Deductive Method Combined With the General Model of Scientific Research in Psychology Together they form a model of theoretically motivated research.

As an example, let us consider Zajonc’s research on social facilitation and inhibition. He started with a somewhat contradictory pattern of results from the research literature. He then constructed his drive theory, according to which being watched by others while performing a task causes physiological arousal, which increases an organism’s tendency to make the dominant response. This theory predicts social facilitation for well-learned tasks and social inhibition for poorly learned tasks. He now had a theory that organized previous results in a meaningful way—but he still needed to test it. He hypothesized that if his theory was correct, he should observe that the presence of others improves performance in a simple laboratory task but inhibits performance in a difficult version of the very same laboratory task. To test this hypothesis, one of the studies he conducted used cockroaches as subjects (Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman, 1969) [2] . The cockroaches ran either down a straight runway (an easy task for a cockroach) or through a cross-shaped maze (a difficult task for a cockroach) to escape into a dark chamber when a light was shined on them. They did this either while alone or in the presence of other cockroaches in clear plastic “audience boxes.” Zajonc found that cockroaches in the straight runway reached their goal more quickly in the presence of other cockroaches, but cockroaches in the cross-shaped maze reached their goal more slowly when they were in the presence of other cockroaches. Thus he confirmed his hypothesis and provided support for his drive theory. (Zajonc also showed that drive theory existed in humans (Zajonc & Sales, 1966) [3] in many other studies afterward).

Incorporating Theory into Your Research

When you write your research report or plan your presentation, be aware that there are two basic ways that researchers usually include theory. The first is to raise a research question, answer that question by conducting a new study, and then offer one or more theories (usually more) to explain or interpret the results. This format works well for applied research questions and for research questions that existing theories do not address. The second way is to describe one or more existing theories, derive a hypothesis from one of those theories, test the hypothesis in a new study, and finally reevaluate the theory. This format works well when there is an existing theory that addresses the research question—especially if the resulting hypothesis is surprising or conflicts with a hypothesis derived from a different theory.

To use theories in your research will not only give you guidance in coming up with experiment ideas and possible projects, but it lends legitimacy to your work. Psychologists have been interested in a variety of human behaviors and have developed many theories along the way. Using established theories will help you break new ground as a researcher, not limit you from developing your own ideas.

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

There are three general characteristics of a good hypothesis. First, a good hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable . We must be able to test the hypothesis using the methods of science and if you’ll recall Popper’s falsifiability criterion, it must be possible to gather evidence that will disconfirm the hypothesis if it is indeed false. Second, a good hypothesis must be  logical. As described above, hypotheses are more than just a random guess. Hypotheses should be informed by previous theories or observations and logical reasoning. Typically, we begin with a broad and general theory and use  deductive reasoning to generate a more specific hypothesis to test based on that theory. Occasionally, however, when there is no theory to inform our hypothesis, we use  inductive reasoning  which involves using specific observations or research findings to form a more general hypothesis. Finally, the hypothesis should be  positive.  That is, the hypothesis should make a positive statement about the existence of a relationship or effect, rather than a statement that a relationship or effect does not exist. As scientists, we don’t set out to show that relationships do not exist or that effects do not occur so our hypotheses should not be worded in a way to suggest that an effect or relationship does not exist. The nature of science is to assume that something does not exist and then seek to find evidence to prove this wrong, to show that really it does exist. That may seem backward to you but that is the nature of the scientific method. The underlying reason for this is beyond the scope of this chapter but it has to do with statistical theory.

Key Takeaways

• A theory is broad in nature and explains larger bodies of data. A hypothesis is more specific and makes a prediction about the outcome of a particular study.
• Working with theories is not “icing on the cake.” It is a basic ingredient of psychological research.
• Like other scientists, psychologists use the hypothetico-deductive method. They construct theories to explain or interpret phenomena (or work with existing theories), derive hypotheses from their theories, test the hypotheses, and then reevaluate the theories in light of the new results.
• Practice: Find a recent empirical research report in a professional journal. Read the introduction and highlight in different colors descriptions of theories and hypotheses.
• Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 , 195–202. ↵
• Zajonc, R. B., Heingartner, A., & Herman, E. M. (1969). Social enhancement and impairment of performance in the cockroach.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13 , 83–92. ↵
• Zajonc, R.B. & Sales, S.M. (1966). Social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2 , 160-168. ↵

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

Chapter 6 - Hypothesis Development

Chapter 6 overview.

This chapter discusses the third step of the SGAM, highlighted below in gold, Hypothesis Development.

A hypothesis is often defined as an educated guess because it is informed by what you already know about a topic. This step in the process is to identify all hypotheses that merit detailed examination, keeping in mind that there is a distinction between the hypothesis generation and hypothesis evaluation .

If the analysis does not begin with the correct hypothesis, it is unlikely to get the correct answer. Psychological research into how people go about generating hypotheses shows that people are actually rather poor at thinking of all the possibilities. Therefore, at the hypothesis generation stage, it is wise to bring together a group of analysts with different backgrounds and perspectives for a brainstorming session. Brainstorming in a group stimulates the imagination and usually brings out possibilities that individual members of the group had not thought of. Experience shows that initial discussion in the group elicits every possibility, no matter how remote, before judging likelihood or feasibility. Only when all the possibilities are on the table, is the focus on judging them and selecting the hypotheses to be examined in greater detail in subsequent analysis.

When screening out the seemingly improbable hypotheses, it is necessary to distinguish hypotheses that appear to be disproved (i.e., improbable) from those that are simply unproven. For an unproven hypothesis, there is no evidence that it is correct. For a disproved hypothesis, there is positive evidence that it is wrong. Early rejection of unproven, but not disproved, hypotheses biases the analysis, because one does not then look for the evidence that might support them. Unproven hypotheses should be kept alive until they can be disproved. One example of a hypothesis that often falls into this unproven but not disproved category is the hypothesis that an opponent is trying to deceive us. You may reject the possibility of denial and deception because you see no evidence of it, but rejection is not justified under these circumstances. If deception is planned well and properly implemented, one should not expect to find evidence of it readily at hand. The possibility should not be rejected until it is disproved, or, at least, until after a systematic search for evidence has been made, and none has been found.

There is no "correct" number of hypotheses to be considered. The number depends upon the nature of the analytical problem and how advanced you are in the analysis of it. As a general rule, the greater your level of uncertainty, or the greater the impact of your conclusion, the more alternatives you may wish to consider. More than seven hypotheses may be unmanageable; if there are this many alternatives, it may be advisable to group several of them together for your initial cut at the analysis.

Developing Multiple Hypotheses

Developing good hypotheses requires divergent thinking to ensure that all hypotheses are considered. It also requires convergent thinking to ensure that redundant and irrational hypotheses are eliminated. A hypothesis is stated as an "if … then" statement. There are two important qualities about a hypothesis expressed as an "if … then" statement. These are:

• Is the hypothesis testable; in other words, could evidence be found to test the validity of the statement?
• Is the hypothesis falsifiable; in other words, could evidence reveal that such an idea is not true?

Hypothesis development is ultimately experience-based. In this experienced-based reasoning, new knowledge is compared to previous knowledge. New knowledge is added to this internal knowledge base. Before long, an analyst has developed an internal set of spatial rules. These rules are then used to develop possible hypotheses.

Looking Forward

Developing hypotheses and evidence is the beginning of the sensemaking and Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) process. ACH is a general purpose intelligence analysis methodology developed by Richards Heuer while he was an analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). ACH draws on the scientific method, cognitive psychology, and decision analysis. ACH became widely available when the CIA published Heuer’s The Psychology of Intelligence Analysis . The ACH methodology can help the geospatial analyst overcome cognitive biases common to analysis in national security, law enforcement, and competitive intelligence. ACH forces analysts to disprove hypotheses rather than jump to conclusions and permit biases and mindsets to determine the outcome. ACH is a very logical step-by-step process that has been incorporated into our Structured Geospatial Analytical Method. A complete discussion of ACH is found in Chapter 8 of Heuer’s book.

General Approaches to Problem Solving Utilizing Hypotheses

Science follows at least three general methods of problem solving using hypotheses. These can be called the:

• method of the ruling theory
• method of the working hypothesis
• method of multiple working hypotheses

The first two are the most popular but they can lead to overlooking relevant perspectives, data, and encourage biases. It has been suggested that multiple hypotheses offers a more effective way of overcoming this problem.

Ruling Theories and Working Hypotheses

Our desire to reach an explanation commonly leads us to a tentative interpretation that is based on a single case. The explanation can blind us to other possibilities that we ignored at first glance. This premature explanation can become a ruling theory, and our research becomes focused on proving that ruling theory. The result is a bias to evidence that disproves the ruling theory or supports an alternate explanation. Only if the original hypothesis was by chance correct does our analysis lead to any meaningful intelligence work. The working hypothesis is supposed to be a hypothesis to be tested, not in order to prove the hypothesis, but as a stimulus for study and fact-finding. Nonetheless, the single working hypothesis can become a ruling theory, and the desire to prove the working hypothesis, despite evidence to the contrary, can become as strong as the desire to prove the ruling theory.

Multiple Hypotheses

The method of multiple working hypotheses involves the development, prior to our search for evidence, of several hypotheses that might explain what are attempting to explain. Many of these hypotheses should be contradictory, so that many will prove to be improbable. However, the development of multiple hypotheses prior to the intelligence analysis lets us avoid the trap of the ruling hypothesis and thus makes it more likely that our intelligence work will lead to meaningful results. We open-mindedly envision all the possible explanations of the events, including the possibility that none of the hypotheses are plausible and the possibility that more research and hypothesis development is needed. The method of multiple working hypotheses has several other beneficial effects on intelligence analysis. Human actions are often the result of several factors, not just one, and multiple hypotheses make it more likely that we will see the interaction of the several factors. The beginning with multiple hypotheses also promotes much greater thoroughness than analysis directed toward one hypothesis, leading to analytic lines that we might otherwise overlook, and thus to evidence and insights that might never have been considered. Thirdly, the method makes us much more likely to see the imperfections in our understanding and thus to avoid the pitfall of accepting weak or flawed evidence for one hypothesis when another provides a more possible explanation.

Drawbacks of Multiple Hypotheses

Multiple hypotheses have drawbacks. One is that it is difficult to express multiple hypotheses simultaneously, and therefore there is a natural tendency to favor one. Another problem is developing a large number of hypotheses that can be tested. A third possible problem is that of the indecision that arises as an analyst balances the evidence for various hypotheses, which is likely preferable to the premature rush to a false conclusion.

Actions That Help the Analyst Develop Hypotheses

Action 1: Brainstorming . Begin with a brainstorming session with your knowledge team to identify a set of alternative hypotheses. Focus on the hypotheses that are:

• logically consistent with the theories and data uncovered in your grounding;
• address the quality and relationships of spaces.

State the hypotheses stated in an "if ... then" format, for example:

• If the DC Shooter is a terrorist, then the geospatial pattern of events would be similar to other terrorist acts.
• If the DC Shooter is a serial killer, then the geospatial pattern of events would be similar to other serial killers.

Action 2: Review the hypotheses for testability , i.e., can evidence be could found to test the validity of the statement.

Action 3: Check the hypotheses for falsifiability , i.e., could evidence reveal that such an idea is not true.

Action 4: Combine redundant hypotheses.

Action 5:Consider the elimination of improbable and unproven hypotheses.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Korean Med Sci
• v.36(50); 2021 Dec 27

Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs

Durga prasanna misra.

1 Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.

Armen Yuri Gasparyan

2 Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK.

Olena Zimba

3 Department of Internal Medicine #2, Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine.

Marlen Yessirkepov

4 Department of Biology and Biochemistry, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan.

Vikas Agarwal

George d. kitas.

5 Centre for Epidemiology versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate hypotheses. Observational and interventional studies help to test hypotheses. A good hypothesis is usually based on previous evidence-based reports. Hypotheses without evidence-based justification and a priori ideas are not received favourably by the scientific community. Original research to test a hypothesis should be carefully planned to ensure appropriate methodology and adequate statistical power. While hypotheses can challenge conventional thinking and may be controversial, they should not be destructive. A hypothesis should be tested by ethically sound experiments with meaningful ethical and clinical implications. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought into sharp focus numerous hypotheses, some of which were proven (e.g. effectiveness of corticosteroids in those with hypoxia) while others were disproven (e.g. ineffectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin).

Graphical Abstract

DEFINING WORKING AND STANDALONE SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES

Science is the systematized description of natural truths and facts. Routine observations of existing life phenomena lead to the creative thinking and generation of ideas about mechanisms of such phenomena and related human interventions. Such ideas presented in a structured format can be viewed as hypotheses. After generating a hypothesis, it is necessary to test it to prove its validity. Thus, hypothesis can be defined as a proposed mechanism of a naturally occurring event or a proposed outcome of an intervention. 1 , 2

Hypothesis testing requires choosing the most appropriate methodology and adequately powering statistically the study to be able to “prove” or “disprove” it within predetermined and widely accepted levels of certainty. This entails sample size calculation that often takes into account previously published observations and pilot studies. 2 , 3 In the era of digitization, hypothesis generation and testing may benefit from the availability of numerous platforms for data dissemination, social networking, and expert validation. Related expert evaluations may reveal strengths and limitations of proposed ideas at early stages of post-publication promotion, preventing the implementation of unsupported controversial points. 4

Thus, hypothesis generation is an important initial step in the research workflow, reflecting accumulating evidence and experts' stance. In this article, we overview the genesis and importance of scientific hypotheses and their relevance in the era of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

DO WE NEED HYPOTHESES FOR ALL STUDY DESIGNS?

Broadly, research can be categorized as primary or secondary. In the context of medicine, primary research may include real-life observations of disease presentations and outcomes. Single case descriptions, which often lead to new ideas and hypotheses, serve as important starting points or justifications for case series and cohort studies. The importance of case descriptions is particularly evident in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic when unique, educational case reports have heralded a new era in clinical medicine. 5

Case series serve similar purpose to single case reports, but are based on a slightly larger quantum of information. Observational studies, including online surveys, describe the existing phenomena at a larger scale, often involving various control groups. Observational studies include variable-scale epidemiological investigations at different time points. Interventional studies detail the results of therapeutic interventions.

Secondary research is based on already published literature and does not directly involve human or animal subjects. Review articles are generated by secondary research. These could be systematic reviews which follow methods akin to primary research but with the unit of study being published papers rather than humans or animals. Systematic reviews have a rigid structure with a mandatory search strategy encompassing multiple databases, systematic screening of search results against pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, critical appraisal of study quality and an optional component of collating results across studies quantitatively to derive summary estimates (meta-analysis). 6 Narrative reviews, on the other hand, have a more flexible structure. Systematic literature searches to minimise bias in selection of articles are highly recommended but not mandatory. 7 Narrative reviews are influenced by the authors' viewpoint who may preferentially analyse selected sets of articles. 8

In relation to primary research, case studies and case series are generally not driven by a working hypothesis. Rather, they serve as a basis to generate a hypothesis. Observational or interventional studies should have a hypothesis for choosing research design and sample size. The results of observational and interventional studies further lead to the generation of new hypotheses, testing of which forms the basis of future studies. Review articles, on the other hand, may not be hypothesis-driven, but form fertile ground to generate future hypotheses for evaluation. Fig. 1 summarizes which type of studies are hypothesis-driven and which lead on to hypothesis generation.

STANDARDS OF WORKING AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES

A review of the published literature did not enable the identification of clearly defined standards for working and scientific hypotheses. It is essential to distinguish influential versus not influential hypotheses, evidence-based hypotheses versus a priori statements and ideas, ethical versus unethical, or potentially harmful ideas. The following points are proposed for consideration while generating working and scientific hypotheses. 1 , 2 Table 1 summarizes these points.

Evidence-based data

A scientific hypothesis should have a sound basis on previously published literature as well as the scientist's observations. Randomly generated (a priori) hypotheses are unlikely to be proven. A thorough literature search should form the basis of a hypothesis based on published evidence. 7

Unless a scientific hypothesis can be tested, it can neither be proven nor be disproven. Therefore, a scientific hypothesis should be amenable to testing with the available technologies and the present understanding of science.

Supported by pilot studies

If a hypothesis is based purely on a novel observation by the scientist in question, it should be grounded on some preliminary studies to support it. For example, if a drug that targets a specific cell population is hypothesized to be useful in a particular disease setting, then there must be some preliminary evidence that the specific cell population plays a role in driving that disease process.

Testable by ethical studies

The hypothesis should be testable by experiments that are ethically acceptable. 9 For example, a hypothesis that parachutes reduce mortality from falls from an airplane cannot be tested using a randomized controlled trial. 10 This is because it is obvious that all those jumping from a flying plane without a parachute would likely die. Similarly, the hypothesis that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer cannot be tested by a clinical trial that makes people take up smoking (since there is considerable evidence for the health hazards associated with smoking). Instead, long-term observational studies comparing outcomes in those who smoke and those who do not, as was performed in the landmark epidemiological case control study by Doll and Hill, 11 are more ethical and practical.

Balance between scientific temper and controversy

Novel findings, including novel hypotheses, particularly those that challenge established norms, are bound to face resistance for their wider acceptance. Such resistance is inevitable until the time such findings are proven with appropriate scientific rigor. However, hypotheses that generate controversy are generally unwelcome. For example, at the time the pandemic of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and AIDS was taking foot, there were numerous deniers that refused to believe that HIV caused AIDS. 12 , 13 Similarly, at a time when climate change is causing catastrophic changes to weather patterns worldwide, denial that climate change is occurring and consequent attempts to block climate change are certainly unwelcome. 14 The denialism and misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, including unfortunate examples of vaccine hesitancy, are more recent examples of controversial hypotheses not backed by science. 15 , 16 An example of a controversial hypothesis that was a revolutionary scientific breakthrough was the hypothesis put forth by Warren and Marshall that Helicobacter pylori causes peptic ulcers. Initially, the hypothesis that a microorganism could cause gastritis and gastric ulcers faced immense resistance. When the scientists that proposed the hypothesis themselves ingested H. pylori to induce gastritis in themselves, only then could they convince the wider world about their hypothesis. Such was the impact of the hypothesis was that Barry Marshall and Robin Warren were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2005 for this discovery. 17 , 18

DISTINGUISHING THE MOST INFLUENTIAL HYPOTHESES

Influential hypotheses are those that have stood the test of time. An archetype of an influential hypothesis is that proposed by Edward Jenner in the eighteenth century that cowpox infection protects against smallpox. While this observation had been reported for nearly a century before this time, it had not been suitably tested and publicised until Jenner conducted his experiments on a young boy by demonstrating protection against smallpox after inoculation with cowpox. 19 These experiments were the basis for widespread smallpox immunization strategies worldwide in the 20th century which resulted in the elimination of smallpox as a human disease today. 20

Other influential hypotheses are those which have been read and cited widely. An example of this is the hygiene hypothesis proposing an inverse relationship between infections in early life and allergies or autoimmunity in adulthood. An analysis reported that this hypothesis had been cited more than 3,000 times on Scopus. 1

LESSONS LEARNED FROM HYPOTHESES AMIDST THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

The COVID-19 pandemic devastated the world like no other in recent memory. During this period, various hypotheses emerged, understandably so considering the public health emergency situation with innumerable deaths and suffering for humanity. Within weeks of the first reports of COVID-19, aberrant immune system activation was identified as a key driver of organ dysfunction and mortality in this disease. 21 Consequently, numerous drugs that suppress the immune system or abrogate the activation of the immune system were hypothesized to have a role in COVID-19. 22 One of the earliest drugs hypothesized to have a benefit was hydroxychloroquine. Hydroxychloroquine was proposed to interfere with Toll-like receptor activation and consequently ameliorate the aberrant immune system activation leading to pathology in COVID-19. 22 The drug was also hypothesized to have a prophylactic role in preventing infection or disease severity in COVID-19. It was also touted as a wonder drug for the disease by many prominent international figures. However, later studies which were well-designed randomized controlled trials failed to demonstrate any benefit of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 Subsequently, azithromycin 27 , 28 and ivermectin 29 were hypothesized as potential therapies for COVID-19, but were not supported by evidence from randomized controlled trials. The role of vitamin D in preventing disease severity was also proposed, but has not been proven definitively until now. 30 , 31 On the other hand, randomized controlled trials identified the evidence supporting dexamethasone 32 and interleukin-6 pathway blockade with tocilizumab as effective therapies for COVID-19 in specific situations such as at the onset of hypoxia. 33 , 34 Clues towards the apparent effectiveness of various drugs against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in vitro but their ineffectiveness in vivo have recently been identified. Many of these drugs are weak, lipophilic bases and some others induce phospholipidosis which results in apparent in vitro effectiveness due to non-specific off-target effects that are not replicated inside living systems. 35 , 36

Another hypothesis proposed was the association of the routine policy of vaccination with Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) with lower deaths due to COVID-19. This hypothesis emerged in the middle of 2020 when COVID-19 was still taking foot in many parts of the world. 37 , 38 Subsequently, many countries which had lower deaths at that time point went on to have higher numbers of mortality, comparable to other areas of the world. Furthermore, the hypothesis that BCG vaccination reduced COVID-19 mortality was a classic example of ecological fallacy. Associations between population level events (ecological studies; in this case, BCG vaccination and COVID-19 mortality) cannot be directly extrapolated to the individual level. Furthermore, such associations cannot per se be attributed as causal in nature, and can only serve to generate hypotheses that need to be tested at the individual level. 39

IS TRADITIONAL PEER REVIEW EFFICIENT FOR EVALUATION OF WORKING AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES?

Traditionally, publication after peer review has been considered the gold standard before any new idea finds acceptability amongst the scientific community. Getting a work (including a working or scientific hypothesis) reviewed by experts in the field before experiments are conducted to prove or disprove it helps to refine the idea further as well as improve the experiments planned to test the hypothesis. 40 A route towards this has been the emergence of journals dedicated to publishing hypotheses such as the Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics. 41 Another means of publishing hypotheses is through registered research protocols detailing the background, hypothesis, and methodology of a particular study. If such protocols are published after peer review, then the journal commits to publishing the completed study irrespective of whether the study hypothesis is proven or disproven. 42 In the post-pandemic world, online research methods such as online surveys powered via social media channels such as Twitter and Instagram might serve as critical tools to generate as well as to preliminarily test the appropriateness of hypotheses for further evaluation. 43 , 44

Some radical hypotheses might be difficult to publish after traditional peer review. These hypotheses might only be acceptable by the scientific community after they are tested in research studies. Preprints might be a way to disseminate such controversial and ground-breaking hypotheses. 45 However, scientists might prefer to keep their hypotheses confidential for the fear of plagiarism of ideas, avoiding online posting and publishing until they have tested the hypotheses.

SUGGESTIONS ON GENERATING AND PUBLISHING HYPOTHESES

Publication of hypotheses is important, however, a balance is required between scientific temper and controversy. Journal editors and reviewers might keep in mind these specific points, summarized in Table 2 and detailed hereafter, while judging the merit of hypotheses for publication. Keeping in mind the ethical principle of primum non nocere, a hypothesis should be published only if it is testable in a manner that is ethically appropriate. 46 Such hypotheses should be grounded in reality and lend themselves to further testing to either prove or disprove them. It must be considered that subsequent experiments to prove or disprove a hypothesis have an equal chance of failing or succeeding, akin to tossing a coin. A pre-conceived belief that a hypothesis is unlikely to be proven correct should not form the basis of rejection of such a hypothesis for publication. In this context, hypotheses generated after a thorough literature search to identify knowledge gaps or based on concrete clinical observations on a considerable number of patients (as opposed to random observations on a few patients) are more likely to be acceptable for publication by peer-reviewed journals. Also, hypotheses should be considered for publication or rejection based on their implications for science at large rather than whether the subsequent experiments to test them end up with results in favour of or against the original hypothesis.

Hypotheses form an important part of the scientific literature. The COVID-19 pandemic has reiterated the importance and relevance of hypotheses for dealing with public health emergencies and highlighted the need for evidence-based and ethical hypotheses. A good hypothesis is testable in a relevant study design, backed by preliminary evidence, and has positive ethical and clinical implications. General medical journals might consider publishing hypotheses as a specific article type to enable more rapid advancement of science.

Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions:

• Data curation: Gasparyan AY, Misra DP, Zimba O, Yessirkepov M, Agarwal V, Kitas GD.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples

How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples

Published on May 6, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 20, 2023.

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

Example: Hypothesis

Daily apple consumption leads to fewer doctor’s visits.

Table of contents

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

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

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

Variables in hypotheses

Hypotheses propose a relationship between two or more types of variables .

• An independent variable is something the researcher changes or controls.
• A dependent variable is something the researcher observes and measures.

If there are any control variables , extraneous variables , or confounding variables , be sure to jot those down as you go to minimize the chances that research bias  will affect your results.

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Step 1. Ask a question

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

Step 2. Do some preliminary research

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

At this stage, you might construct a conceptual framework to ensure that you’re embarking on a relevant topic . This can also help you identify which variables you will study and what you think the relationships are between them. Sometimes, you’ll have to operationalize more complex constructs.

Step 3. Formulate your hypothesis

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

4. Refine your hypothesis

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

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

5. Phrase your hypothesis in three ways

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

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

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

6. Write a null hypothesis

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

• H 0 : The number of lectures attended by first-year students has no effect on their final exam scores.
• H 1 : The number of lectures attended by first-year students has a positive effect on their final exam scores.

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

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, November 20). How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved June 28, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/hypothesis/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, construct validity | definition, types, & examples, what is a conceptual framework | tips & examples, operationalization | a guide with examples, pros & cons, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

• Research Consultation
• How-to Guides
• People Search
• Library Databases
• Research Guides
• Find Periodicals
• Google Scholar
• Library Map
• Texts for Vets
• Interlibrary Loan - ILL
• Research & Instruction
• Computers and Laptops
• Services For...
• Reserve a Room
• APSU Records Management
• Library Collections
• Digital Collections
• Special Collections
• Veterans' Oral History
• Government Resources
• Subject Librarians
• Library Information
• Woodward Library Society
• New @ Woodward Library
• Celebration of Scholarship
• Join Woodward Library Society

Original Research: Creating a Hypothesis

• Initial Steps

Creating a Hypothesis

• Research Designs and Methods
• Submitting a Research Plan for Review
• Performing the Research
• Analyzing the Data
• Writing the Research Paper

After following the initial steps, the researcher should be able to create a hypothesis that can be tested. A hypothesis is a proposed statement that is intended to explain a theory for why something happens. To create a solid hypothesis, make sure it is not listed as a question, but as a prediction statement. To create a research hypothesis there has to be both a dependent and independent variable, and an expected outcome. Independent variables are what may be changed in the experiment to create an outcome. The dependent variable is what the experiment is intended to measure based on changes made to the independent variable. Defining the expected outcome creates the predictive component of the hypothesis that can be tested. Incorporating these elements into a simple predictive statement ensures that you can determine an outcome from the experiment. Ensure that any variables are taken into consideration, and that the results from the hypothesis are measurable.

Types of Hypotheses

There are many types of hypotheses, but the seven most common are the following:

• Simple Hypothesis - Questions the relationship between the dependent and independent variables.
• Complex Hypothesis - Questions the effect of multiple dependent and independent variables.
• Empirical Hypothesis - Often called a working hypothesis, this question is applied to a specific field when looking for empirical evidence.
• Null Hypothesis - This is used to contradict the expected effect of dependent and independent variables. 
• Alternative Hypothesis - Several hypotheses are given, but as the experiment proceeds, the alternative hypothesis is introduced to reflect the conditions of the experiment. 
• Logical Hypothesis - These hypotheses are able to be verified using logic.
• Statistical Hypothesis ​ - A hypothesis of this type is one that can be proven using statistical analysis.

For more information about how to create a hypothesis, have a look at the  Fundamentals of Research Methodology  by Engwa Godwill. 

Based on the hypothesis created, the researcher will need to determine the best research design for the experiment. 

Health Sciences Librarian

• << Previous: Initial Steps
• Next: Research Designs and Methods >>
• Last Updated: Jul 26, 2023 10:10 AM
• URL: https://libguides.apsu.edu/OriginalResearch

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.
• 2 Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK. [email protected].
• 3 Department of Internal Medicine #2, Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine.
• 4 Department of Biology and Biochemistry, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan.
• 5 Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK.
• 6 Centre for Epidemiology versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
• PMID: 34962112
• PMCID: PMC8728594
• DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e338

Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate hypotheses. Observational and interventional studies help to test hypotheses. A good hypothesis is usually based on previous evidence-based reports. Hypotheses without evidence-based justification and a priori ideas are not received favourably by the scientific community. Original research to test a hypothesis should be carefully planned to ensure appropriate methodology and adequate statistical power. While hypotheses can challenge conventional thinking and may be controversial, they should not be destructive. A hypothesis should be tested by ethically sound experiments with meaningful ethical and clinical implications. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought into sharp focus numerous hypotheses, some of which were proven (e.g. effectiveness of corticosteroids in those with hypoxia) while others were disproven (e.g. ineffectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin).

Keywords: Hypotheses; Pandemic; Research Ethics; Study Design.

© 2021 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Fig. 1. Types of studies that help…

Fig. 1. Types of studies that help to generate and test hypotheses.

Similar articles

• COVID-19 Pandemic - A Narrative Review of the Potential Roles of Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine. de Barros CM, Almeida CAF, Pereira B, Costa KCM, Pinheiro FA, Maia LDB, Trindade CM, Garcia RCT, Torres LH, Diwan S, Boralli VB. de Barros CM, et al. Pain Physician. 2020 Aug;23(4S):S351-S366. Pain Physician. 2020. PMID: 32942793 Review.
• The SARS-CoV-2 Ivermectin Navarra-ISGlobal Trial (SAINT) to Evaluate the Potential of Ivermectin to Reduce COVID-19 Transmission in low risk, non-severe COVID-19 patients in the first 48 hours after symptoms onset: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized control pilot trial. Chaccour C, Ruiz-Castillo P, Richardson MA, Moncunill G, Casellas A, Carmona-Torre F, Giráldez M, Mota JS, Yuste JR, Azanza JR, Fernández M, Reina G, Dobaño C, Brew J, Sadaba B, Hammann F, Rabinovich R. Chaccour C, et al. Trials. 2020 Jun 8;21(1):498. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04421-z. Trials. 2020. PMID: 32513289 Free PMC article.
• Norwegian Coronavirus Disease 2019 (NO COVID-19) Pragmatic Open label Study to assess early use of hydroxychloroquine sulphate in moderately severe hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Lyngbakken MN, Berdal JE, Eskesen A, Kvale D, Olsen IC, Rangberg A, Jonassen CM, Omland T, Røsjø H, Dalgard O. Lyngbakken MN, et al. Trials. 2020 Jun 5;21(1):485. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04420-0. Trials. 2020. PMID: 32503662 Free PMC article.
• Controlled, double-blind, randomized trial to assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine chemoprophylaxis in SARS CoV2 infection in healthcare personnel in the hospital setting: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Cuadrado-Lavín A, Olmos JM, Cifrian JM, Gimenez T, Gandarillas MA, García-Saiz M, Rebollo MH, Martínez-Taboada V, López-Hoyos M, Fariñas MC, Crespo J. Cuadrado-Lavín A, et al. Trials. 2020 Jun 3;21(1):472. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04400-4. Trials. 2020. PMID: 32493494 Free PMC article.
• Efficacy of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19. Meo SA, Klonoff DC, Akram J. Meo SA, et al. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2020 Apr;24(8):4539-4547. doi: 10.26355/eurrev_202004_21038. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2020. PMID: 32373993 Review.
• What does artificial intelligence mean in rheumatology? Chandwar K, Prasanna Misra D. Chandwar K, et al. Arch Rheumatol. 2024 Feb 12;39(1):1-9. doi: 10.46497/ArchRheumatol.2024.10664. eCollection 2024 Mar. Arch Rheumatol. 2024. PMID: 38774703 Free PMC article. Review.
• Data-driven hypothesis generation among inexperienced clinical researchers: A comparison of secondary data analyses with visualization (VIADS) and other tools. Jing X, Cimino JJ, Patel VL, Zhou Y, Shubrook JH, De Lacalle S, Draghi BN, Ernst MA, Weaver A, Sekar S, Liu C. Jing X, et al. J Clin Transl Sci. 2024 Jan 4;8(1):e13. doi: 10.1017/cts.2023.708. eCollection 2024. J Clin Transl Sci. 2024. PMID: 38384898 Free PMC article.
• How do clinical researchers generate data-driven scientific hypotheses? Cognitive events using think-aloud protocol. Jing X, Draghi BN, Ernst MA, Patel VL, Cimino JJ, Shubrook JH, Zhou Y, Liu C, De Lacalle S. Jing X, et al. medRxiv [Preprint]. 2023 Oct 31:2023.10.31.23297860. doi: 10.1101/2023.10.31.23297860. medRxiv. 2023. PMID: 37961555 Free PMC article. Preprint.
• Conducting and Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ, Furuta A, Arima M, Tsuchiya S, Kawahara C, Takamiya Y, Izumi M. Barroga E, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2023 Sep 18;38(37):e291. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e291. J Korean Med Sci. 2023. PMID: 37724495 Free PMC article. Review.
• Data-driven hypothesis generation among inexperienced clinical researchers: A comparison of secondary data analyses with visualization (VIADS) and other tools. Jing X, Cimino JJ, Patel VL, Zhou Y, Shubrook JH, De Lacalle S, Draghi BN, Ernst MA, Weaver A, Sekar S, Liu C. Jing X, et al. medRxiv [Preprint]. 2023 Oct 31:2023.05.30.23290719. doi: 10.1101/2023.05.30.23290719. medRxiv. 2023. Update in: J Clin Transl Sci. 2024 Jan 04;8(1):e13. doi: 10.1017/cts.2023.708. PMID: 37333271 Free PMC article. Updated. Preprint.
• Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Mukanova U, Yessirkepov M, Kitas GD. Scientific hypotheses: writing, promoting, and predicting implications. J Korean Med Sci. 2019;34(45):e300. - PMC - PubMed
• Misra DP, Agarwal V. Generating working hypotheses for original research studies. Cent Asian J Med Hypotheses Ethics. 2020;1(1):14–19.
• Misra DP, Zimba O, Gasparyan AY. Statistical data presentation: a primer for rheumatology researchers. Rheumatol Int. 2021;41(1):43–55. - PubMed
• Yessirkepov M, Gasparyan AY. Embracing social media for generating and testing hypotheses. Cent Asian J Med Hypotheses Ethics. 2021;2(3):133–136.
• Holshue ML, DeBolt C, Lindquist S, Lofy KH, Wiesman J, Bruce H, et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(10):929–936. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• Korean Academy of Medical Sciences
• PubMed Central

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Development of Working Hypothesis: An Integral Step in Research Methodology

Table of Contents

A working hypothesis is a preliminary assumption or proposition that is subject to further testing and verification. It is an integral component of the research process as it guides the researcher in defining the research problem and designing the research methodology. The working hypothesis is not a definitive statement, but rather a starting point for further investigation.

Importance of a Working Hypothesis

Developing a working hypothesis is essential for a successful research project. It helps the researcher in the following ways:

• Guides research design : A well-defined working hypothesis can guide the selection of the appropriate research design and methodology.
• Defines the research problem : The working hypothesis can help in defining the research problem and determining the scope of the research project.
• Provides a framework for analysis : The working hypothesis provides a framework for data analysis, helping the researcher in interpreting the results of the study.

Steps in Developing a Working Hypothesis

Here are the steps involved in developing a working hypothesis:

Step 1: Identify the Research Problem

The first step in developing a working hypothesis is to identify the research problem. The research problem should be clearly defined and should align with the research question or objective.

Step 2: Conduct a Literature Review

Conducting a literature review can help in identifying existing theories, models, and concepts related to the research problem. The literature review can provide insights into the factors that influence the research problem and can help in developing a preliminary assumption.

Step 3: Formulate a Preliminary Assumption

Based on the literature review, formulate a preliminary assumption or proposition that explains the relationship between the variables of interest.

Step 4: Refine the Assumption

Refine the preliminary assumption by revising and testing it against available evidence. The assumption should be specific, testable, and capable of generating meaningful results.

Step 5: Develop the Working Hypothesis

Finally, develop the working hypothesis based on the refined assumption. The working hypothesis should be clear, concise, and provide direction for the research project.

Developing a working hypothesis is a crucial step in the research process. It provides direction and focus for the research project and helps in defining the research problem and methodology. By following the steps outlined above, you can develop a meaningful and testable working hypothesis for your research project.

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you! 😔

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Research Methodology for Management Decisions

1 Research Methodology: An Overview

• Meaning of Research
• Research Methodology
• Research Method
• Business Research Method
• Types of Research
• Importance of business research
• Role of research in important areas

2 Steps for Research Process

• Research process
• Define research problems
• Research Problem as Hypothesis Testing
• Extensive literature review in research
• Development of working hypothesis
• Preparing the research design
• Collecting the data
• Analysis of data
• Preparation of the report or the thesis

3 Research Designs

• Functions and Goals of Research Design
• Characteristics of a Good Design
• Different Types of Research Designs
• Exploratory Research Design
• Descriptive Research Design
• Experimental Research Design
• Types of Experimental Designs

4 Methods and Techniques of Data Collection

• Primary and Secondary Data
• Methods of Collecting Primary Data
• Merits and Demerits of Different Methods of Collecting Primary Data
• Designing a Questionnaire
• Pretesting a Questionnaire
• Editing of Primary Data
• Technique of Interview
• Collection of Secondary Data
• Scrutiny of Secondary Data

5 Attitude Measurement and Scales

• Attitudes, Attributes and Beliefs
• Issues in Attitude Measurement
• Scaling of Attitudes
• Deterministic Attitude Measurement Models: The Guttman Scale
• Thurstone’s Equal-Appearing Interval Scale
• The Semantic Differential Scale
• Summative Models: The Likert Scale
• The Q-Sort Technique
• Multidimensional Scaling
• Selection of an Appropriate Attitude Measurement Scale
• Limitations of Attitude Measurement Scales

6 Questionnaire Designing

• Introductory decisions
• Contents of the questionnaire
• Format of the questionnaire
• Steps involved in the questionnaire
• Structure and Design of Questionnaire
• Management of Fieldwork
• Ambiguities in the Questionnaire Methods

7 Sampling and Sampling Design

• Advantage of Sampling Over Census
• Simple Random Sampling
• Sampling Frame
• Probabilistic As pects of Sampling
• Stratified Random Sampling
• Other Methods of Sampling
• Sampling Design
• Non-Probability Sampling Methods

8 Data Processing

• Editing of Data
• Coding of Data
• Classification of Data
• Statistical Series
• Tables as Data Presentation Devices
• Graphical Presentation of Data

9 Statistical Analysis and Interpretation of Data: Nonparametric Tests

• One Sample Tests
• Two Sample Tests
• K Sample Tests

10 Multivariate Analysis of Data

• Regression Analysis
• Discriminant Analysis
• Factor Analysis

11 Ethics in Research

• Principles of research ethics
• Advantages of research ethics
• Limitations of the research ethics
• Steps involved in ethics
• What are research misconducts?

12 Substance of Reports

• Research Proposal
• Categories of Report
• Reviewing the Draft

13 Formats of Reports

• Parts of a Report
• Cover and Title Page
• Introductory Pages
• Reference Section
• Typing Instructions
• Copy Reading
• Proof Reading

14 Presentation of a Report

• Communication Dimensions
• Presentation Package
• Audio-Visual Aids
• Presenter’s Poise

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

The Craft of Writing a Strong Hypothesis

Table of Contents

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

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

What is a Hypothesis?

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

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

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

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

Different Types of Hypotheses‌

Types of hypotheses

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

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

1. Null hypothesis

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

2. Alternative hypothesis

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

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

3. Simple hypothesis

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

4. Complex hypothesis

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

5. Associative and casual hypothesis

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

6. Empirical hypothesis

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

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

7. Statistical hypothesis

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

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

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

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

Separating a Hypothesis from a Prediction

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, How to Write a Hypothesis

Quick tips on writing a hypothesis

1.  Be clear about your research question

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

2. Carry out a recce

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

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

3. Create a 3-dimensional hypothesis

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

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

4. Write the first draft

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

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

5. Proof your hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. what is the definition of hypothesis.

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

2. What is an example of hypothesis?

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

3. What is an example of null hypothesis?

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

4. What are the types of research?

• Fundamental research

• Applied research

• Qualitative research

• Quantitative research

• Mixed research

• Exploratory research

• Longitudinal research

• Cross-sectional research

• Field research

• Laboratory research

• Fixed research

• Flexible research

• Action research

• Policy research

• Classification research

• Comparative research

• Causal research

• Inductive research

• Deductive research

5. How to write a hypothesis?

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

• Avoid wordiness by keeping it simple and brief.

• Your hypothesis should contain observable and testable outcomes.

• Your hypothesis should be relevant to the research question.

6. What are the 2 types of hypothesis?

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

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

7. Difference between research question and research hypothesis?

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

8. What is plural for hypothesis?

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

9. What is the red queen hypothesis?

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

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

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

11. When to reject null hypothesis?

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

You might also like

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

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

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

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Developing a Hypothesis

Rajiv S. Jhangiani; I-Chant A. Chiang; Carrie Cuttler; and Dana C. Leighton

Learning Objectives

• Distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis.
• Discover how theories are used to generate hypotheses and how the results of studies can be used to further inform theories.
• Understand the characteristics of a good hypothesis.

Theories and Hypotheses

Before describing how to develop a hypothesis, it is important to distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis. A  theory  is a coherent explanation or interpretation of one or more phenomena. Although theories can take a variety of forms, one thing they have in common is that they go beyond the phenomena they explain by including variables, structures, processes, functions, or organizing principles that have not been observed directly. Consider, for example, Zajonc’s theory of social facilitation and social inhibition (1965) [1] . He proposed that being watched by others while performing a task creates a general state of physiological arousal, which increases the likelihood of the dominant (most likely) response. So for highly practiced tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make correct responses, but for relatively unpracticed tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make incorrect responses. Notice that this theory—which has come to be called drive theory—provides an explanation of both social facilitation and social inhibition that goes beyond the phenomena themselves by including concepts such as “arousal” and “dominant response,” along with processes such as the effect of arousal on the dominant response.

Outside of science, referring to an idea as a theory often implies that it is untested—perhaps no more than a wild guess. In science, however, the term theory has no such implication. A theory is simply an explanation or interpretation of a set of phenomena. It can be untested, but it can also be extensively tested, well supported, and accepted as an accurate description of the world by the scientific community. The theory of evolution by natural selection, for example, is a theory because it is an explanation of the diversity of life on earth—not because it is untested or unsupported by scientific research. On the contrary, the evidence for this theory is overwhelmingly positive and nearly all scientists accept its basic assumptions as accurate. Similarly, the “germ theory” of disease is a theory because it is an explanation of the origin of various diseases, not because there is any doubt that many diseases are caused by microorganisms that infect the body.

A  hypothesis , on the other hand, is a specific prediction about a new phenomenon that should be observed if a particular theory is accurate. It is an explanation that relies on just a few key concepts. Hypotheses are often specific predictions about what will happen in a particular study. They are developed by considering existing evidence and using reasoning to infer what will happen in the specific context of interest. Hypotheses are often but not always derived from theories. So a hypothesis is often a prediction based on a theory but some hypotheses are a-theoretical and only after a set of observations have been made, is a theory developed. This is because theories are broad in nature and they explain larger bodies of data. So if our research question is really original then we may need to collect some data and make some observations before we can develop a broader theory.

Theories and hypotheses always have this  if-then  relationship. “ If   drive theory is correct,  then  cockroaches should run through a straight runway faster, and a branching runway more slowly, when other cockroaches are present.” Although hypotheses are usually expressed as statements, they can always be rephrased as questions. “Do cockroaches run through a straight runway faster when other cockroaches are present?” Thus deriving hypotheses from theories is an excellent way of generating interesting research questions.

But how do researchers derive hypotheses from theories? One way is to generate a research question using the techniques discussed in this chapter  and then ask whether any theory implies an answer to that question. For example, you might wonder whether expressive writing about positive experiences improves health as much as expressive writing about traumatic experiences. Although this  question  is an interesting one  on its own, you might then ask whether the habituation theory—the idea that expressive writing causes people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings—implies an answer. In this case, it seems clear that if the habituation theory is correct, then expressive writing about positive experiences should not be effective because it would not cause people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings. A second way to derive hypotheses from theories is to focus on some component of the theory that has not yet been directly observed. For example, a researcher could focus on the process of habituation—perhaps hypothesizing that people should show fewer signs of emotional distress with each new writing session.

Among the very best hypotheses are those that distinguish between competing theories. For example, Norbert Schwarz and his colleagues considered two theories of how people make judgments about themselves, such as how assertive they are (Schwarz et al., 1991) [2] . Both theories held that such judgments are based on relevant examples that people bring to mind. However, one theory was that people base their judgments on the  number  of examples they bring to mind and the other was that people base their judgments on how  easily  they bring those examples to mind. To test these theories, the researchers asked people to recall either six times when they were assertive (which is easy for most people) or 12 times (which is difficult for most people). Then they asked them to judge their own assertiveness. Note that the number-of-examples theory implies that people who recalled 12 examples should judge themselves to be more assertive because they recalled more examples, but the ease-of-examples theory implies that participants who recalled six examples should judge themselves as more assertive because recalling the examples was easier. Thus the two theories made opposite predictions so that only one of the predictions could be confirmed. The surprising result was that participants who recalled fewer examples judged themselves to be more assertive—providing particularly convincing evidence in favor of the ease-of-retrieval theory over the number-of-examples theory.

Theory Testing

The primary way that scientific researchers use theories is sometimes called the hypothetico-deductive method  (although this term is much more likely to be used by philosophers of science than by scientists themselves). Researchers begin with a set of phenomena and either construct a theory to explain or interpret them or choose an existing theory to work with. They then make a prediction about some new phenomenon that should be observed if the theory is correct. Again, this prediction is called a hypothesis. The researchers then conduct an empirical study to test the hypothesis. Finally, they reevaluate the theory in light of the new results and revise it if necessary. This process is usually conceptualized as a cycle because the researchers can then derive a new hypothesis from the revised theory, conduct a new empirical study to test the hypothesis, and so on. As  Figure 2.3  shows, this approach meshes nicely with the model of scientific research in psychology presented earlier in the textbook—creating a more detailed model of “theoretically motivated” or “theory-driven” research.

As an example, let us consider Zajonc’s research on social facilitation and inhibition. He started with a somewhat contradictory pattern of results from the research literature. He then constructed his drive theory, according to which being watched by others while performing a task causes physiological arousal, which increases an organism’s tendency to make the dominant response. This theory predicts social facilitation for well-learned tasks and social inhibition for poorly learned tasks. He now had a theory that organized previous results in a meaningful way—but he still needed to test it. He hypothesized that if his theory was correct, he should observe that the presence of others improves performance in a simple laboratory task but inhibits performance in a difficult version of the very same laboratory task. To test this hypothesis, one of the studies he conducted used cockroaches as subjects (Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman, 1969) [3] . The cockroaches ran either down a straight runway (an easy task for a cockroach) or through a cross-shaped maze (a difficult task for a cockroach) to escape into a dark chamber when a light was shined on them. They did this either while alone or in the presence of other cockroaches in clear plastic “audience boxes.” Zajonc found that cockroaches in the straight runway reached their goal more quickly in the presence of other cockroaches, but cockroaches in the cross-shaped maze reached their goal more slowly when they were in the presence of other cockroaches. Thus he confirmed his hypothesis and provided support for his drive theory. (Zajonc also showed that drive theory existed in humans [Zajonc & Sales, 1966] [4] in many other studies afterward).

Incorporating Theory into Your Research

When you write your research report or plan your presentation, be aware that there are two basic ways that researchers usually include theory. The first is to raise a research question, answer that question by conducting a new study, and then offer one or more theories (usually more) to explain or interpret the results. This format works well for applied research questions and for research questions that existing theories do not address. The second way is to describe one or more existing theories, derive a hypothesis from one of those theories, test the hypothesis in a new study, and finally reevaluate the theory. This format works well when there is an existing theory that addresses the research question—especially if the resulting hypothesis is surprising or conflicts with a hypothesis derived from a different theory.

To use theories in your research will not only give you guidance in coming up with experiment ideas and possible projects, but it lends legitimacy to your work. Psychologists have been interested in a variety of human behaviors and have developed many theories along the way. Using established theories will help you break new ground as a researcher, not limit you from developing your own ideas.

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

There are three general characteristics of a good hypothesis. First, a good hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable . We must be able to test the hypothesis using the methods of science and if you’ll recall Popper’s falsifiability criterion, it must be possible to gather evidence that will disconfirm the hypothesis if it is indeed false. Second, a good hypothesis must be logical. As described above, hypotheses are more than just a random guess. Hypotheses should be informed by previous theories or observations and logical reasoning. Typically, we begin with a broad and general theory and use  deductive reasoning to generate a more specific hypothesis to test based on that theory. Occasionally, however, when there is no theory to inform our hypothesis, we use  inductive reasoning  which involves using specific observations or research findings to form a more general hypothesis. Finally, the hypothesis should be positive. That is, the hypothesis should make a positive statement about the existence of a relationship or effect, rather than a statement that a relationship or effect does not exist. As scientists, we don’t set out to show that relationships do not exist or that effects do not occur so our hypotheses should not be worded in a way to suggest that an effect or relationship does not exist. The nature of science is to assume that something does not exist and then seek to find evidence to prove this wrong, to show that it really does exist. That may seem backward to you but that is the nature of the scientific method. The underlying reason for this is beyond the scope of this chapter but it has to do with statistical theory.

• Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation.  Science, 149 , 269–274 ↵
• Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 , 195–202. ↵
• Zajonc, R. B., Heingartner, A., & Herman, E. M. (1969). Social enhancement and impairment of performance in the cockroach.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13 , 83–92. ↵
• Zajonc, R.B. & Sales, S.M. (1966). Social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2 , 160-168. ↵

A coherent explanation or interpretation of one or more phenomena.

A specific prediction about a new phenomenon that should be observed if a particular theory is accurate.

A cyclical process of theory development, starting with an observed phenomenon, then developing or using a theory to make a specific prediction of what should happen if that theory is correct, testing that prediction, refining the theory in light of the findings, and using that refined theory to develop new hypotheses, and so on.

The ability to test the hypothesis using the methods of science and the possibility to gather evidence that will disconfirm the hypothesis if it is indeed false.

Developing a Hypothesis Copyright © by Rajiv S. Jhangiani; I-Chant A. Chiang; Carrie Cuttler; and Dana C. Leighton is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Search My Blog

Knowledge of Pharma

Pharma Field knowledge.... :)

3. Development of working hypothesis:

• After extensive literature survey, researcher should state in clear terms the working hypothesis or hypotheses. Working hypothesis is tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.
• As such the manner in which research hypotheses are developed is particularly important since they provide the focal point for research. They also affect the manner in which tests must be conducted in the analysis of data and indirectly the quality of data which is required for the analysis.
• In most types of research, the development of working hypothesis plays an important role. Hypothesis should be very specific and limited to the piece of research in hand because it has to be tested.
• The role of the hypothesis is to guide the researcher by delimiting the area of research and to keep him on the right track. It sharpens his thinking and focuses attention on the more important facets of the problem. It also indicates the type of data required and the type of methods of data analysis to be used.
• The answer is by using the following approach:
•   Thus, working hypotheses arise as a result of a-priori thinking about the subject, examination of the available data and material including related studies and the counsel of experts and interested parties. Working hypotheses are more useful when stated in precise and clearly defined terms.
• It may as well be remembered that occasionally we may encounter a problem where we do not need working hypotheses, especially in the case of exploratory or formulate researches which do not aim at testing the hypothesis. But as a general rule, specification of working hypotheses in another basic step of the research process in most research problems.

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog, plant layout for capsule manufacturing department & manufacturing process.

2. Extensive literature survey:

ANTIOXIDANTS: In Pharmaceutical Formulation

Facebook Page

Hypothesis Development

• First Online: 29 June 2021

Cite this chapter

• Tom Filip Lesche 4  

Part of the book series: Finanzwirtschaft, Banken und Bankmanagement I Finance, Banks and Bank Management ((FIBABA))

420 Accesses

This chapter develops hypotheses about the research question and the applied methodology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Due to the introduction of O-SIIs, much of the distinction of G-SIBs is lost. It adds to the confusion that, for some banks, the O-SII (D-SIB) surcharge is higher than the G-SIB surcharge (for instance, ING and Nordea with a 2 percent D-SIB surcharge against a 1 percent G-SIB surcharge). In some cases, it is lower (for instance, BNP Paribas with a 1.5 percent D-SIB surcharge against a G-SIB surcharge of 2 percent).

Goldman Sachs (5 January 2015).

Cf. Creswell (2014).

Moenninghoff, Ongena, and Wieandt (2015).

Dewenter and Hess (October 2013).

With tax considered to be insignificant.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Management and Economics, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany

Tom Filip Lesche

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tom Filip Lesche .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Lesche, T.F. (2021). Hypothesis Development. In: Too-Big-to-Fail in Banking. Finanzwirtschaft, Banken und Bankmanagement I Finance, Banks and Bank Management. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34182-4_10

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34182-4_10

Published : 29 June 2021

Publisher Name : Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

Print ISBN : 978-3-658-34181-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-658-34182-4

eBook Packages : Economics and Finance Economics and Finance (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Improving quality of work for positive health: interaction of sustainable development goal (sdg) 8 and sdg 3 from the sustainable hrm perspective.

1. Introduction

2. theoretical background and hypothesis, 2.1. work practices-related leading indicators of health for social sustainability, 2.2. work intensification and health outcomes: the role of the health harm of work, 2.3. work intensification as decent/adverse working conditions (sdg 8), 2.4. work intensification and self-reported health outcomes, 2.5. health harm of work as a mediator, 3. research method, sample and procedure, 4. measures, 4.1. independent variable: work intensification, 4.2. mediator variable: the health harm of work, 4.3. dependent variable: mental well-being, 4.4. dependent variable: health risk factors, 4.5. dependent variable: work-related chronic disease, 5. data analyses, 5.1. measurement models, 5.2. the research model for testing hypotheses, 6.1. research model assessment, 6.2. structural model assessment, 7. discussion, 8. limitations, future research, and conclusions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest, appendix a.1. work intensification.

• Strongly disagree
• Slightly disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Slightly agree
• Strongly agree

Appendix A.2. Health Harm of Work

• Strongly disagree (SD)
• Moderately disagree (MD)
• Slightly disagree (SD)
• Slightly agree (SA)
• Moderately agree (MA)
• Strongly agree (SA)

Appendix A.3. Mental Well-Being

Appendix A.4

• Please indicate your height _____ meters; Weight ______ Kg
• If yes, how many cigarettes do you smoke in a day: 1 (<10) 2 (10 and more)
• Reported systolic/diastolic blood pressure >139/>89 mmHg or currently have high blood pressure.
• Currently take medication for blood pressure
• Currently under medical care for blood pressure
• Reported total cholesterol >239 mg/dL or currently have high cholesterol.
• Currently take medication for cholesterol
• To work out your BMI:
• divide your weight in kilograms (kg) by your height in metres (m)
• then divide the answer by your height again to get your BMI
• For example:
• If you weigh 70 kg and you’re 1.75 m tall, divide 70 by 1.75. The answer is 40.
• Then divide 40 by 1.75. The answer is 22.9. This is your BMI.

Appendix A.5

• In the past
• Have currently

• International Labour Organisation (ILO). WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-Related Burden of Disease and Injury, 2000–2016: Global Monitoring Report ; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bloomberg, M.R.; Aggarwala, R.T. Think locally, act globally. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008 , 35 , 414–423. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Heller, O.; Somerville, C.; Suggs, L.S.; Lachat, S.; Piper, J.; Aya Pastrana, N.; Beran, D. The process of prioritization of non-communicable diseases in the global health policy arena. Health Policy Plan. 2019 , 34 , 370–383. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Park, J.; Montiel, I.; Husted, B.W.; Balarezo, R. The Grand Challenge of Human Health: A Review and an Urgent Call for Business–Health Research. Bus. Soc. 2022 , 61 , 1353–1415. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Howden-Chapman, P.; Siri, J.; Chisholm, E.; Chapman, R.; Doll, C.N.; Capon, A. SDG 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages. In A Guide to SDG Interactions: From Science to Implementation ; International Council for Science: Paris, France, 2017; pp. 81–126. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pfeffer, J. Dying for a Paycheck: How Modern Management Harms Employee Health and Company Performance—And What We Can Do about It ; HarperCollins: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mariappanadar, S. Stakeholder harm index: A framework to review work intensification from the critical HRM perspective. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2014 , 24 , 313–329. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Potter, R.; O’Keeffe, V.; Leka, S.; Webber, M.; Dollard, M. Analytical review of the Australian policy context for work-related psychological health and psychosocial risks. Saf. Sci. 2019 , 111 , 37–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2017 , 22 , 273. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zwetsloot, G.; Leka, S.; Kines, P.; Jain, A. Vision zero: Developing proactive leading indicators for safety, health and wellbeing at work. Saf. Sci. 2020 , 130 , 104890. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sinelnikov, S.; Inouye, J.; Kerper, S. Using leading indicators to measure occupational health and safety performance. Saf. Sci. 2015 , 72 , 240–248. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Granter, E.; McCann, L.; Boyle, M. Extreme work/normal work: Intensification, storytelling and hypermediation in the (re) construction of ‘the New Normal’. Organization 2015 , 22 , 443–456. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rydstedt, L.W.; Ferrie, J.; Head, J. Is there support for curvilinear relationships between psychosocial work characteristics and mental well-being? Cross-sectional and long-term data from the Whitehall II study. Work Stress 2006 , 20 , 6–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mariappanadar, S. Health harm of work from the sustainable HRM perspective: Scale development and validation. Int. J. Manpow. 2016 , 37 , 924–944. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Macke, J.; Genari, D. Systematic literature review on sustainable human resource management. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 208 , 806–815. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miao, R.; Bozionelos, N.; Zhou, W.; Newman, A. High-performance work systems and key employee attitudes: The roles of psychological capital and an interactional justice climate. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2021 , 32 , 443–477. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• GRI 403 ; Occupational Health and Safety 2018. GRI: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018.
• Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1986 , 51 , 1173. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pearl, J. The causal foundations of structural equation modelling. In Handbook of Structural Equation Modelling , 2nd ed.; Hoyle, R.H., Ed.; The Guildford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2023. [ Google Scholar ]
• Latza, U.; Hampel, E.; Wiencke, M.; Prigge, M.; Schlattmann, A.; Sommer, S. Introducing occupational health management in the German Armed Forces. Health Promot. Int. 2017 , 33 , 938–945. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Jain, A.; Leka, S.; Zwetsloot, G.I.J.M. Aligning Perspectives and Promoting Sustainability. In Managing Health, Safety and Well-Being. Aligning Perspectives on Health, Safety and Well-Being ; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherland, 2018. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mariappanadar, S. Sustainable Human Resource Management: Strategies, Practices and Challenges ; Macmillan International Publisher: London, UK, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mariappanadar, S. Do HRM systems impose restrictions on employee quality of life? Evidence from a sustainable HRM perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2020 , 118 , 38–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mariappanadar, S.; Kramar, R. Sustainable HRM: The Synthesis Effects of High Performance Work Systems on Organisational Performance and Employee Harm. Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 2014 , 6 , 206–224. [ Google Scholar ]
• Macky, K.; Boxall, P. High-involvement work processes, work intensification and employee well-being: A study of New Zealand worker experiences. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2008 , 46 , 38–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ogbonna, E.; Harris, L.C. Work intensification and emotional labour among UK university lecturers: An exploratory study. Organ. Stud. 2004 , 25 , 1185–1203. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kamerāde, D.; Wang, S.; Burchell, B.; Balderson, S.U.; Coutts, A. A shorter working week for everyone: How much paid work is needed for mental health and well-being? Soc. Sci. Med. 2019 , 241 , 112353. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Silla, I.; Gamero, N. Shared time pressure at work and its health-related outcomes: Job satisfaction as a mediator. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2014 , 23 , 405–418. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Crouter, A.C.; Bumpus, M.F.; Head, M.R.; McHale, S.M. Implications of overwork and overload for the quality of men’s family relationships. J. Marriage Fam. 2001 , 63 , 404–416. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van De Voorde, K.; Paauwe, J.; Van Veldhoven, M. Employee well-being and the HRM–organizational performance relationship: A review of quantitative studies. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2012 , 14 , 391–407. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ramsay, H.; Scholarios, D.; Harley, B. Employees and high-performance work systems: Testing inside the black box. Br. J. Ind. Relat. 2000 , 38 , 501–531. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pérez-Zapata, O.; Pascual, A.S.; Álvarez-Hernández, G.; Collado, C.C. Knowledge work intensification and self-management: The autonomy paradox. Work Organ. Labour Glob. 2016 , 10 , 27–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Härmä, M. Workhours in relation to work stress, recovery and health. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2006 , 32 , 502–514. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Urtasun, A.; Nuñez, I. Healthy working days: The (positive) effect of work effort on occupational health from a human capital approach. Soc. Sci. Med. 2018 , 202 , 79–88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Grace, M.K.; Van Heuvelen, J.S. Occupational variation in burnout among medical staff: Evidence for the stress of higher status. Soc. Sci. Med. 2019 , 232 , 199–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Quandt, S.A.; Arcury-Quandt, A.E.; Lawlor, E.J.; Carrillo, L.; Marín, A.J.; Grzywacz, J.G.; Arcury, T.A. 3-D jobs and health disparities: The health implications of latino chicken catchers′ working conditions. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2013 , 56 , 206–215. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huppert, F.A.; So, T.T. Flourishing across Europe: Application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being. Soc. Indic. Res. 2013 , 110 , 837–861. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Spector, P.E.; Cooper, C.L.; Poelmans, S.; Allen, T.D.; O’driscoll, M.; Sanchez, J.I.; Siu, O.L.; Dewe, P.; Hart, P.; Lu, L.; et al. A cross-national comparative study of work-family stressors, working hours, and well-being: China and Latin America versus the Anglo world. In International Human Resource Management ; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 257–277. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fox, G.L. Families in the media: Reflections on the public scrutiny of private behavior. J. Marriage Fam. 1999 , 61 , 821–830. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kivimäki, M.; Jokela, M.; Nyberg, S.T.; Singh-Manoux, A.; Fransson, E.I.; Alfredsson, L.; Virtanen, M. Long working hours and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished data for 603 838 individuals. Lancet 2015 , 386 , 1739–1746. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Schuit, A.J.; van Loon, A.J.M.; Tijhuis, M.; Ocké, M.C. Clustering of lifestyle risk factors in a general adult population. Prev. Med. 2002 , 35 , 219–224. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kraemer, H.C.; Kazdin, A.E.; Offord, D.R.; Kessler, R.C.; Jensen, P.S.; Kupfer, D.J. Coming to terms with the terms of risk. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 1997 , 54 , 337–343. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Flay, B.R.; Petraitis, J. A new theory of health behavior with implications for preventive interventions. Adv. Med. Sociol. 1994 , 4 , 19–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van der Hulst, M. Long workhours and health. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2003 , 29 , 171–188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ferrie, J.E. Is job insecurity harmful to health? J. R. Soc. Med. 2001 , 94 , 71–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zeytinoglu, I.U.; Denton, M.; Davies, S.; Baumann, A.; Blythe, J.; Boos, L. Associations between work intensification, stress and job satisfaction: The case of nurses in Ontario. Relat. Ind. 2007 , 62 , 201–225. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Heraclides, A.; Chandola, T.; Witte, D.R.; Brunner, E.J. Psychosocial stress at work doubles the risk of type 2 diabetes in middle-aged women evidence from the whitehall II study. Diabetes Care 2009 , 32 , 2230–2235. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rothenbacher, D.; Peter, R.; Bode, G.; Adler, G.; Brenner, H. Dyspepsia in relation to Helicobacter pylori infection and psychosocial work stress in white collar employees. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 1998 , 93 , 1443–1449. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Virtanen, M.; Heikkilä, K.; Jokela, M.; Ferrie, J.E.; Batty, G.D.; Vahtera, J.; Kivimäki, M. Long working hours and coronary heart disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2012 , 176 , 586–596. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sonnentag, S.; Kuttler, I.; Fritz, C. Job stressors, emotional exhaustion, and need for recovery: A multi-source study on the benefits of psychological detachment. J. Vocat. Behav. 2010 , 76 , 355–365. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Parker, S.L.; Sonnentag, S.; Jimmieson, N.L.; Newton, C.J. Relaxation during the evening and next-morning energy: The role of hassles, uplifts, and heart rate variability during work. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2020 , 25 , 83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Donahue, E.G.; Forest, J.; Vallerand, R.J.; Lemyre, P.N.; Crevier-Braud, L.; Bergeron, É. Passion for work and emotional exhaustion: The mediating role of rumination and recovery. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being 2012 , 4 , 341–368. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Voegtlin, C.; Greenwood, M. Corporate social responsibility and human resource management: A systematic review and conceptual analysis. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2016 , 26 , 181–197. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Selye, H. Stress and disease. Science 1955 , 122 , 625–631. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• O′Connor, D.B.; Thayer, J.F.; Vedhara, K. Stress and health: A review of psychobiological processes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2021 , 72 , 663–688. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bannai, A.; Tamakoshi, A. The association between long working hours and health: A systematic review of epidemiological evidence. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2014 , 40 , 5–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003 , 88 , 879–903. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bech, P.; Olsen, L.R.; Kjoller, M.; Rasmussen, N.K. Measuring well-being rather than the absence of distress symptoms: A comparison of the SF-36 Mental Health subscale and the WHO-Five well-being scale. Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 2003 , 12 , 85–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mitchell, R.J.; Bates, P. Measuring health-related productivity loss. Popul. Health Manag. 2011 , 14 , 93–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cundiff, J.M.; Smith, T.W.; Uchino, B.N.; Berg, C.A. Subjective social status: Construct validity and associations with psychosocial vulnerability and self-rated health. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2013 , 20 , 148–158. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective ; Pearson Publisher: Delhi, India, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Narayanan, A. A review of eight software packages for structural equation modeling. Am. Stat. 2012 , 66 , 129–138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, X.; Lynch, J.G., Jr.; Chen, Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. J. Consum. Res. 2010 , 37 , 197–206. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Preacher, K.J.; Kelley, K. Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychol. Methods 2011 , 16 , 93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Holmgren, K.; Dahlin-Ivanoff, S.; Björkelund, C.; Hensing, G. The prevalence of work-related stress, and its association with self-perceived health and sick-leave, in a population of employed Swedish women. BMC Public Health 2009 , 9 , 73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rindfleisch, A.; Malter, A.J.; Ganesan, S.; Moorman, C. Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey research: Concepts, findings, and guidelines. J. Mark. Res. 2008 , 45 , 261–279. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hosseinpoor, A.R.; Bergen, N.; Schlotheuber, A.; Grove, J. Measuring health inequalities in the context of sustainable development goals. Bull. World Health Organ. 2018 , 96 , 654–659. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Byrne, B.M. Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: A road less travelled. Struct. Equ. Model. 2004 , 11 , 272–300. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Mariappanadar, S. Improving Quality of Work for Positive Health: Interaction of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8 and SDG 3 from the Sustainable HRM Perspective. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5356. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135356

Mariappanadar S. Improving Quality of Work for Positive Health: Interaction of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8 and SDG 3 from the Sustainable HRM Perspective. Sustainability . 2024; 16(13):5356. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135356

Mariappanadar, Sugumar. 2024. "Improving Quality of Work for Positive Health: Interaction of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8 and SDG 3 from the Sustainable HRM Perspective" Sustainability 16, no. 13: 5356. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135356

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals