examples of hypothesis testing in psychology

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

Chapter 13: Inferential Statistics

Understanding Null Hypothesis Testing

Learning Objectives

• Explain the purpose of null hypothesis testing, including the role of sampling error.
• Describe the basic logic of null hypothesis testing.
• Describe the role of relationship strength and sample size in determining statistical significance and make reasonable judgments about statistical significance based on these two factors.

The Purpose of Null Hypothesis Testing

As we have seen, psychological research typically involves measuring one or more variables for a sample and computing descriptive statistics for that sample. In general, however, the researcher’s goal is not to draw conclusions about that sample but to draw conclusions about the population that the sample was selected from. Thus researchers must use sample statistics to draw conclusions about the corresponding values in the population. These corresponding values in the population are called  parameters . Imagine, for example, that a researcher measures the number of depressive symptoms exhibited by each of 50 clinically depressed adults and computes the mean number of symptoms. The researcher probably wants to use this sample statistic (the mean number of symptoms for the sample) to draw conclusions about the corresponding population parameter (the mean number of symptoms for clinically depressed adults).

Unfortunately, sample statistics are not perfect estimates of their corresponding population parameters. This is because there is a certain amount of random variability in any statistic from sample to sample. The mean number of depressive symptoms might be 8.73 in one sample of clinically depressed adults, 6.45 in a second sample, and 9.44 in a third—even though these samples are selected randomly from the same population. Similarly, the correlation (Pearson’s  r ) between two variables might be +.24 in one sample, −.04 in a second sample, and +.15 in a third—again, even though these samples are selected randomly from the same population. This random variability in a statistic from sample to sample is called  sampling error . (Note that the term error  here refers to random variability and does not imply that anyone has made a mistake. No one “commits a sampling error.”)

One implication of this is that when there is a statistical relationship in a sample, it is not always clear that there is a statistical relationship in the population. A small difference between two group means in a sample might indicate that there is a small difference between the two group means in the population. But it could also be that there is no difference between the means in the population and that the difference in the sample is just a matter of sampling error. Similarly, a Pearson’s  r  value of −.29 in a sample might mean that there is a negative relationship in the population. But it could also be that there is no relationship in the population and that the relationship in the sample is just a matter of sampling error.

In fact, any statistical relationship in a sample can be interpreted in two ways:

• There is a relationship in the population, and the relationship in the sample reflects this.
• There is no relationship in the population, and the relationship in the sample reflects only sampling error.

The purpose of null hypothesis testing is simply to help researchers decide between these two interpretations.

The Logic of Null Hypothesis Testing

Null hypothesis testing  is a formal approach to deciding between two interpretations of a statistical relationship in a sample. One interpretation is called the   null hypothesis  (often symbolized  H 0  and read as “H-naught”). This is the idea that there is no relationship in the population and that the relationship in the sample reflects only sampling error. Informally, the null hypothesis is that the sample relationship “occurred by chance.” The other interpretation is called the  alternative hypothesis  (often symbolized as  H 1 ). This is the idea that there is a relationship in the population and that the relationship in the sample reflects this relationship in the population.

Again, every statistical relationship in a sample can be interpreted in either of these two ways: It might have occurred by chance, or it might reflect a relationship in the population. So researchers need a way to decide between them. Although there are many specific null hypothesis testing techniques, they are all based on the same general logic. The steps are as follows:

• Assume for the moment that the null hypothesis is true. There is no relationship between the variables in the population.
• Determine how likely the sample relationship would be if the null hypothesis were true.
• If the sample relationship would be extremely unlikely, then reject the null hypothesis  in favour of the alternative hypothesis. If it would not be extremely unlikely, then  retain the null hypothesis .

Following this logic, we can begin to understand why Mehl and his colleagues concluded that there is no difference in talkativeness between women and men in the population. In essence, they asked the following question: “If there were no difference in the population, how likely is it that we would find a small difference of  d  = 0.06 in our sample?” Their answer to this question was that this sample relationship would be fairly likely if the null hypothesis were true. Therefore, they retained the null hypothesis—concluding that there is no evidence of a sex difference in the population. We can also see why Kanner and his colleagues concluded that there is a correlation between hassles and symptoms in the population. They asked, “If the null hypothesis were true, how likely is it that we would find a strong correlation of +.60 in our sample?” Their answer to this question was that this sample relationship would be fairly unlikely if the null hypothesis were true. Therefore, they rejected the null hypothesis in favour of the alternative hypothesis—concluding that there is a positive correlation between these variables in the population.

A crucial step in null hypothesis testing is finding the likelihood of the sample result if the null hypothesis were true. This probability is called the  p value . A low  p  value means that the sample result would be unlikely if the null hypothesis were true and leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis. A high  p  value means that the sample result would be likely if the null hypothesis were true and leads to the retention of the null hypothesis. But how low must the  p  value be before the sample result is considered unlikely enough to reject the null hypothesis? In null hypothesis testing, this criterion is called  α (alpha)  and is almost always set to .05. If there is less than a 5% chance of a result as extreme as the sample result if the null hypothesis were true, then the null hypothesis is rejected. When this happens, the result is said to be  statistically significant . If there is greater than a 5% chance of a result as extreme as the sample result when the null hypothesis is true, then the null hypothesis is retained. This does not necessarily mean that the researcher accepts the null hypothesis as true—only that there is not currently enough evidence to conclude that it is true. Researchers often use the expression “fail to reject the null hypothesis” rather than “retain the null hypothesis,” but they never use the expression “accept the null hypothesis.”

The Misunderstood  p  Value

The  p  value is one of the most misunderstood quantities in psychological research (Cohen, 1994) [1] . Even professional researchers misinterpret it, and it is not unusual for such misinterpretations to appear in statistics textbooks!

The most common misinterpretation is that the  p  value is the probability that the null hypothesis is true—that the sample result occurred by chance. For example, a misguided researcher might say that because the  p  value is .02, there is only a 2% chance that the result is due to chance and a 98% chance that it reflects a real relationship in the population. But this is incorrect . The  p  value is really the probability of a result at least as extreme as the sample result  if  the null hypothesis  were  true. So a  p  value of .02 means that if the null hypothesis were true, a sample result this extreme would occur only 2% of the time.

You can avoid this misunderstanding by remembering that the  p  value is not the probability that any particular  hypothesis  is true or false. Instead, it is the probability of obtaining the  sample result  if the null hypothesis were true.

Role of Sample Size and Relationship Strength

Recall that null hypothesis testing involves answering the question, “If the null hypothesis were true, what is the probability of a sample result as extreme as this one?” In other words, “What is the  p  value?” It can be helpful to see that the answer to this question depends on just two considerations: the strength of the relationship and the size of the sample. Specifically, the stronger the sample relationship and the larger the sample, the less likely the result would be if the null hypothesis were true. That is, the lower the  p  value. This should make sense. Imagine a study in which a sample of 500 women is compared with a sample of 500 men in terms of some psychological characteristic, and Cohen’s  d  is a strong 0.50. If there were really no sex difference in the population, then a result this strong based on such a large sample should seem highly unlikely. Now imagine a similar study in which a sample of three women is compared with a sample of three men, and Cohen’s  d  is a weak 0.10. If there were no sex difference in the population, then a relationship this weak based on such a small sample should seem likely. And this is precisely why the null hypothesis would be rejected in the first example and retained in the second.

Of course, sometimes the result can be weak and the sample large, or the result can be strong and the sample small. In these cases, the two considerations trade off against each other so that a weak result can be statistically significant if the sample is large enough and a strong relationship can be statistically significant even if the sample is small. Table 13.1 shows roughly how relationship strength and sample size combine to determine whether a sample result is statistically significant. The columns of the table represent the three levels of relationship strength: weak, medium, and strong. The rows represent four sample sizes that can be considered small, medium, large, and extra large in the context of psychological research. Thus each cell in the table represents a combination of relationship strength and sample size. If a cell contains the word  Yes , then this combination would be statistically significant for both Cohen’s  d  and Pearson’s  r . If it contains the word  No , then it would not be statistically significant for either. There is one cell where the decision for  d  and  r  would be different and another where it might be different depending on some additional considerations, which are discussed in Section 13.2 “Some Basic Null Hypothesis Tests”

Although Table 13.1 provides only a rough guideline, it shows very clearly that weak relationships based on medium or small samples are never statistically significant and that strong relationships based on medium or larger samples are always statistically significant. If you keep this lesson in mind, you will often know whether a result is statistically significant based on the descriptive statistics alone. It is extremely useful to be able to develop this kind of intuitive judgment. One reason is that it allows you to develop expectations about how your formal null hypothesis tests are going to come out, which in turn allows you to detect problems in your analyses. For example, if your sample relationship is strong and your sample is medium, then you would expect to reject the null hypothesis. If for some reason your formal null hypothesis test indicates otherwise, then you need to double-check your computations and interpretations. A second reason is that the ability to make this kind of intuitive judgment is an indication that you understand the basic logic of this approach in addition to being able to do the computations.

Statistical Significance Versus Practical Significance

Table 13.1 illustrates another extremely important point. A statistically significant result is not necessarily a strong one. Even a very weak result can be statistically significant if it is based on a large enough sample. This is closely related to Janet Shibley Hyde’s argument about sex differences (Hyde, 2007) [2] . The differences between women and men in mathematical problem solving and leadership ability are statistically significant. But the word  significant  can cause people to interpret these differences as strong and important—perhaps even important enough to influence the college courses they take or even who they vote for. As we have seen, however, these statistically significant differences are actually quite weak—perhaps even “trivial.”

This is why it is important to distinguish between the  statistical  significance of a result and the  practical  significance of that result.  Practical significance refers to the importance or usefulness of the result in some real-world context. Many sex differences are statistically significant—and may even be interesting for purely scientific reasons—but they are not practically significant. In clinical practice, this same concept is often referred to as “clinical significance.” For example, a study on a new treatment for social phobia might show that it produces a statistically significant positive effect. Yet this effect still might not be strong enough to justify the time, effort, and other costs of putting it into practice—especially if easier and cheaper treatments that work almost as well already exist. Although statistically significant, this result would be said to lack practical or clinical significance.

Key Takeaways

• Null hypothesis testing is a formal approach to deciding whether a statistical relationship in a sample reflects a real relationship in the population or is just due to chance.
• The logic of null hypothesis testing involves assuming that the null hypothesis is true, finding how likely the sample result would be if this assumption were correct, and then making a decision. If the sample result would be unlikely if the null hypothesis were true, then it is rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis. If it would not be unlikely, then the null hypothesis is retained.
• The probability of obtaining the sample result if the null hypothesis were true (the  p  value) is based on two considerations: relationship strength and sample size. Reasonable judgments about whether a sample relationship is statistically significant can often be made by quickly considering these two factors.
• Statistical significance is not the same as relationship strength or importance. Even weak relationships can be statistically significant if the sample size is large enough. It is important to consider relationship strength and the practical significance of a result in addition to its statistical significance.
• Discussion: Imagine a study showing that people who eat more broccoli tend to be happier. Explain for someone who knows nothing about statistics why the researchers would conduct a null hypothesis test.
• The correlation between two variables is  r  = −.78 based on a sample size of 137.
• The mean score on a psychological characteristic for women is 25 ( SD  = 5) and the mean score for men is 24 ( SD  = 5). There were 12 women and 10 men in this study.
• In a memory experiment, the mean number of items recalled by the 40 participants in Condition A was 0.50 standard deviations greater than the mean number recalled by the 40 participants in Condition B.
• In another memory experiment, the mean scores for participants in Condition A and Condition B came out exactly the same!
• A student finds a correlation of  r  = .04 between the number of units the students in his research methods class are taking and the students’ level of stress.

Long Descriptions

“Null Hypothesis” long description: A comic depicting a man and a woman talking in the foreground. In the background is a child working at a desk. The man says to the woman, “I can’t believe schools are still teaching kids about the null hypothesis. I remember reading a big study that conclusively disproved it years ago.” [Return to “Null Hypothesis”]

“Conditional Risk” long description: A comic depicting two hikers beside a tree during a thunderstorm. A bolt of lightning goes “crack” in the dark sky as thunder booms. One of the hikers says, “Whoa! We should get inside!” The other hiker says, “It’s okay! Lightning only kills about 45 Americans a year, so the chances of dying are only one in 7,000,000. Let’s go on!” The comic’s caption says, “The annual death rate among people who know that statistic is one in six.” [Return to “Conditional Risk”]

Media Attributions

• Null Hypothesis by XKCD  CC BY-NC (Attribution NonCommercial)
• Conditional Risk by XKCD  CC BY-NC (Attribution NonCommercial)
• Cohen, J. (1994). The world is round: p < .05. American Psychologist, 49 , 997–1003. ↵
• Hyde, J. S. (2007). New directions in the study of gender similarities and differences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16 , 259–263. ↵

Values in a population that correspond to variables measured in a study.

The random variability in a statistic from sample to sample.

A formal approach to deciding between two interpretations of a statistical relationship in a sample.

The idea that there is no relationship in the population and that the relationship in the sample reflects only sampling error.

The idea that there is a relationship in the population and that the relationship in the sample reflects this relationship in the population.

When the relationship found in the sample would be extremely unlikely, the idea that the relationship occurred “by chance” is rejected.

When the relationship found in the sample is likely to have occurred by chance, the null hypothesis is not rejected.

The probability that, if the null hypothesis were true, the result found in the sample would occur.

How low the p value must be before the sample result is considered unlikely in null hypothesis testing.

When there is less than a 5% chance of a result as extreme as the sample result occurring and the null hypothesis is rejected.

Research Methods in Psychology - 2nd Canadian Edition Copyright © 2015 by Paul C. Price, Rajiv Jhangiani, & I-Chant A. Chiang is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Live revision! Join us for our free exam revision livestreams Watch now →

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Psychology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Psychology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis testing is an important feature of science, as this is how theories are developed and modified. A good theory should generate testable predictions (hypotheses), and if research fails to support the hypotheses, then this suggests that the theory needs to be modified in some way.

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

Research Methods: MCQ Revision Test 1 for AQA A Level Psychology

Topic Videos

Example Answers for Research Methods: A Level Psychology, Paper 2, June 2018 (AQA)

Exam Support

A Level Psychology Topic Quiz - Research Methods

Quizzes & Activities

Our subjects

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

Introduction to Statistics in the Psychological Sciences

(7 reviews)

Linda R. Cote, Marymount University

Rupa Gordon, Augstana College

Chrislyn E. Randell, Metropolitan State University of Denver

Judy Schmitt, University of Missouri-St. Louis

Rudy Guerra, University of Missouri-St. Louis

Copyright Year: 2021

Last Update: 2024

Publisher: University of Missouri - St. Louis

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Beth Mechlin, Associate Professor of Psychology & Neuroscience, Earlham College on 3/12/24

This text does an excellent job covering almost all the topics that most people would cover in an introductory statistics course in the field of Psychology. It talks about central tendency, probability, hypothesis testing, t-tests, ANOVAs,... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

This text does an excellent job covering almost all the topics that most people would cover in an introductory statistics course in the field of Psychology. It talks about central tendency, probability, hypothesis testing, t-tests, ANOVAs, chi-square tests, correlation, and regression. While it does a great job covering most of these topics, I do wish it went into more detail about ANOVAs.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

Everything looked correct to me. I did not notice any errors.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

This text is very relevant and I do not see it becoming obsolete anytime soon.

Clarity rating: 5

The text is written in a way that is accessible and easy for college students to understand.

Consistency rating: 5

The text is very consistent. Each chapter follows a similar outline. The chapters do a great job of explaining the relevant concept, working through at least one practice problem, and then providing exercises for students to do more practice (with answers for the odd numbered questions).

Modularity rating: 5

This text is organized into chapters such that each one covers a specific statistical technique. It is easy to assign specific chapters when you are covering the relevant topic.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The text is organized perfectly. The chapters are presented in almost exactly the same order in which I cover topics in my Research Methods and Statistics course. The organization within each chapter is consistent and easy to follow.

Interface rating: 5

This text is easy to use and everything displays perfectly for me.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

The text is well-written. I have not noticed any grammatical errors.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

I have not noticed anything in the text that appears culturally insensitive.

I think this is an excellent text for an introductory statistics course in the field of Psychology. I use it in my Research Methods and Statistics course, and am very happy with it. I think it does a great job explaining topics, showing calculations, and walking through examples. I do, however, supplement the text with other readings. I go into more detail about ANOVAs in my course than this text does.

Reviewed by Ruth Casper, Instructor, Rochester Community & Technical College on 11/21/23

This book covers the main concepts of statistical analysis, descriptive statistics, and inferential statistics. For the most part, these topics are covered very well for a psychological statistics course. As another reviewer mentioned, it is... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

This book covers the main concepts of statistical analysis, descriptive statistics, and inferential statistics. For the most part, these topics are covered very well for a psychological statistics course. As another reviewer mentioned, it is lacking detail for factorial ANOVA and repeated measures ANOVA. Other reviewers mention that there are no tables in the appendix; however, the authors submitted minor revisions of content on 6/5/2023. Perhaps this is when they added these tables ... because there are tables! There is also a glossary at the end. There are exercises at the end of each chapter with answers to odd-numbered items.

The content appears to be accurate and unbiased.

The content of this book is relevance and up-to-date. Some of the examples may be a little dated, but still known by most (e.g., James Bond).

I found this book very easy to read. There are no concerns about the clarity of the material.

There are no concerns with consistency. In the inferential statistics portion of the book, the authors introduce a four-step procedure for hypothesis-testing. This procedures is then used through the remaining chapters to illustrate each statistical procedure. I think that both instructors and students will appreciate this.

The text is easy to read, with formulas and figures set apart from the text (the authors mention that some of the figures are taken from the output of JASP).

The organization is clear and logical, following the format of most psychological statistics texts.

Navigation through the textbook is simple. There is a list of highlighted terms at the beginning of each chapter which are correctly linked to their discussion in the text.

There are no obvious grammatical errors.

No concerns here.

This book is very readable, straightforward, and easy to understand. I especially like the integration of the four-step procedure to hypothesis-testing. It does not use a particular statistical package (e.g., SPSS, R, JASP). Some instructors might consider this a drawback, but I appreciate it. As another reviewer mentioned, there isn't a lot of information about factorial designs, but this can be supplemented with other materials. I will use this textbook in my undergraduate psychology statistics course.

Reviewed by Scott Frankowski, Assistant professor, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley on 11/15/22

This textbook covers all of the material I cover in an intro psych stats class. I'd like to see a statistics software program integrated into the text - JASP or R would be great, keeping in line with being an OER. read more

This textbook covers all of the material I cover in an intro psych stats class. I'd like to see a statistics software program integrated into the text - JASP or R would be great, keeping in line with being an OER.

I haven't found any issues with accuracy in the text.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 1

In Chapter 2, there are graphs with iMacs from the 1990s. I've seen this graphic in other texts and it always throws me off because most students were not yet born when these computers were out. Also, I've found that psych stats books don't actually have examples from psychology. This book is no exception. Very few examples, if any, that I came across were from the psychological sciences.

I found no issues with clarity.

I saw no issues with consistency.

I like that the chapters are short and each cover the aspects of one type of test used.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

Organization is good and is fairly standard for the flow of a stats class. Personally, I'd prefer to start with correlation and regression, but how it is works.

Interface rating: 1

The is not indexed for a pdf reader making unusable for a course. Adding bookmarks to each chapter and chapter sub-sections would make the text much more usable.

I saw no grammar issues.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

I didn't see anything offensive in anyway, but there was no intentionality in using psych examples or cross-cultural examples either.

Overall, if you're looking for an OER psych stats book, I would recommend Cote et al., 2021. It's very similar to this book in that it provides a good foundation and reference from which to build your course off of. The primary difference is that Cote et al. is indexed for a pdf reader which makes it much more usable. Cote et al. also provide critical value appendices for all the test types which this book does not have. Granted, I have just point students to online z, t, F, and r p value calculators, but it is nice to have analog versions as well so I can quickly take a snapshot to include in a slide.

Reviewed by Linda Cote-Reilly, Professor of Psychology, Marymount University on 12/15/20

There is a Table of Contents but no Index or Glossary. read more

There is a Table of Contents but no Index or Glossary.

The book is accurate, content is succinct, and the examples are engaging.

Statistics changes little over time, so this book can be a standard for years to come. If APA format needs to be adjusted or examples (in the text and end-of-chapter problems) need to be updated, that can be easily done.

The book is well-written (i.e., clear, concise, engaging). It is appropriate for an undergraduate taking their first statistics course.

The book uses consistent terminology and framework.

The primary way the text is organized is by chapter, with each chapter covering a different topic. Since it is a *.pdf the easiest way for the instructor to make it modular is with a *.pdf editor. This is not provided by the authors.

This textbook is organized in the typical fashion (order of presentation of material) for an introductory statistics textbook.

The format is *.pdf, so it is readable across devices and interfaces.

This book is easy to read and there were no glaring grammatical errors.

This textbook is as culturally inclusive as any statistics textbook. This is an area where the professor will want to supplement if they espouse the APA Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology Major 2.0. I recommend Kenneth Keith's book Culture Across the Curriculum as a starting point.

If I were going to write a statistics book, it would be very close to this. This is a readable textbook appropriate for an introductory statistics course in psychology. Examples given are succinct and easy to follow. Pros include: End-of-chapter exercises with answers to odd numbered problems, the most common measures of effect size are used (e.g., Uses Cohen’s d for z and t-tests, eta squared for ANOVA, Cramer’s V for chi-square), focus in correlations chapter is on Pearson correlation rather than Spearman (or other types of correlations) which is appropriate given that Pearson correlations are the type overwhelmingly used in psychological research. The hypotheses are written out in words (as you would in a psychological research report) and not just mathematical symbols. Cons: Ideally the symbols for mean and standard deviation would be the ones specified in APA format, but his text uses X bar instead of M for sample mean and S instead of SD for sample standard deviation. Only the derivation formula for sum of squares is provided, and not the computation formula. Chi square goodness-of-fit model offered in chapter assumes an equal frequency across cells, rather than matching proportions to those in a known population. The formula notation for chi-square is not what I’m used to seeing. There are no complete tables (partial tables are embedded within the chapters) – so you would need to link to another OER for that. That said, the tables are probably more appropriately placed in a particular chapter and not in the Appendix. I use a lot of “word problems” in statistics (summaries of real studies so that students can work on identifying DV, IV, writing hypotheses, in addition to computing the statistical tests. Overall there are about 10-12 end-of-chapter problems for each chapter and not many are word problems, so I will need to supplement. There are no instructor resources, test banks, etc. If you have taught statistics for awhile you have probably developed your own resources (i.e., Powerpoints, test questions, homework questions, word problems for in class exercises) but if you are just starting out this probably isn’t the OER for you. Despite the longer list of Cons than Pros, the content of that list is relatively minor, and I do plan to adopt this OER in the next year. Because it is an OER I can change the parts I do not like.

Reviewed by Chrislyn Randell, Professor, Metropolitan State University of Denver on 12/3/20, updated 2/26/21

This text covers all the topics I would want to cover in my statistics course, but there is not an index and/or glossary. I believe having an index is so important for students as they may not even know in what chapter to reference a term so the... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

This text covers all the topics I would want to cover in my statistics course, but there is not an index and/or glossary. I believe having an index is so important for students as they may not even know in what chapter to reference a term so the index would be invaluable for them in finding information.

I think the chapter on graphs (Chapter 2) covers more information than would be necessary for my students and my class. The sections covering stem and leaf displays, cumulative frequency polygons, and box plots do not seem necessary and they are not included in the material covered later in the text. If output from statistical packages was included and how that is used to test for assumptions was discussed, then stem and leaf displays and box plots may be more relevant to the rest of information in the text.

This book focuses on calculations but does not use the computational formula for sum of squares. I think this makes it more difficult for students to avoid making computational errors and it makes the calculations more difficult.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

The majority of the content in the text seems accurate. There is an error in the effect size formula for Chapter 9 - it shows the calculation for t instead of d.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 2

The content in this text is already dated as there is no integration of statistical software output, which I think should be included for descriptive statistics and hypothesis testing. Using statistical software is prevalent in the workplace and academic settings so the opportunity for students to view and interpret output is important.

Some of the graphs appear to be formatted as would be a SPSS printout so it seems like presenting them as a computer output would be reasonable.

I am torn about the use of the X-bar to represent the sample mean. For students who will be moving on to more advanced statistics the use of X-bar would be helpful, but there is a small proportion of my students who move on to more advanced statistics. The norm in social statistics is now to use the M for the sample mean and my students may be confused as they move into the research methods lab course and are presented with M instead of X-bar.

I would have liked sections in the text explaining how the results would have been presented in an APA format write-up. I think that would add context for students to see how these results are used beyond running numbers, and this also allows them better understanding of how all the parts of the analysis fit together - descriptive statistics, hypothesis testing, effect size, and confidence intervals. I believe most statistics texts include this information.

Clarity rating: 4

I think this text is written at an appropriate level for the target audience and appropriate context is introduced when covering technical terminology. I particularly liked the visual of the distribution balancing on a triangle to show symmetrical and asymmetrical distributions (Chapter 3).

I like the graphics used in chapter 5 (probability) to support the concepts presented.

Consistency rating: 4

Overall the text seems consistent in terms of terminology and framework. There are some consistency issues between the chapters. In particular, some of the formulas can be difficult to read in how they are formatted - Chapters 6, 7 and 8 the formulas that include the standard error formula look odd (the fraction in the denominator), but in the other chapters the formulas look fine. The X-bar line is too long when showing the sample mean throughout the text.

Modularity rating: 4

This book is organized into Units, which are broken down into chapters. The unit and chapter organization makes sense for coverage of the material. In my introductory statistics course we do not cover linear regression, so I cover correlation earlier in my class. Since correlation is grouped into the Unit 3 (Additional Hypothesis Tests) it makes it a little more difficult to move out of this section and integrate elsewhere, but it is not a major concern for me.

There are large blocks of text to discuss some concepts but they are broken up by headings and subheadings as would be appropriate. For example, the coverage of the steps in hypothesis testing.

The topics in the text are in a logical order, but as I stated earlier, I would move the correlation chapter in my coverage because I do not cover linear regression in my course.

The text was easy to navigate and the graphs were clear and free from distortion.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

There were no significant problems with grammar.

The text was not culturally insensitive, but it was not inclusive of a variety of races, ethnicities, and backgrounds.

I really want to use an OER text for my introductory statistics course, but I am not sure if I can make this text work. I really like the coverage of the topics but the lack of examples using a statistical package output would require me to create a lot of materials to present that information. Even though I have created quite a bit of those materials in the past, it would be great to have that integrated in the text. I would love to review the text again if there are updates added.

Reviewed by Brian Leventhal, Assistant Professor, James Madison University on 7/10/19

The text is designed to be an introductory text for psychological statistics. As such, it begins with what statistics is, why we study statistics, and then covers basic material. It provides a nice introduction to the necessary foundational... read more

The text is designed to be an introductory text for psychological statistics. As such, it begins with what statistics is, why we study statistics, and then covers basic material. It provides a nice introduction to the necessary foundational material that will be referenced throughout the remainder of the text. The text contains a very detailed table of contents that uses clickable links for specific pages throughout the pdf. Although they are referenced through figures throughout the text, I believe it would have been beneficial to include the relevant statistical tables at the end of the book with a clickable link from the table of contents. I found it a bit odd that snippets of the tables were embedded throughout the text as figures rather than just including the full tables at the end.

In general, the content was accurate. There were a few instances where the material was oddly worded or a confusing. For example, when covering hypothesis testing, an example claims that because temperature is allowed to vary 1 degree in either direction means that the standard deviation must be 1. This is not how standard deviation is defined and can be misleading to students. Later in the text, when interpreting a correlation of -1, the authors state “as X goes up by some amount, Y goes down by the same amount, consistently”. This is an inaccurate interpretation of correlation. X and Y are more than likely on different scales, so they would not change by the same amount. This is a very important distinction as correlation quantifies the relationship of standardized scores, while slope considers the scales of the variables. It was easy to single out one or two cases because the almost the entirety of the text is accurate.

I think the content itself is up-to-date and will not need much updating. The only pieces that may need updating are those that show how to present the results. I believe it was intended to be APA style which may require updating if the APA guidelines change. I also liked the section on misleading graphics – not always included in introductory statistics books- so it was nice to see in this text. I think knowing about data visualization techniques will be a very useful skill for all students, especially in the era of big data.

The text was quite clear. The authors’ voices and senses of humor come out throughout the text making it a very enjoyable read.

In general, material is consistent. The authors do a great job of building on previous material, without the need to constantly flip between pages. There was one frustrating inconsistency. In learning statistics, it is essential that notation be kept consistent and accurate. Unfortunately, one of the most common values, sample size, was inconsistently labeled. It was the case where the same paragraph would flip between “N” and “n”. Besides sample size, there were peculiar notation choices. For example, when labeling the number of groups using subscript j, why count from 1, …, k? This seems like unconventional notation when the authors could have simply used j = 1, …, J. Other than these minor inconsistencies, the authors did a great job throughout.

The text can be divided into smaller sections as written. It would be hard to selectively chose sections to cover and not others because of the comprehensive nature of the material. However, these chapters can be selectively used if an instructor wanted to supplement their course without adapting the entire text. I am not advocating this, as I think the text would be suitable as a whole for a course, but it is possible.

I believe the authors had a logical flow to their presentation of material. They have also designed the text (as in the above comment) in a way so that pieces can be moved around to cater to the instructor.

Some of the images are a bit blurry. They were still interpretable, but it was a bit distracting. Navigation was easy – especially as I read it on my e-reader – which I think will be a big benefit to students (using tablets, e-readers, PCs, or printing the text).

There were no noticeable grammatical errors.

I don’t see any cultural bias in the text or exercises sets. Although not necessarily cultural, I like how this text is inclusive to those with color deficiencies. For example, when describing a graph with multiple colored lines, the authors also reference the position of each line on the graph. This is not only useful for those with color deficiencies but also for those who read the text on an e-reader that doesn’t have color.

I really enjoyed reading through the text and thought it was comprehensive enough for a full semester introductory psychological statistics course. If I were to adapt this text for my course, which I am strongly considering, I will have to supplement with exercises. The exercises at the end of each chapter are most likely not particularly interesting for psychology students nor do they tap into any higher thinking besides simple recall and application. They are useful practice of the basics but will not provide any indication of advanced learning. I also really enjoyed the graphics for regression that talk through the linear model. I thought these were very helpful to students. Again, I thought this text is great and am strongly considering adapting it.

Reviewed by Rupa Gordon, Assistant Professor, Augustana College on 5/16/19

We currently use Gravetter &amp; Walleneau and this book seems to cover nearly all of the same material. The main topic that this text does not cover is factorial ANOVA, which is an important and complex topic for undergraduates. However, our... read more

We currently use Gravetter & Walleneau and this book seems to cover nearly all of the same material. The main topic that this text does not cover is factorial ANOVA, which is an important and complex topic for undergraduates. However, our current book focuses solely on calculating Factorial ANOVA and not on interpreting main effects and interactions so I have to supplement our current book significantly, so it would not change my teaching approach. It provides the definitional formula for the standard deviation which I find more useful than other texts. Good table of contents but no index or glossary. This book seems like a very good OER option, so our current plan is adopt this text for next year.

As far as I can tell, all of the content seems to be accurate, formulas are accurate, and the material is unbiased

There may need to be some updates to the examples, but the content overall is very timeless.

I primarily made this judgment by looking at one of the hardest topics for students to understand in statistics: Central Limit Theorem. This book has a very good explanation and in some ways is superior to Gravetter et al. There are excellent graphs that explain how sample size affects the variability of the normal curve. My main purpose for using a statistics textbook is so that students have access to a reference source, but also to provide practice problems. The problems are good, but not as many as I would like. Plus I think in order to get the answers to the even questions you have to contact the author of the book because instructor information is not easy to access (good if you plan on using those questions for homework).

I did not notice any issues with terminology -- the topics build easily from each other and use previous knowledge to help students follow along.

The text has distinct chapters and subheadings, and some reference to previous chapters is necessary in a statistics book. The book is not overly self-referential.

The text follows the order of most psychological statistics textbooks - it is logical and builds from each chapter. The order is exactly the order in which I cover the material (correlation and chi square at the end).

It is visually appealing, the graphs and charts are well done. The text is clear and easy to read.

I did not notice any errors.

I did not notice any issues with cultural relevance. The book has very good and universal examples that are applicable to Psychology students.

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Describing Data Using Distributions and Graphs
• Chapter 3: Measures of Central Tendency and Spread
• Chapter 4: z Scores and the Standard Normal Distribution
• Chapter 5: Probability
• Chapter 6: Sampling Distributions
• Chapter 7: Introduction to Hypothesis Testing
• Chapter 8: Introduction to t Tests
• Chapter 9: Related Samples
• Chapter 10: Independent Samples
• Chapter 11: Analysis of Variance
• Chapter 12: Correlations
• Chapter 13: Linear Regression
• Chapter 14: Chi-Square
• Appendix A: Standard Normal Distribution Table ( z Table)
• Appendix B: t Distribution Table ( t Table)
• Appendix C: Critical Values for F ( F Table)
• Appendix D: Critical Values for Pearson’s r (Correlation Table)
• Appendix E: Chi-Square Table
• Index  

Ancillary Material

About the book.

Introduction to Statistics in the Psychological Sciences provides an accessible introduction to the fundamentals of statistics, and hypothesis testing as need for psychology students. The textbook introduces the fundamentals of statistics, an introduction to hypothesis testing, and t Tests. Related samples, independent samples, analysis of variance, correlations, linear regressions and chi-squares are all covered along with expanded appendices with z, t, F correlation, and a Chi-Square table. The text includes key terms and exercises with answers to odd-numbered exercises.

Psychology students often find statistics courses to be different from their other psychology classes. There are some distinct differences, especially involving study strategies for class success. The first difference is learning a new vocabulary—it is similar to learning a new language. Knowing the meaning of certain words will help as you are reading the material and working through the problems. Secondly, practice is critical for success; reading over the material is not enough. Statistics is a subject learned by doing, so make sure you work through any homework questions, chapter questions, and practice problems available. Statistical knowledge gives you a set of skills employable in graduate school and the workplace. Data science is a burgeoning field, and there is practical significance in learning this material. The statistics presented in this book are some of the most common ones used in research articles, and we hope by the end of this OER you’ll feel comfortable reading (and not skipping!) the results section of an article. This work is broken into 14 chapters, covering the fundamentals of statistics, and hypothesis testing.

About the Contributors

Linda R. Cote , Marymount University

Rupa Gordon , Augstana College

Chrislyn E. Randell , Metropolitan State University of Denver

Judy Schmitt , University of Missouri-St. Louis

Rudy Guerra , University of Missouri-St. Louis

Contribute to this Page

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

Overview of the Scientific Method

10 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 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.

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2019 by Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, & Dana C. Leighton is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Educ Psychol Meas
• v.77(4); 2017 Aug

Hypothesis Testing in the Real World

Jeff miller.

1 University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

Critics of null hypothesis significance testing suggest that (a) its basic logic is invalid and (b) it addresses a question that is of no interest. In contrast to (a), I argue that the underlying logic of hypothesis testing is actually extremely straightforward and compelling. To substantiate that, I present examples showing that hypothesis testing logic is routinely used in everyday life. These same examples also refute (b) by showing circumstances in which the logic of hypothesis testing addresses a question of prime interest. Null hypothesis significance testing may sometimes be misunderstood or misapplied, but these problems should be addressed by improved education.

One important goal of statistical analysis is to find real patterns in data. This is difficult when the data are subject to random noise, because random noise can produce illusory patterns “just by chance.” Given the difficulty of separating real patterns from coincidental ones within noisy data, it is important for researchers to use all of the appropriate tools and models to make inferences from their data (e.g., Gigerenzer & Marewski, 2015 ).

Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) is one of the most commonly used types of statistical analysis, but it has been criticized severely (e.g., Kline, 2004 ; Ziliak & McCloskey, 2008 ). According to Cohen (1994) , for example, “NHST has not only failed to support the advance of psychology as a science but also has seriously impeded it” (p. 997). There have been calls for it to be supplemented with other types of analysis (e.g., Wilkinson & the Task Force on Statistical Inference, 1999 ), and at least one journal has banned its use outright ( Trafimow & Marks, 2015 ).

This note reviews the basic logic of NHST and responds to some criticisms of it. I argue that the basic logic is straightforward and compelling—so much so that it is commonly used in everyday reasoning. It is suitable for answering certain types of research questions, and of course it can be supplemented with additional techniques to address other questions. Criticisms of NHST’s logic either distort it or implicitly deny the possibility of ever finding patterns in data. The major problem with NHST is that some aspects of the method can be misunderstood, but the solution to that problem is to improve education—not to adopt new methods that address a different set of questions but are incapable of answering the question addressed by NHST. I conclude that it would be a mistake to throw out NHST.

The Common Sense Logic of NHST

Critics of NHST assert that it uses arcane, twisted, and ultimately flawed probabilistic logic (e.g., Cohen, 1994 ; Hubbard & Lindsay, 2008 ). To the contrary, the heart of NHST is a simple, intuitive, and familiar “common sense” logic that most people routinely use when they are trying to decide whether something they observe might have happened by coincidence (a.k.a., “randomly,” “by accident,” or “by chance”).

For example, suppose that you and five colleagues attend a departmental picnic. An hour after eating, three of you start to feel queasy. It comes out in discussion that those feeling queasy ate potato salad and that those not feeling queasy did not eat the potato salad. What could be more natural than to conclude that there was something wrong with the potato salad?

It is important to realize that this nonstatistical example fully embodies the underlying logic of hypothesis testing. First, a pattern is observed. In this example, the pattern is that people who ate potato salad felt queasy. Second, it is acknowledged that the pattern might have arisen just by chance. In this example, for instance, exactly those people who ate the potato salad—and no one else—might coincidentally all have been coming down with the flu, and the flu might have caused their queasiness. Third, there is reason to believe that the observed coincidence—while possible—would be very unlikely. In the example, real-world experience suggests that coming down with flu is a rare event, so it would be quite unlikely for several people to do so at just the same time, and it would of course be even more unlikely that those were exactly the people who ate the potato salad. Fourth, it is concluded that the observed pattern did not arise by chance. In this example, the “not by chance” conclusion suggests that there was something wrong with the potato salad.

To further clarify the analogy between NHST and the potato salad example, consider how a standard coin-flipping “statistical” data analysis situation could be described in parallel terms. Suppose a coin is flipped 50 times and it comes up heads 48 of them (pattern). This quite strong pattern could happen by coincidence, but elementary probability theory says that such a coincidence would be extremely unlikely. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that the pattern was not just a coincidence; instead, the coin appears to be biased to come up heads. This is exactly the same line of reasoning used in the potato salad example: The observed pattern would be very unlikely to occur by chance, so it is reasonable to conclude that it arose for some other reason.

There are many other nonstatistical examples of the reasoning used in NHST. For instance, if you see an unusually large number of cars parked on the street where you live (pattern), you will probably conclude that something special is going on nearby. It is logically possible for all those cars to be there at the same time just by coincidence, but you know from your experience that this would be unlikely, so you reject the “just by chance” idea. Analogously, if two statistics students make an identical series of calculation errors on a homework problem (pattern), their instructor might well conclude that they had not done the homework independently. Although it is logically possible that the two students made the same errors by chance, that would seem so unlikely—at least for some types of errors—that the instructor would reject that explanation. These and many similar examples show that people often use the logic of hypothesis testing in the real world; essentially, they do so every time they conclude “that could not just be a coincidence.” Statistical hypothesis testing differs only in that laws of probability—rather than every-day experiences with various coincidences—are used to assess the likelihood that an observed pattern would occur by chance.

Criticisms of NHST’s Logic

According to Berkson (1942) , “There is no logical warrant for considering an event known to occur in a given hypothesis, even if infrequently, as disproving the hypothesis” (p. 326). In terms of our examples, Berkson is saying that it is illogical to consider 3/6 queasy friends as proving that there was something wrong with the potato salad, because it could be just a coincidence. Taken to its logical extreme, his statement implies that observing 48/50 heads should also not be regarded as disproving the hypothesis of a fair coin, because that too could happen by chance. To be sure, Berkson is mathematically correct that the suggested conclusions about the quality of the potato salad and the fairness of the coin do not follow from the observed patterns with the same 100% certainty that implications have in propositional logic (e.g., modus ponens ). On the other hand, it is unrealistic to demand that level of certainty before reaching conclusions from noisy data, because such data will almost never support any interesting conclusions with 100% certainty. In practice, 48/50 heads seems like ample evidence to conclude—with no further assumptions—that a coin must be biased, and the “logical” objection that this could have happened by chance seems rather intransigent. Given that logical certainty is unattainable due to the presence of noise in the data, one can only consider the probabilities of various correct and incorrect decisions (e.g., Type I error rates, power) under various hypothesized conditions, which is exactly what NHST does.

Another long-standing objection to NHST is that its conclusions depend on the probabilities of events that did not actually occur (e.g., Cox, 1958 ; Wagenmakers, 2007 ). For example, in deciding whether 3/6 people feeling queasy was too much of a coincidence, people might be influenced by how often they had seen 4/6, 5/6, or 6/6 people in a group feel queasy by chance, even though only 3/6 had actually been observed. It is difficult to see much practical force to this objection, however. In trying to decide whether a particular pattern is too strong to be observed by chance, it seems quite relevant to consider all of the different patterns that might be observed by chance—especially the patterns that are even stronger. Proponents of this objection generally support it with artificial probability distributions in which stronger patterns are at least as likely to occur by chance as weaker patterns, but such distributions rarely if ever arise in actual research scenarios.

Critics of NHST sometimes claim that its logical form is parallel to that of the argument shown in Table 1 (e.g., Cohen, 1994 ; Pollard & Richardson, 1987 ). There is obviously something wrong with the argument in this table, and NHST must be flawed if it uses the same logic. This criticism is unfounded, however, because the logic illustrated in Table 1 is not parallel to that of NHST.

A Misleading Caricature of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing’s Logical Form.

The argument given in Table 1 suggests that a null hypothesis—in this case, that a person is an American—should be rejected whenever the observed results are unlikely under that hypothesis. NHST requires more than that, however. Implicitly, in order to reject a null hypothesis, NHST requires that the observed results must be more likely under an alternative hypothesis than under the null. In the potato salad example, for instance, rejecting the coincidence explanation requires not only that the observed pattern is unlikely by chance when the potato salad is good, but also that this pattern is more likely when the potato salad is bad (i.e., more likely when the null hypothesis is false than when it is true).

Figure 1 shows how this additional requirement arises within NHST using the Z test as an example. The null hypothesis predicts that the outcome is a draw from the depicted standard normal distribution, and Region A (i.e., the cross-hatched tails) of this distribution represent the Z values for which the null would be rejected at p < .05. Critically, Region B in the middle of the distribution also depicts an area of 5%. If NHST really only required that the rejection region had a probability of 5% under the null hypothesis, as implied by the argument in Table 1 , then rejecting the null for an observation in Region B would be just as appropriate as rejecting it for an observation in Region A. This is not all that NHST requires, however, and in fact outcomes in Region B would not be considered evidence against the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is rejected for outcomes in A but not for those in B, because of the requirement that an outcome in the rejection region must have higher probability when the null hypothesis is false than when it is true. Region B of Figure 1 clearly does not satisfy this additional requirement, because this area will have a higher probability when the null hypothesis is true than when it is not.

A standard normal ( Z ) distribution of observed scores under the null hypothesis.

Note . Region A: The two cross-hatched areas indicate the standard two-tailed rejection region—that is, the 5% of the distribution most discrepant from the mean. Region B: The dark shaded area in the middle of the distribution also represents an area of 5%. Under NHST, only observations in the tails are taken as evidence that the null hypothesis should be rejected, even though the probability of an observation in Region B is just as low (i.e., 5%).

Likewise, the example of Table 1 clearly does not satisfy the additional requirement that the observed results should be more likely under some alternative to the null hypothesis. The probability that a person is a member of Congress is lower—not higher—if the person is not an American. In fact, the logic of NHST actually requires a first premise of the form:

• 1′. If a person is an American, then he is probably not a member of Congress; on the other hand, if he is not an American, then he is more likely to be a member of Congress.

Premise 1′ is obviously false, so the conclusion (3) is obviously not supported within NHST.

Finally, critics of NHST often complain that its conclusions can depend on the sampling methods used to collect the data as well as on the data themselves (e.g., Wagenmakers, 2007 ). This dependence arises because NHST’s assessment of “how likely is such an extreme pattern by chance” depends on the exact probabilities of various outcomes, and these in turn depend on the details of how the sampling was carried out. This is thought to be a problem for NHST, because—according to critics—the conclusion from a data set should depend only on what the data are, but not on the sampling plan used to collect them. This argument begs the question, however. Of course, the assessment of what will happen “by chance” can only be done within a well-defined set of possible outcomes. These outcomes are necessarily determined by the sampling plan, so the plan must influence the assessment of the various patterns’ probabilities. Viewed in this manner, it seems quite reasonable that any conclusion about the presence of an unusual pattern would depend on the sampling plan as well as on the observations themselves.

Ancillary Criticisms of NHST

Additional criticisms have been directed at aspects of NHST other than its logic. For example, it is sometimes claimed that NHST does not address the question of main interest. Critics often assert that researchers “really” want to know the probability that a pattern is coincidental given the data (e.g., Berger & Berry, 1988 ; Cohen, 1994 ; Kline, 2004 ). Within the current examples, then, the claim is that people really want to know “the probability that these 3/6 picnic-goers feel sick by coincidence” or “the probability that the coin is biased towards heads.”

It is clear that NHST does not provide such probabilities, but it is not so clear that everyone always wants them. In many cases, people simply want to decide whether the pure chance explanation is tenable; for example, it is difficult to imagine a picnic-goer asking for a precise probability that the potato salad was bad. In any case, to obtain such probabilities requires knowing all of the other possible explanations, plus their prior probabilities (e.g., Efron, 2013 ). In many situations where NHST is used, the complete set of other possible explanations and their probabilities are simply unknown. In these situations, no statistical method can compute the probability that researchers supposedly want, and it seems unfair to criticize NHST for failing to provide something that cannot be determined with any other technique either.

Surely the most frequent and justified criticisms of NHST revolve around the idea that researchers do not completely understand it (e.g., Batanero, 2000 ; Wainer & Robinson, 2003 ). A number of findings suggest that one aspect of NHST in particular—the so-called “ p value”—is widely misunderstood (e.g., Gelman, 2013 ; Haller & Kraus, 2002 ; Hubbard & Lindsay, 2008 ; Kline, 2004 ). Explicitly or implicitly, such findings are taken as evidence that NHST should be abandoned because it is too difficult to use properly (e.g., Cohen, 1994 ).

Unfortunately, similar data suggest that many other concepts in probability and statistics are also poorly understood (e.g., Campbell, 1974 ). If we abandon all methods based on misunderstood statistical concepts, then almost all statistically based methods will have to go, including some apparently quite practical and important ones (e.g., diagnostic testing in medicine; Gigerenzer, Gaissmaier, Kurz-Milcke, Schwartz, & Woloshin, 2008 ). Within this difficult context, there seems to be no reason to abandon NHST selectively, because there is “no evidence that NHST is misused any more often than any other procedure” ( Wainer & Robinson, 2003 , p. 22). Moreover, if one accepted the argument that all poorly understood methods should be abandoned, then some useful but poorly understood nonstatistical methods would presumably also have to go (e.g., propositional logic; Rips & Marcus, 1977 ; Wason, 1968 ). Surely it would be a mistake to abandon a valuable tool or technique simply because considerable training and effort are required to use it correctly.

The current discussion of frequent false positives and low replicability in research areas using NHST (e.g., Francis, 2012 ; Nosek, Spies, & Motyl, 2012 ; Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011 ) also suggests that there are misunderstandings and misuse of this technique. Specifically, there is evidence that researchers capitalize on flexibility in the selection of their data and in the application of their analyses (i.e., “ p -hacking”) in order to obtain statistically significant and therefore publishable results (e.g., Bakker, Van Dijk, & Wicherts, 2012 ; John, Loewenstein, & Prelec, 2012 ; Tsilidis et al., 2013 ). Such practices are a misuse of NHST, and they inflate positive rates, especially in combination with existing biases toward publication of surprising new findings and with the relative scarcity of such findings within well-studied areas (e.g., Ferguson & Heene, 2012 ; Ioannidis, 2005 ). The false positive problem is not specific to NHST, however; it would arise analogously within any statistical framework. Whatever statistical methods are used to detect new patterns in noisy data, the rate of reporting imaginary patterns (i.e., false positives) will be inflated by flexibility in the selection of the data, flexibility in the application of the methods, and flexibility in the choice of what findings are reported.

To the extent that misunderstanding of NHST presents a problem, better education of researchers seems like the best path toward a solution (e.g., Holland, 2007 ; Kalinowski, Fidler, & Cumming, 2008 ; Leek & Peng, 2015 ). Although the underlying logic of NHST has considerable common sense appeal—as shown by the real-world examples described earlier—this logic is often obscured when the methods are taught to beginners. This is partly because of the specialized and unintuitive terminology that has been developed for NHST (e.g., “null hypothesis,” “Type I error,” “Type II error,” “power”). Another problem is that introductions to NHST nearly always focus primarily on the mathematical formulas used to compute the probabilities of observing various patterns by chance (i.e., “distributions under the null hypothesis”). Students can easily be so confused about the workings of these formulas that they fail to appreciate the simplicity of the underlying logic.

Conclusions

NHST is a useful heuristic for detecting nonrandom patterns, and abandoning it would be counterproductive. Its underlying logic—both in scientific research and in everyday life—is that chance can be rejected as an explanation of observed patterns that would rarely occur by coincidence. It is true that the conclusion of a biased coin does not follow with 100% certainty, and it will be wrong when an unlikely pattern really does occur by chance. Researchers should certainly keep this possibility in mind and resist the tendency to believe that every pattern documented statistically—whether by NHST or any other technique—necessarily reflects the true state of the world. As a practical strategy for detecting non-random patterns in a noisy world, however, it seems quite a reasonable heuristic to conclude tentatively that something other than chance is responsible for systematic observed patterns.

While NHST is extremely useful for deciding whether patterns might have arisen by chance, it is, of course, not the only useful statistical technique. In fact, when NHST is employed, “the answer to the significance test is rarely the only thing we should consider” ( Cox, 1958 , p. 367), so it is not sufficient for researchers to try to answer all research questions entirely within the NHST framework. For example, NHST is not appropriate for evaluating how strongly a data set supports a null hypothesis (e.g., Grant, 1962 ). For that purpose, it is better to use confidence intervals or Bayesian techniques (e.g., Cumming & Fidler, 2009 ; Rouder, Speckman, Sun, Morey, & Iverson, 2009 ; Wainer & Robinson, 2003 ; Wetzels, Raaijmakers, Jakab, & Wagenmakers, 2009 ). Fortunately, there is no fundamental limit on the number of statistical tools that researchers can use. Researchers should always use the set of tools most suitable for the questions under consideration. In many cases, that set will include NHST.

Acknowledgments

I thank Scott Brown, Patricia Haden, Wolf Schwarz, and two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on earlier versions of the article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Preparation of this article was supported by a research award from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

• Bakker M., Van Dijk A., Wicherts J. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 7 , 543-554. doi: 10.1177/1745691612459060 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Batanero C. (2000). Controversies around the role of statistical tests in experimental research . Mathematical Thinking and Learning , 2 , 75-97. doi: 10.1207/S15327833MTL0202_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berger J. O., Berry D. A. (1988). Statistical analysis and the illusion of objectivity . American Scientist , 76 , 159-165. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berkson J. (1942). Tests of significance considered as evidence . Journal of the American Statistical Association , 37 , 325-335. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1942.10501760 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell S. K. (1974). Flaws and fallacies in statistical thinking . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen J. (1994). The earth is round ( p < .05) . American Psychologist , 49 , 997-1003. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.49.12.997 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cox D. R. (1958). Some problems connected with statistical inference . Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 29 , 357-372. doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177706618 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cumming G., Fidler F. (2009). Confidence intervals: Better answers to better questions . Zeitschrift für Psychologie , 217 , 15-26. doi: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.1.15 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Efron B. (2013). Bayes’ theorem in the 21st century . Science , 340 , 1177-1178. doi: 10.1126/science.1236536 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferguson C. J., Heene M. (2012). A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 7 , 555-561. doi: 10.1177/1745691612459059 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Francis G. (2012). Publication bias and the failure of replication in experimental psychology . Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 19 , 975-991. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0322-y [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gelman A. (2013). Commentary: P values and statistical practice . Epidemiology , 24 , 69-72. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gigerenzer G., Gaissmaier W., Kurz-Milcke E., Schwartz L. M., Woloshin S. (2008). Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics . Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 8 , 53-96. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2008.00033.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gigerenzer G., Marewski J. N. (2015). Surrogate science: The idol of a universal method for scientific inference . Journal of Management , 41 , 421-440. doi: 10.1177/0149206314547522 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant D. A. (1962). Testing the null hypothesis and the strategy and tactics of investigating theoretical models . Psychological Review , 69 , 54-61. doi: 10.1037/h0038813 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haller H., Kraus S. (2002). Misinterpretations of significance: A problem students share with their teachers? Methods of Psychological Research , 7 , 1-20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holland B. K. (2007). A classroom demonstration of hypothesis testing . Teaching Statistics , 29 , 71-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9639.2007.00269.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hubbard R., Lindsay R. M. (2008). Why p values are not a useful measure of evidence in statistical significance testing . Theory & Psychology , 18 , 69-88. doi: 10.1177/0959354307086923 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ioannidis J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false . PLoS Medicine , 2 ( 8 ), e124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• John L. K., Loewenstein G., Prelec D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth-telling . Psychological Science , 23 , 524-532. doi: 10.1177/0956797611430953 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalinowski P., Fidler F., Cumming G. (2008). Overcoming the inverse probability fallacy: A comparison of two teaching interventions . Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences , 4 , 152-158. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kline R. B. (2004). Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leek J. T., Peng R. D. (2015). P values are just the tip of the iceberg . Nature , 520 , 612. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nosek B. A., Spies J. R., Motyl M. (2012). Scientific utopia II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 7 , 615-631. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pollard P., Richardson J. T. E. (1987). On the probability of making Type I errors . Psychological Bulletin , 102 , 159-163. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.102.1.159 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rips L. J., Marcus S. L. (1977). Suppositions and the analysis of conditional sentences . In Just M. A., Carpenter P. A. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension (pp. 185-220). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rouder J. N., Speckman P. L., Sun D., Morey R. D., Iverson G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis . Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 16 , 225-237. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.2.225 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simmons J. P., Nelson L. D., Simonsohn U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant . Psychological Science , 22 , 1359-1366. doi: 10.1177/0956797611417632 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trafimow D., Marks M. (2015). Editorial . Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 37 ( 1 ), 1-2. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2015.1012991 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsilidis K. K., Panagiotou O. A., Sena E. S., Aretouli E., Evangelou E., Howells D. W., … Ioannidis J. P. A. (2013). Evaluation of excess significance bias in animal studies of neurological diseases . PLoS Biology , 11 ( 7 ), e1001609. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001609 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagenmakers E. J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values . Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 14 , 779-804. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wainer H., Robinson D. H. (2003). Shaping up the practice of null hypothesis significance testing . Educational Researcher , 32 , 22-30. doi: 10.3102/0013189X032007022 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wason P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule . Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 20 , 273-281. doi: 10.1080/14640746808400161 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wetzels R., Raaijmakers J. G. W., Jakab E., Wagenmakers E. J. (2009). How to quantify support for and against the null hypothesis: A flexible WinBUGS implementation of a default Bayesian t test . Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 16 , 752-760. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.4.752 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilkinson L., & the Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations . American Psychologist , 54 , 594-604. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.8.594 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziliak S. T., McCloskey D. (2008). The cult of statistical significance: How the standard error costs us jobs, justice, and lives . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. [ Google Scholar ]

• AI-Therapy Home
• Help and contact
• Descriptive Statistics
• Mean, mode and median
• Dispersion (variability)
• Distributions
• The normal distribution and normality tests
• Normal probabilities: z -scores
• The t -distribution
• Non-parametric distributions
• Comparing variables
• Correlation
• Linear regression

Hypothesis Testing

• Overview and terminology
• Comparing two sets of data
• Comparing more than two sets of data (ANOVA)
• Effect sizes and power
• Effect size calculator
• Power calculator
• Sample size calculator

About AI-Therapy

AI-Therapy creates online fully automated programs using the latest evidence-based treatments, such as cognitive behavioural therapy. The social anxiety program has been tested with a randomized controlled trial. To find out more visit:

• Overcome Social Anxiety
• Overcome Fertility Stress
• Overcome Death Anxiety
• Real-time Audience Surveys

At the heart of research lies a question. For example, consider the following scenario: you just went for a run in the park, and you feel great. Naturally, you might ask yourself "does exercise make people happy?". If you are asking a question that you don't know the answer to, research is necessary to resolve it. There are many forms that this research can take, from a literature review to performing an experiment. A technique known as statistical hypothesis testing is often used in psychology to determine a likely answer to a research question.

Formulating the hypotheses

With hypothesis testing, the research question is formulated as two competing hypotheses: the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis . The null hypothesis is the default position that the effect you are looking for does not exist, and the alternative hypothesis is that your prediction is correct. The goal of hypothesis testing is to collect evidence and reject the null hypothesis if it appears unlikely to be true. In other words, if we reject the null hypothesis there is some experimental support for the alternative hypothesis (although it is important to keep in mind that we have not proved the alternative hypothesis is true). Note: it is important to keep in mind that hypothesis testing can't prove , the alternative hypothesis is correct. Rather, it states that the null hypothesis seems unlikely.-->

Here are the hypotheses for our example:

Number of tails

Hypotheses can have a direction. In particular, a directional hypothesis not only states that an effect exists, but also states the direction of the effect. In the terminology of hypothesis testing, this is known as the number of tails of the hypothesis:

Statistical significance

Due to naturally occuring variablilty, two seperate measurements (even of the same phenomenon) will almost always give different results. For example, assume I measure my happiness after a run on Monday, and I measure it again after a run on Wednesday. It would not be surprising if the results are different each time, since there are many factors that impact mood. Therefore, the goal of hypothesis testing is not to see if there is any difference between sets of measurements (there almost always will be), but rather to see if the differences are unlikely to be due to random variation. If so, we can say that our result is statistically significant . The general procedure is as follows:

• Compute a test statistic (e.g. a t -statistic). The test statistic is a single value that is sensitive to the difference between the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis.
• Use the sampling distribution of the test statistic (e.g. the t -distribution) to calculate a p -value. The p -value is the probability of obtaining a test statistic at least as large as the one observed.
• Reject the null hypothesis if the p -value is less than a predetermined threshold, which is known as the significance level . For example, if we use a significance level of 0.01 and obtain a p -value of 0.008, we reject the null hypothesis and say that the result is statistically significant.

A value of 0.05 is often used by convention. However, scientists are increasingly calling for lower values (e.g. 0.01). Since at the 0.05 level up to 1 in 20 scientific studies are claiming a discovery that isn't real. Many view this as an unacceptably high error rate.

The goal of hypothesis testing is to select either the null hypothesis or the alternative hypothesis. However, no matter how careful you are with your experimental design, there is always a non-zero probability that you will come to the incorrect conclusion. There are two possible errors, depending on which hypothesis is actually true:

What type of error is worse? Obviously, the impact of an error depends on many factors. However, generally speaking a type I error is worse since the trial is more likely to be published and instigate change. For example, if you are testing the efficacy of a new psychoactive drug, a type I error may result in the drug being released to the public. This is potentially dangerous, as you are exposing people to the risk of side effects for a drug that doesn't work.

• To decrease the probability of a type I error you can lower your significance level (e.g. from 0.05 to 0.01).
• To decrease the probability of a type II error you can increase the power of you analysis by, for example, increasing your sample size .

Experiment design

With experimental research, the general strategy is to manipulate one aspect of the trial (the independent variable ) and measure the impact on another aspect of the trial (the dependent variable ). There are two primary methods of data collection:

• A control group that does not do regular exercise.
• A treatment group that exercises regularly.
• Happiness levels before starting an exercise regime.
• Happiness levels for the same group of people after several months of training.

The distinction between independent groups and same subject designs is important since different statistical tests are used for hypothesis testing. In general, same subject research designs have more statistical power since there are fewer sources of variation in the experiment. Note that a randomized controlled trial (RCT), the golden standard of clinical trials, combines both design types by having pre and post measures for both a control and treatment group.

Parametric vs non-parametric models

The statistical tests on the following pages can be categorized as either parametric or non-parametric . Parametric tests make certain assumptions about the nature of the underlying data, while non-parametric tests are more general. Parametric tests tend to have more statistical power than their non-parametric counterparts, so should be used when applicable. However, if their assumptions are violated, they may give incorrect or misleading results.

This choice between parametric and non-parametric models is based on the intrinsic nature of the data, and is therefore outside of the control of the experimenter. Therefore, you should always examine your data and conduct tests to verify the assumptions where appropriate.

The most common assumption for the parametric tests is that the assumption of normality. Typically, the assumption of normality applies to the sampling distribution, rather than the underlying data. This is good news since it is usually satisfied for sufficient large data sets (e.g. N > 30) due to the central limit theorem. In general, normality of the underlying data is sufficient, but not necessary, for the use of parametric tests.

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

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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 18, 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, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Introduction to Hypothesis Testing (Psychology)

Contents Toggle Main Menu 1 What is a Hypothesis test? 2 The Null and Alternative Hypotheses 3 The Structure of a Hypothesis Test 3.1 Summary of Steps for a Hypothesis Test 4 P -Values 5 Parametric and Non-Parametric Hypothesis Tests 6 One and two tailed tests 7 Type I and Type II Errors 8 See Also 9 Worksheets

What is a Hypothesis test?

A statistical hypothesis is an unproven statement which can be tested. A hypothesis test is used to test whether this statement is true.

The Null and Alternative Hypotheses

• The null hypothesis $H_0$, is where you assume that the observations are statistically independent i.e. no difference in the populations you are testing. If the null hypothesis is true, it suggests that any changes witnessed in an experiment are because of random chance and not because of changes made to variables in the experiment. For example, serotonin levels have no effect on ability to cope with stress. See also Null and alternative hypotheses .
• The alternative hypothesis $H_1$, is a theory that the observations are related (not independent) in some way. We only adopt the alternative hypothesis if we have rejected the null hypothesis. For example, serotonin levels affect a person's ability to cope with stress. You do not necessarily have to specify in what way they are related but can do (see one and two tailed tests for more information).

The Structure of a Hypothesis Test

• The first step of a hypothesis test is to state the null hypothesis $H_0$ and the alternative hypothesis $H_1$ . The null hypothesis is the statement or claim being made (which we are trying to disprove) and the alternative hypothesis is the hypothesis that we are trying to prove and which is accepted if we have sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

For example, consider a person in court who is charged with murder. The jury needs to decide whether the person in innocent (the null hypothesis) or guilty (the alternative hypothesis). As usual, we assume the person is innocent unless the jury can provide sufficient evidence that the person is guilty. Similarly, we assume that $H_0$ is true unless we can provide sufficient evidence that it is false and that $H_1$ is true, in which case we reject $H_0$ and accept $H_1$.

To decide if we have sufficient evidence against the null hypothesis to reject it (in favour of the alternative hypothesis), we must first decide upon a significance level . The significance level is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it the null hypothesis is true and is denoted by $\alpha$. The $5\%$ significance level is a common choice for statistical test.

The next step is to collect data and calculate the test statistic and associated $p$-value using the data. Assuming that the null hypothesis is true, the $p$-value is the probability of obtaining a sample statistic equal to or more extreme than the observed test statistic.

Next we must compare the $p$-value with the chosen significance level. If $p \lt \alpha$ then we reject $H_0$ and accept $H_1$. The lower $p$, the more evidence we have against $H_0$ and so the more confidence we can have that $H_0$ is false. If $p \geq \alpha$ then we do not have sufficient evidence to reject the $H_0$ and so must accept it.

Alternatively, we can compare our test statistic with the appropriate critical value for the chosen significance level. We can look up critical values in distribution tables (see worked examples below). If our test statistic is:

• positive and greater than the critical value, then we have sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.
• positive and lower than or equal to the critical value, we must accept the null hypothesis.
• negative and lower than the critical value, then we have sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.
• negative and greater than or equal to the critical value, we must accept the null hypothesis.

For either method:

Significant difference found: Reject the null hypothesis No significant difference found: Accept the null hypothesis

Finally, we must interpret our results and come to a conclusion. Returning to the example of the person in court, if the result of our hypothesis test indicated that we should accept $H_1$ and reject $H_0$, our conclusion would be that the jury should declare the person guilty of murder.

Summary of Steps for a Hypothesis Test

• Specify the null and the alternative hypothesis
• Decide upon the significance level.
• Comparing the $p$-value to the significance level $\alpha$, or
• Comparing the test statistic to the critical value.
• Interpret your results and draw a conclusion

P -Values"> P -Values

The $p$ -value is the probability of the test statistic (e.g. t -value or Chi-Square value) occurring given the null hypothesis is true. Since it is a probability, the $p$-value is a number between $0$ and $1$.

• Typically $p \leq 0.05$ shows that there is strong evidence for $H_1$ so we can accept it and reject $H_0$. Any $p$-value less than $0.05$ is significant and $p$-values less than $0.01$ are very significant .
• Typically $ p > 0.05$ shows that there is poor evidence for $H_1$ so we reject it and accept $H_0$.
• The smaller the $p$-value the more evidence there is supporting the hypothesis.
• The rule for accepting and rejecting the hypothesis is:

\begin{align} \text {Significant difference found} &= \textbf{Reject}\text{ the null hypothesis}\\ \text {No Significant difference found} &= \textbf{Accept}\text{ the null hypothesis}\\ \end{align}

• Note : The significance level is not always $0.05$. It can differ depending on the application and is often subjective (different people will have different opinions on what values are appropriate). For example, if lives are at stake then the $p$-value must be very small for safety reasons.
• See $P$-values for further detail on this topic.

Parametric and Non-Parametric Hypothesis Tests

There are parametric and non-parametric hypothesis tests.

• A parametric hypothesis assumes that the data follows a Normal probability distribution (with equal variances if we are working with more than one set of data) . A parametric hypothesis test is a statement about the parameters of this distribution (typically the mean). This can be seen in more detail in the Parametric Hypotheses Tests section .
• A non-parametric test assumes that the data does not follow any distribution and usually bases its calculations on the median . Note that although we assume the data does not follow a particular distribution it may do anyway. This can be seen in more detail in the Non-Parametric Hypotheses Tests section .

One and two tailed tests

Whether a test is One-tailed or Two-tailed is appropriate depends upon the alternative hypothesis $H_1$.

• One-tailed tests are used when the alternative hypothesis states that the parameter of interest is either bigger or smaller than the value stated in the null hypothesis. For example, the null hypothesis might state that the average weight of chocolate bars produced by a chocolate factory in Slough is 35g (as is printed on the wrapper), while the alternative hypothesis might state that the average weight of the chocolate bars is in fact lower than 35g.
• Two-tailed tests are used when the hypothesis states that the parameter of interest differs from the null hypothesis but does not specify in which direction. In the above example, a Two-tailed alternative hypothesis would be that the average weight of the chocolate bars is not equal to 35g.

Type I and Type II Errors

• A Type I error is made if we reject the null hypothesis when it is true (so should have been accepted). Returning to the example of the person in court, a Type I error would be made if the jury declared the person guilty when they are in fact innocent. The probability of making a Type I error is equal to the significance level $\alpha$.
• A Type II error is made if we accept the null hypothesis when it is false i.e. we should have rejected the null hypothesis and accepted the alternative hypothesis. This would occur if the jury declared the person innocent when they are in fact guilty.

For more information about the topics covered here see hypothesis testing .

• Introduction to hypothesis testing
• Binomial tests

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

Inferential Statistics

Learning Objectives

• Explain the purpose of null hypothesis testing, including the role of sampling error.
• Describe the basic logic of null hypothesis testing.
• Describe the role of relationship strength and sample size in determining statistical significance and make reasonable judgments about statistical significance based on these two factors.

 The Purpose of Null Hypothesis Testing

As we have seen, psychological research typically involves measuring one or more variables in a sample and computing descriptive summary data (e.g., means, correlation coefficients) for those variables. These descriptive data for the sample are called statistics .  In general, however, the researcher’s goal is not to draw conclusions about that sample but to draw conclusions about the population that the sample was selected from. Thus researchers must use sample statistics to draw conclusions about the corresponding values in the population. These corresponding values in the population are called parameters . Imagine, for example, that a researcher measures the number of depressive symptoms exhibited by each of 50 adults with clinical depression and computes the mean number of symptoms. The researcher probably wants to use this sample statistic (the mean number of symptoms for the sample) to draw conclusions about the corresponding population parameter (the mean number of symptoms for adults with clinical depression).

Unfortunately, sample statistics are not perfect estimates of their corresponding population parameters. This is because there is a certain amount of random variability in any statistic from sample to sample. The mean number of depressive symptoms might be 8.73 in one sample of adults with clinical depression, 6.45 in a second sample, and 9.44 in a third—even though these samples are selected randomly from the same population. Similarly, the correlation (Pearson’s  r ) between two variables might be +.24 in one sample, −.04 in a second sample, and +.15 in a third—again, even though these samples are selected randomly from the same population. This random variability in a statistic from sample to sample is called  sampling error . (Note that the term error  here refers to random variability and does not imply that anyone has made a mistake. No one “commits a sampling error.”)

One implication of this is that when there is a statistical relationship in a sample, it is not always clear that there is a statistical relationship in the population. A small difference between two group means in a sample might indicate that there is a small difference between the two group means in the population. But it could also be that there is no difference between the means in the population and that the difference in the sample is just a matter of sampling error. Similarly, a Pearson’s  r  value of −.29 in a sample might mean that there is a negative relationship in the population. But it could also be that there is no relationship in the population and that the relationship in the sample is just a matter of sampling error.

In fact, any statistical relationship in a sample can be interpreted in two ways:

• There is a relationship in the population, and the relationship in the sample reflects this.
• There is no relationship in the population, and the relationship in the sample reflects only sampling error.

The purpose of null hypothesis testing is simply to help researchers decide between these two interpretations.

The Logic of Null Hypothesis Testing

Null hypothesis testing (often called null hypothesis significance testing or NHST) is a formal approach to deciding between two interpretations of a statistical relationship in a sample. One interpretation is called the   null hypothesis  (often symbolized  H 0 and read as “H-zero”). This is the idea that there is no relationship in the population and that the relationship in the sample reflects only sampling error. Informally, the null hypothesis is that the sample relationship “occurred by chance.” The other interpretation is called the alternative hypothesis  (often symbolized as  H 1 ). This is the idea that there is a relationship in the population and that the relationship in the sample reflects this relationship in the population.

Again, every statistical relationship in a sample can be interpreted in either of these two ways: It might have occurred by chance, or it might reflect a relationship in the population. So researchers need a way to decide between them. Although there are many specific null hypothesis testing techniques, they are all based on the same general logic. The steps are as follows:

• Assume for the moment that the null hypothesis is true. There is no relationship between the variables in the population.
• Determine how likely the sample relationship would be if the null hypothesis were true.
• If the sample relationship would be extremely unlikely, then reject the null hypothesis  in favor of the alternative hypothesis. If it would not be extremely unlikely, then  retain the null hypothesis .

Following this logic, we can begin to understand why Mehl and his colleagues concluded that there is no difference in talkativeness between women and men in the population. In essence, they asked the following question: “If there were no difference in the population, how likely is it that we would find a small difference of  d  = 0.06 in our sample?” Their answer to this question was that this sample relationship would be fairly likely if the null hypothesis were true. Therefore, they retained the null hypothesis—concluding that there is no evidence of a sex difference in the population. We can also see why Kanner and his colleagues concluded that there is a correlation between hassles and symptoms in the population. They asked, “If the null hypothesis were true, how likely is it that we would find a strong correlation of +.60 in our sample?” Their answer to this question was that this sample relationship would be fairly unlikely if the null hypothesis were true. Therefore, they rejected the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis—concluding that there is a positive correlation between these variables in the population.

A crucial step in null hypothesis testing is finding the probability of the sample result or a more extreme result if the null hypothesis were true (Lakens, 2017). [1] This probability is called the p value . A low  p value means that the sample or more extreme result would be unlikely if the null hypothesis were true and leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis. A p value that is not low means that the sample or more extreme result would be likely if the null hypothesis were true and leads to the retention of the null hypothesis. But how low must the p value criterion be before the sample result is considered unlikely enough to reject the null hypothesis? In null hypothesis testing, this criterion is called α (alpha) and is almost always set to .05. If there is a 5% chance or less of a result at least as extreme as the sample result if the null hypothesis were true, then the null hypothesis is rejected. When this happens, the result is said to be statistically significant . If there is greater than a 5% chance of a result as extreme as the sample result when the null hypothesis is true, then the null hypothesis is retained. This does not necessarily mean that the researcher accepts the null hypothesis as true—only that there is not currently enough evidence to reject it. Researchers often use the expression “fail to reject the null hypothesis” rather than “retain the null hypothesis,” but they never use the expression “accept the null hypothesis.”

The Misunderstood  p  Value

The  p  value is one of the most misunderstood quantities in psychological research (Cohen, 1994) [2] . Even professional researchers misinterpret it, and it is not unusual for such misinterpretations to appear in statistics textbooks!

The most common misinterpretation is that the  p  value is the probability that the null hypothesis is true—that the sample result occurred by chance. For example, a misguided researcher might say that because the  p  value is .02, there is only a 2% chance that the result is due to chance and a 98% chance that it reflects a real relationship in the population. But this is incorrect . The  p  value is really the probability of a result at least as extreme as the sample result  if  the null hypothesis  were  true. So a  p  value of .02 means that if the null hypothesis were true, a sample result this extreme would occur only 2% of the time.

You can avoid this misunderstanding by remembering that the  p  value is not the probability that any particular  hypothesis  is true or false. Instead, it is the probability of obtaining the  sample result  if the null hypothesis were true.

Role of Sample Size and Relationship Strength

Recall that null hypothesis testing involves answering the question, “If the null hypothesis were true, what is the probability of a sample result as extreme as this one?” In other words, “What is the  p  value?” It can be helpful to see that the answer to this question depends on just two considerations: the strength of the relationship and the size of the sample. Specifically, the stronger the sample relationship and the larger the sample, the less likely the result would be if the null hypothesis were true. That is, the lower the  p  value. This should make sense. Imagine a study in which a sample of 500 women is compared with a sample of 500 men in terms of some psychological characteristic, and Cohen’s  d  is a strong 0.50. If there were really no sex difference in the population, then a result this strong based on such a large sample should seem highly unlikely. Now imagine a similar study in which a sample of three women is compared with a sample of three men, and Cohen’s  d  is a weak 0.10. If there were no sex difference in the population, then a relationship this weak based on such a small sample should seem likely. And this is precisely why the null hypothesis would be rejected in the first example and retained in the second.

Of course, sometimes the result can be weak and the sample large, or the result can be strong and the sample small. In these cases, the two considerations trade off against each other so that a weak result can be statistically significant if the sample is large enough and a strong relationship can be statistically significant even if the sample is small. Table 13.1 shows roughly how relationship strength and sample size combine to determine whether a sample result is statistically significant. The columns of the table represent the three levels of relationship strength: weak, medium, and strong. The rows represent four sample sizes that can be considered small, medium, large, and extra large in the context of psychological research. Thus each cell in the table represents a combination of relationship strength and sample size. If a cell contains the word  Yes , then this combination would be statistically significant for both Cohen’s  d  and Pearson’s  r . If it contains the word  No , then it would not be statistically significant for either. There is one cell where the decision for  d  and  r  would be different and another where it might be different depending on some additional considerations, which are discussed in Section 13.2 “Some Basic Null Hypothesis Tests”

Although Table 13.1 provides only a rough guideline, it shows very clearly that weak relationships based on medium or small samples are never statistically significant and that strong relationships based on medium or larger samples are always statistically significant. If you keep this lesson in mind, you will often know whether a result is statistically significant based on the descriptive statistics alone. It is extremely useful to be able to develop this kind of intuitive judgment. One reason is that it allows you to develop expectations about how your formal null hypothesis tests are going to come out, which in turn allows you to detect problems in your analyses. For example, if your sample relationship is strong and your sample is medium, then you would expect to reject the null hypothesis. If for some reason your formal null hypothesis test indicates otherwise, then you need to double-check your computations and interpretations. A second reason is that the ability to make this kind of intuitive judgment is an indication that you understand the basic logic of this approach in addition to being able to do the computations.

Statistical Significance Versus Practical Significance

Table 13.1 illustrates another extremely important point. A statistically significant result is not necessarily a strong one. Even a very weak result can be statistically significant if it is based on a large enough sample. This is closely related to Janet Shibley Hyde’s argument about sex differences (Hyde, 2007) [3] . The differences between women and men in mathematical problem solving and leadership ability are statistically significant. But the word  significant  can cause people to interpret these differences as strong and important—perhaps even important enough to influence the college courses they take or even who they vote for. As we have seen, however, these statistically significant differences are actually quite weak—perhaps even “trivial.”

This is why it is important to distinguish between the  statistical  significance of a result and the  practical  significance of that result.  Practical significance refers to the importance or usefulness of the result in some real-world context. Many sex differences are statistically significant—and may even be interesting for purely scientific reasons—but they are not practically significant. In clinical practice, this same concept is often referred to as “clinical significance.” For example, a study on a new treatment for social phobia might show that it produces a statistically significant positive effect. Yet this effect still might not be strong enough to justify the time, effort, and other costs of putting it into practice—especially if easier and cheaper treatments that work almost as well already exist. Although statistically significant, this result would be said to lack practical or clinical significance.

Image Description

“Null Hypothesis” long description:  A comic depicting a man and a woman talking in the foreground. In the background is a child working at a desk. The man says to the woman, “I can’t believe schools are still teaching kids about the null hypothesis. I remember reading a big study that conclusively disproved it  years  ago.”  [Return to “Null Hypothesis”]

“Conditional Risk” long description:  A comic depicting two hikers beside a tree during a thunderstorm. A bolt of lightning goes “crack” in the dark sky as thunder booms. One of the hikers says, “Whoa! We should get inside!” The other hiker says, “It’s okay! Lightning only kills about 45 Americans a year, so the chances of dying are only one in 7,000,000. Let’s go on!” The comic’s caption says, “The annual death rate among people who know that statistic is one in six.”  [Return to “Conditional Risk”]

Media Attributions

• Null Hypothesis  by XKCD  CC BY-NC (Attribution NonCommercial)
• Conditional Risk  by XKCD  CC BY-NC (Attribution NonCommercial)
• Lakens, D. (2017, December 25). About p -values: Understanding common misconceptions. [Blog post] Retrieved from https://correlaid.org/en/blog/understand-p-values/ ↵
• Cohen, J. (1994). The world is round: p < .05. American Psychologist, 49 , 997–1003. ↵
• Hyde, J. S. (2007). New directions in the study of gender similarities and differences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16 , 259–263. ↵

Descriptive data that involves measuring one or more variables in a sample and computing descriptive summary data (e.g., means, correlation coefficients) for those variables.

Corresponding values in the population.

The random variability in a statistic from sample to sample.

A formal approach to deciding between two interpretations of a statistical relationship in a sample.

The idea that there is no relationship in the population and that the relationship in the sample reflects only sampling error (often symbolized H0 and read as “H-zero”).

An alternative to the null hypothesis (often symbolized as H1), this hypothesis proposes that there is a relationship in the population and that the relationship in the sample reflects this relationship in the population.

A decision made by researchers using null hypothesis testing which occurs when the sample relationship would be extremely unlikely.

A decision made by researchers in null hypothesis testing which occurs when the sample relationship would not be extremely unlikely.

The probability of obtaining the sample result or a more extreme result if the null hypothesis were true.

The criterion that shows how low a p-value should be before the sample result is considered unlikely enough to reject the null hypothesis (Usually set to .05).

An effect that is unlikely due to random chance and therefore likely represents a real effect in the population.

Refers to the importance or usefulness of the result in some real-world context.

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2019 by Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, & Dana C. Leighton is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

What is The Null Hypothesis & When Do You Reject The Null Hypothesis

Julia Simkus

Editor at Simply Psychology

BA (Hons) Psychology, Princeton University

Julia Simkus is a graduate of Princeton University with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology. She is currently studying for a Master's Degree in Counseling for Mental Health and Wellness in September 2023. Julia's research has been published in peer reviewed journals.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

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

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

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

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

On This Page:

A null hypothesis is a statistical concept suggesting no significant difference or relationship between measured variables. It’s the default assumption unless empirical evidence proves otherwise.

The null hypothesis states no relationship exists between the two variables being studied (i.e., one variable does not affect the other).

The null hypothesis is the statement that a researcher or an investigator wants to disprove.

Testing the null hypothesis can tell you whether your results are due to the effects of manipulating ​ the dependent variable or due to random chance. 

How to Write a Null Hypothesis

Null hypotheses (H0) start as research questions that the investigator rephrases as statements indicating no effect or relationship between the independent and dependent variables.

It is a default position that your research aims to challenge or confirm.

For example, if studying the impact of exercise on weight loss, your null hypothesis might be:

There is no significant difference in weight loss between individuals who exercise daily and those who do not.

Examples of Null Hypotheses

When Do We Reject The Null Hypothesis? 

We reject the null hypothesis when the data provide strong enough evidence to conclude that it is likely incorrect. This often occurs when the p-value (probability of observing the data given the null hypothesis is true) is below a predetermined significance level.

If the collected data does not meet the expectation of the null hypothesis, a researcher can conclude that the data lacks sufficient evidence to back up the null hypothesis, and thus the null hypothesis is rejected. 

Rejecting the null hypothesis means that a relationship does exist between a set of variables and the effect is statistically significant ( p > 0.05).

If the data collected from the random sample is not statistically significance , then the null hypothesis will be accepted, and the researchers can conclude that there is no relationship between the variables. 

You need to perform a statistical test on your data in order to evaluate how consistent it is with the null hypothesis. A p-value is one statistical measurement used to validate a hypothesis against observed data.

Calculating the p-value is a critical part of null-hypothesis significance testing because it quantifies how strongly the sample data contradicts the null hypothesis.

The level of statistical significance is often expressed as a  p  -value between 0 and 1. The smaller the p-value, the stronger the evidence that you should reject the null hypothesis.

Usually, a researcher uses a confidence level of 95% or 99% (p-value of 0.05 or 0.01) as general guidelines to decide if you should reject or keep the null.

When your p-value is less than or equal to your significance level, you reject the null hypothesis.

In other words, smaller p-values are taken as stronger evidence against the null hypothesis. Conversely, when the p-value is greater than your significance level, you fail to reject the null hypothesis.

In this case, the sample data provides insufficient data to conclude that the effect exists in the population.

Because you can never know with complete certainty whether there is an effect in the population, your inferences about a population will sometimes be incorrect.

When you incorrectly reject the null hypothesis, it’s called a type I error. When you incorrectly fail to reject it, it’s called a type II error.

Why Do We Never Accept The Null Hypothesis?

The reason we do not say “accept the null” is because we are always assuming the null hypothesis is true and then conducting a study to see if there is evidence against it. And, even if we don’t find evidence against it, a null hypothesis is not accepted.

A lack of evidence only means that you haven’t proven that something exists. It does not prove that something doesn’t exist. 

It is risky to conclude that the null hypothesis is true merely because we did not find evidence to reject it. It is always possible that researchers elsewhere have disproved the null hypothesis, so we cannot accept it as true, but instead, we state that we failed to reject the null. 

One can either reject the null hypothesis, or fail to reject it, but can never accept it.

Why Do We Use The Null Hypothesis?

We can never prove with 100% certainty that a hypothesis is true; We can only collect evidence that supports a theory. However, testing a hypothesis can set the stage for rejecting or accepting this hypothesis within a certain confidence level.

The null hypothesis is useful because it can tell us whether the results of our study are due to random chance or the manipulation of a variable (with a certain level of confidence).

A null hypothesis is rejected if the measured data is significantly unlikely to have occurred and a null hypothesis is accepted if the observed outcome is consistent with the position held by the null hypothesis.

Rejecting the null hypothesis sets the stage for further experimentation to see if a relationship between two variables exists. 

Hypothesis testing is a critical part of the scientific method as it helps decide whether the results of a research study support a particular theory about a given population. Hypothesis testing is a systematic way of backing up researchers’ predictions with statistical analysis.

It helps provide sufficient statistical evidence that either favors or rejects a certain hypothesis about the population parameter. 

Purpose of a Null Hypothesis 

• The primary purpose of the null hypothesis is to disprove an assumption. 
• Whether rejected or accepted, the null hypothesis can help further progress a theory in many scientific cases.
• A null hypothesis can be used to ascertain how consistent the outcomes of multiple studies are.

Do you always need both a Null Hypothesis and an Alternative Hypothesis?

The null (H0) and alternative (Ha or H1) hypotheses are two competing claims that describe the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. They are mutually exclusive, which means that only one of the two hypotheses can be true. 

While the null hypothesis states that there is no effect in the population, an alternative hypothesis states that there is statistical significance between two variables. 

The goal of hypothesis testing is to make inferences about a population based on a sample. In order to undertake hypothesis testing, you must express your research hypothesis as a null and alternative hypothesis. Both hypotheses are required to cover every possible outcome of the study. 

What is the difference between a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis?

The alternative hypothesis is the complement to the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis states that there is no effect or no relationship between variables, while the alternative hypothesis claims that there is an effect or relationship in the population.

It is the claim that you expect or hope will be true. The null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis are always mutually exclusive, meaning that only one can be true at a time.

What are some problems with the null hypothesis?

One major problem with the null hypothesis is that researchers typically will assume that accepting the null is a failure of the experiment. However, accepting or rejecting any hypothesis is a positive result. Even if the null is not refuted, the researchers will still learn something new.

Why can a null hypothesis not be accepted?

We can either reject or fail to reject a null hypothesis, but never accept it. If your test fails to detect an effect, this is not proof that the effect doesn’t exist. It just means that your sample did not have enough evidence to conclude that it exists.

We can’t accept a null hypothesis because a lack of evidence does not prove something that does not exist. Instead, we fail to reject it.

Failing to reject the null indicates that the sample did not provide sufficient enough evidence to conclude that an effect exists.

If the p-value is greater than the significance level, then you fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Is a null hypothesis directional or non-directional?

A hypothesis test can either contain an alternative directional hypothesis or a non-directional alternative hypothesis. A directional hypothesis is one that contains the less than (“<“) or greater than (“>”) sign.

A nondirectional hypothesis contains the not equal sign (“≠”).  However, a null hypothesis is neither directional nor non-directional.

A null hypothesis is a prediction that there will be no change, relationship, or difference between two variables.

The directional hypothesis or nondirectional hypothesis would then be considered alternative hypotheses to the null hypothesis.

Gill, J. (1999). The insignificance of null hypothesis significance testing.  Political research quarterly ,  52 (3), 647-674.

Krueger, J. (2001). Null hypothesis significance testing: On the survival of a flawed method.  American Psychologist ,  56 (1), 16.

Masson, M. E. (2011). A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing.  Behavior research methods ,  43 , 679-690.

Nickerson, R. S. (2000). Null hypothesis significance testing: a review of an old and continuing controversy.  Psychological methods ,  5 (2), 241.

Rozeboom, W. W. (1960). The fallacy of the null-hypothesis significance test.  Psychological bulletin ,  57 (5), 416.

Related Articles

Research Methodology

Phenomenology In Qualitative Research

Ethnography In Qualitative Research

Narrative Analysis In Qualitative Research

Thematic Analysis: A Step by Step Guide

Metasynthesis Of Qualitative Research

Grounded Theory In Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide

User Preferences

Content preview.

Arcu felis bibendum ut tristique et egestas quis:

• Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris
• Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate
• Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident

Keyboard Shortcuts

S.3.3 hypothesis testing examples.

• Example: Right-Tailed Test
• Example: Left-Tailed Test
• Example: Two-Tailed Test

Brinell Hardness Scores

An engineer measured the Brinell hardness of 25 pieces of ductile iron that were subcritically annealed. The resulting data were:

The engineer hypothesized that the mean Brinell hardness of all such ductile iron pieces is greater than 170. Therefore, he was interested in testing the hypotheses:

H 0 : μ = 170 H A : μ > 170

The engineer entered his data into Minitab and requested that the "one-sample t -test" be conducted for the above hypotheses. He obtained the following output:

Descriptive Statistics

$\mu$: mean of Brinelli

Null hypothesis    H₀: $\mu$ = 170 Alternative hypothesis    H₁: $\mu$ > 170

The output tells us that the average Brinell hardness of the n = 25 pieces of ductile iron was 172.52 with a standard deviation of 10.31. (The standard error of the mean "SE Mean", calculated by dividing the standard deviation 10.31 by the square root of n = 25, is 2.06). The test statistic t * is 1.22, and the P -value is 0.117.

If the engineer set his significance level α at 0.05 and used the critical value approach to conduct his hypothesis test, he would reject the null hypothesis if his test statistic t * were greater than 1.7109 (determined using statistical software or a t -table):

Since the engineer's test statistic, t * = 1.22, is not greater than 1.7109, the engineer fails to reject the null hypothesis. That is, the test statistic does not fall in the "critical region." There is insufficient evidence, at the \(\alpha\) = 0.05 level, to conclude that the mean Brinell hardness of all such ductile iron pieces is greater than 170.

If the engineer used the P -value approach to conduct his hypothesis test, he would determine the area under a t n - 1 = t 24 curve and to the right of the test statistic t * = 1.22:

In the output above, Minitab reports that the P -value is 0.117. Since the P -value, 0.117, is greater than \(\alpha\) = 0.05, the engineer fails to reject the null hypothesis. There is insufficient evidence, at the \(\alpha\) = 0.05 level, to conclude that the mean Brinell hardness of all such ductile iron pieces is greater than 170.

Note that the engineer obtains the same scientific conclusion regardless of the approach used. This will always be the case.

Height of Sunflowers

A biologist was interested in determining whether sunflower seedlings treated with an extract from Vinca minor roots resulted in a lower average height of sunflower seedlings than the standard height of 15.7 cm. The biologist treated a random sample of n = 33 seedlings with the extract and subsequently obtained the following heights:

The biologist's hypotheses are:

H 0 : μ = 15.7 H A : μ < 15.7

The biologist entered her data into Minitab and requested that the "one-sample t -test" be conducted for the above hypotheses. She obtained the following output:

$\mu$: mean of Height

Null hypothesis    H₀: $\mu$ = 15.7 Alternative hypothesis    H₁: $\mu$ < 15.7

The output tells us that the average height of the n = 33 sunflower seedlings was 13.664 with a standard deviation of 2.544. (The standard error of the mean "SE Mean", calculated by dividing the standard deviation 13.664 by the square root of n = 33, is 0.443). The test statistic t * is -4.60, and the P -value, 0.000, is to three decimal places.

Minitab Note. Minitab will always report P -values to only 3 decimal places. If Minitab reports the P -value as 0.000, it really means that the P -value is 0.000....something. Throughout this course (and your future research!), when you see that Minitab reports the P -value as 0.000, you should report the P -value as being "< 0.001."

If the biologist set her significance level \(\alpha\) at 0.05 and used the critical value approach to conduct her hypothesis test, she would reject the null hypothesis if her test statistic t * were less than -1.6939 (determined using statistical software or a t -table):s-3-3

Since the biologist's test statistic, t * = -4.60, is less than -1.6939, the biologist rejects the null hypothesis. That is, the test statistic falls in the "critical region." There is sufficient evidence, at the α = 0.05 level, to conclude that the mean height of all such sunflower seedlings is less than 15.7 cm.

If the biologist used the P -value approach to conduct her hypothesis test, she would determine the area under a t n - 1 = t 32 curve and to the left of the test statistic t * = -4.60:

In the output above, Minitab reports that the P -value is 0.000, which we take to mean < 0.001. Since the P -value is less than 0.001, it is clearly less than \(\alpha\) = 0.05, and the biologist rejects the null hypothesis. There is sufficient evidence, at the \(\alpha\) = 0.05 level, to conclude that the mean height of all such sunflower seedlings is less than 15.7 cm.

Note again that the biologist obtains the same scientific conclusion regardless of the approach used. This will always be the case.

Gum Thickness

A manufacturer claims that the thickness of the spearmint gum it produces is 7.5 one-hundredths of an inch. A quality control specialist regularly checks this claim. On one production run, he took a random sample of n = 10 pieces of gum and measured their thickness. He obtained:

The quality control specialist's hypotheses are:

H 0 : μ = 7.5 H A : μ ≠ 7.5

The quality control specialist entered his data into Minitab and requested that the "one-sample t -test" be conducted for the above hypotheses. He obtained the following output:

$\mu$: mean of Thickness

Null hypothesis    H₀: $\mu$ = 7.5 Alternative hypothesis    H₁: $\mu \ne$ 7.5

The output tells us that the average thickness of the n = 10 pieces of gums was 7.55 one-hundredths of an inch with a standard deviation of 0.1027. (The standard error of the mean "SE Mean", calculated by dividing the standard deviation 0.1027 by the square root of n = 10, is 0.0325). The test statistic t * is 1.54, and the P -value is 0.158.

If the quality control specialist sets his significance level \(\alpha\) at 0.05 and used the critical value approach to conduct his hypothesis test, he would reject the null hypothesis if his test statistic t * were less than -2.2616 or greater than 2.2616 (determined using statistical software or a t -table):

Since the quality control specialist's test statistic, t * = 1.54, is not less than -2.2616 nor greater than 2.2616, the quality control specialist fails to reject the null hypothesis. That is, the test statistic does not fall in the "critical region." There is insufficient evidence, at the \(\alpha\) = 0.05 level, to conclude that the mean thickness of all of the manufacturer's spearmint gum differs from 7.5 one-hundredths of an inch.

If the quality control specialist used the P -value approach to conduct his hypothesis test, he would determine the area under a t n - 1 = t 9 curve, to the right of 1.54 and to the left of -1.54:

In the output above, Minitab reports that the P -value is 0.158. Since the P -value, 0.158, is greater than \(\alpha\) = 0.05, the quality control specialist fails to reject the null hypothesis. There is insufficient evidence, at the \(\alpha\) = 0.05 level, to conclude that the mean thickness of all pieces of spearmint gum differs from 7.5 one-hundredths of an inch.

Note that the quality control specialist obtains the same scientific conclusion regardless of the approach used. This will always be the case.

In our review of hypothesis tests, we have focused on just one particular hypothesis test, namely that concerning the population mean \(\mu\). The important thing to recognize is that the topics discussed here — the general idea of hypothesis tests, errors in hypothesis testing, the critical value approach, and the P -value approach — generally extend to all of the hypothesis tests you will encounter.

Theory Construction & Hypothesis Testing; Paradigms & Paradigm Shift ( AQA A Level Psychology )

Revision note.

Psychology Content Creator

Theory Construction & Hypothesis Testing

What is theory construction.

• A theory is a set of principles that intend to explain certain behaviours or events
• A theory can be constructed using evidence gathered via research to support its central assumptions and principles as theories cannot exist on the basis of beliefs alone: they require empirical evidence

What is Hypothesis Testing?

• A hypothesis is a prediction of what the researcher expects to find after conducting an experiment : it must be objective and measurable
• When the findings have been analysed a  clear decision can be made as to whether the null hypothesis can be accepted or rejected i.e. if the null hypothesis can be rejected then the theory is strengthened

A researcher may wish to test the hypothesis that A Level students will yawn at least five times during a lesson (but never during a Psychology lesson…)

Examples of theory construction and hypothesis testing  

• The Multi-Store Model of Memory (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968) theorises that memory is a linear process with 3 unitary storage facilities; lab experiments such as Sperling (1960), Peterson & Peterson (1969) and Glanzer & Cunitz (1966) have been used in support of the theory
• The theory of localisation of brain function proposes that the brain is not unimodal and that specific brain regions govern specific functions and behaviours; research such as Maguire (2000), Dougherty et al. (2002) and Peterson et al. (1988) support the theory

Just because a theory has been tested and supported by research does not mean that you can’t challenge it or find limitations to it in an exam. You will gain marks for robust critical thinking which goes beyond what a textbook outlines in its evaluation of a theory; the examiner will also love you for introducing some original ideas!

What is a paradigm?

• A paradigm is a set of shared assumptions and methods within a particular discipline which distinguishes a science from a non‐science (Kuhn 1962)
• Psychology is thus viewed as a pre‐science , (physics, biology and chemistry are science) as it has too much disparity between its various approaches (e.g. cognitive versus behaviourist)

What is paradigm shift?

• Paradigm shif t occurs when a field of study moves forward through a scientific revolution e.g. with a  few scientists challenging an existing, accepted paradigm 
• As time passes these ideas gain traction as more scientists begin to challenge the old theory, adding more research to contradict the existing  assumptions

T he belief that earth is flat is an example of a pre-existing paradigm that went through a paradigm shift

Examples of paradigms and paradigm shift

• Psychoanalytic theory prevailed from the late nineteenth century and was at the forefront of  psychological thinking until Pavlov and Skinner proposed the behaviourist idea that all behaviour is learned from the environment 
• Another paradigm shift occurred when the cognitive approach  took over from the behaviourist approach with the emphasis being on the mind and information processing (though both of these approaches can be seen in cognitive behavioural therapy )

You've read 0 of your 0 free revision notes

Get unlimited access.

to absolutely everything:

• Downloadable PDFs
• Unlimited Revision Notes
• Topic Questions
• Past Papers
• Model Answers
• Videos (Maths and Science)

Join the 100,000 + Students that ❤️ Save My Exams

the (exam) results speak for themselves:

Did this page help you?

Author: Claire Neeson

Claire has been teaching for 34 years, in the UK and overseas. She has taught GCSE, A-level and IB Psychology which has been a lot of fun and extremely exhausting! Claire is now a freelance Psychology teacher and content creator, producing textbooks, revision notes and (hopefully) exciting and interactive teaching materials for use in the classroom and for exam prep. Her passion (apart from Psychology of course) is roller skating and when she is not working (or watching 'Coronation Street') she can be found busting some impressive moves on her local roller rink.

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

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

9.E: Hypothesis Testing with One Sample (Exercises)

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 1146

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

These are homework exercises to accompany the Textmap created for "Introductory Statistics" by OpenStax.

9.1: Introduction

9.2: null and alternative hypotheses.

Some of the following statements refer to the null hypothesis, some to the alternate hypothesis.

State the null hypothesis, \(H_{0}\), and the alternative hypothesis. \(H_{a}\), in terms of the appropriate parameter \((\mu \text{or} p)\).

• The mean number of years Americans work before retiring is 34.
• At most 60% of Americans vote in presidential elections.
• The mean starting salary for San Jose State University graduates is at least $100,000 per year.
• Twenty-nine percent of high school seniors get drunk each month.
• Fewer than 5% of adults ride the bus to work in Los Angeles.
• The mean number of cars a person owns in her lifetime is not more than ten.
• About half of Americans prefer to live away from cities, given the choice.
• Europeans have a mean paid vacation each year of six weeks.
• The chance of developing breast cancer is under 11% for women.
• Private universities' mean tuition cost is more than $20,000 per year.
• \(H_{0}: \mu = 34; H_{a}: \mu \neq 34\)
• \(H_{0}: p \leq 0.60; H_{a}: p > 0.60\)
• \(H_{0}: \mu \geq 100,000; H_{a}: \mu < 100,000\)
• \(H_{0}: p = 0.29; H_{a}: p \neq 0.29\)
• \(H_{0}: p = 0.05; H_{a}: p < 0.05\)
• \(H_{0}: \mu \leq 10; H_{a}: \mu > 10\)
• \(H_{0}: p = 0.50; H_{a}: p \neq 0.50\)
• \(H_{0}: \mu = 6; H_{a}: \mu \neq 6\)
• \(H_{0}: p ≥ 0.11; H_{a}: p < 0.11\)
• \(H_{0}: \mu \leq 20,000; H_{a}: \mu > 20,000\)

Over the past few decades, public health officials have examined the link between weight concerns and teen girls' smoking. Researchers surveyed a group of 273 randomly selected teen girls living in Massachusetts (between 12 and 15 years old). After four years the girls were surveyed again. Sixty-three said they smoked to stay thin. Is there good evidence that more than thirty percent of the teen girls smoke to stay thin? The alternative hypothesis is:

• \(p < 0.30\)
• \(p \leq 0.30\)
• \(p \geq 0.30\)
• \(p > 0.30\)

A statistics instructor believes that fewer than 20% of Evergreen Valley College (EVC) students attended the opening night midnight showing of the latest Harry Potter movie. She surveys 84 of her students and finds that 11 attended the midnight showing. An appropriate alternative hypothesis is:

• \(p = 0.20\)
• \(p > 0.20\)
• \(p < 0.20\)
• \(p \leq 0.20\)

Previously, an organization reported that teenagers spent 4.5 hours per week, on average, on the phone. The organization thinks that, currently, the mean is higher. Fifteen randomly chosen teenagers were asked how many hours per week they spend on the phone. The sample mean was 4.75 hours with a sample standard deviation of 2.0. Conduct a hypothesis test. The null and alternative hypotheses are:

• \(H_{0}: \bar{x} = 4.5, H_{a}: \bar{x} > 4.5\)
• \(H_{0}: \mu \geq 4.5, H_{a}: \mu < 4.5\)
• \(H_{0}: \mu = 4.75, H_{a}: \mu > 4.75\)
• \(H_{0}: \mu = 4.5, H_{a}: \mu > 4.5\)

9.3: Outcomes and the Type I and Type II Errors

State the Type I and Type II errors in complete sentences given the following statements.

• The mean number of cars a person owns in his or her lifetime is not more than ten.
• Private universities mean tuition cost is more than $20,000 per year.
• Type I error: We conclude that the mean is not 34 years, when it really is 34 years. Type II error: We conclude that the mean is 34 years, when in fact it really is not 34 years.
• Type I error: We conclude that more than 60% of Americans vote in presidential elections, when the actual percentage is at most 60%.Type II error: We conclude that at most 60% of Americans vote in presidential elections when, in fact, more than 60% do.
• Type I error: We conclude that the mean starting salary is less than $100,000, when it really is at least $100,000. Type II error: We conclude that the mean starting salary is at least $100,000 when, in fact, it is less than $100,000.
• Type I error: We conclude that the proportion of high school seniors who get drunk each month is not 29%, when it really is 29%. Type II error: We conclude that the proportion of high school seniors who get drunk each month is 29% when, in fact, it is not 29%.
• Type I error: We conclude that fewer than 5% of adults ride the bus to work in Los Angeles, when the percentage that do is really 5% or more. Type II error: We conclude that 5% or more adults ride the bus to work in Los Angeles when, in fact, fewer that 5% do.
• Type I error: We conclude that the mean number of cars a person owns in his or her lifetime is more than 10, when in reality it is not more than 10. Type II error: We conclude that the mean number of cars a person owns in his or her lifetime is not more than 10 when, in fact, it is more than 10.
• Type I error: We conclude that the proportion of Americans who prefer to live away from cities is not about half, though the actual proportion is about half. Type II error: We conclude that the proportion of Americans who prefer to live away from cities is half when, in fact, it is not half.
• Type I error: We conclude that the duration of paid vacations each year for Europeans is not six weeks, when in fact it is six weeks. Type II error: We conclude that the duration of paid vacations each year for Europeans is six weeks when, in fact, it is not.
• Type I error: We conclude that the proportion is less than 11%, when it is really at least 11%. Type II error: We conclude that the proportion of women who develop breast cancer is at least 11%, when in fact it is less than 11%.
• Type I error: We conclude that the average tuition cost at private universities is more than $20,000, though in reality it is at most $20,000. Type II error: We conclude that the average tuition cost at private universities is at most $20,000 when, in fact, it is more than $20,000.

For statements a-j in Exercise 9.109 , answer the following in complete sentences.

• State a consequence of committing a Type I error.
• State a consequence of committing a Type II error.

When a new drug is created, the pharmaceutical company must subject it to testing before receiving the necessary permission from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to market the drug. Suppose the null hypothesis is “the drug is unsafe.” What is the Type II Error?

• To conclude the drug is safe when in, fact, it is unsafe.
• Not to conclude the drug is safe when, in fact, it is safe.
• To conclude the drug is safe when, in fact, it is safe.
• Not to conclude the drug is unsafe when, in fact, it is unsafe.

A statistics instructor believes that fewer than 20% of Evergreen Valley College (EVC) students attended the opening midnight showing of the latest Harry Potter movie. She surveys 84 of her students and finds that 11 of them attended the midnight showing. The Type I error is to conclude that the percent of EVC students who attended is ________.

• at least 20%, when in fact, it is less than 20%.
• 20%, when in fact, it is 20%.
• less than 20%, when in fact, it is at least 20%.
• less than 20%, when in fact, it is less than 20%.

It is believed that Lake Tahoe Community College (LTCC) Intermediate Algebra students get less than seven hours of sleep per night, on average. A survey of 22 LTCC Intermediate Algebra students generated a mean of 7.24 hours with a standard deviation of 1.93 hours. At a level of significance of 5%, do LTCC Intermediate Algebra students get less than seven hours of sleep per night, on average?

The Type II error is not to reject that the mean number of hours of sleep LTCC students get per night is at least seven when, in fact, the mean number of hours

• is more than seven hours.
• is at most seven hours.
• is at least seven hours.
• is less than seven hours.

Previously, an organization reported that teenagers spent 4.5 hours per week, on average, on the phone. The organization thinks that, currently, the mean is higher. Fifteen randomly chosen teenagers were asked how many hours per week they spend on the phone. The sample mean was 4.75 hours with a sample standard deviation of 2.0. Conduct a hypothesis test, the Type I error is:

• to conclude that the current mean hours per week is higher than 4.5, when in fact, it is higher
• to conclude that the current mean hours per week is higher than 4.5, when in fact, it is the same
• to conclude that the mean hours per week currently is 4.5, when in fact, it is higher
• to conclude that the mean hours per week currently is no higher than 4.5, when in fact, it is not higher

9.4: Distribution Needed for Hypothesis Testing

It is believed that Lake Tahoe Community College (LTCC) Intermediate Algebra students get less than seven hours of sleep per night, on average. A survey of 22 LTCC Intermediate Algebra students generated a mean of 7.24 hours with a standard deviation of 1.93 hours. At a level of significance of 5%, do LTCC Intermediate Algebra students get less than seven hours of sleep per night, on average? The distribution to be used for this test is \(\bar{X} \sim\) ________________

• \(N\left(7.24, \frac{1.93}{\sqrt{22}}\right)\)
• \(N\left(7.24, 1.93\right)\)

9.5: Rare Events, the Sample, Decision and Conclusion

The National Institute of Mental Health published an article stating that in any one-year period, approximately 9.5 percent of American adults suffer from depression or a depressive illness. Suppose that in a survey of 100 people in a certain town, seven of them suffered from depression or a depressive illness. Conduct a hypothesis test to determine if the true proportion of people in that town suffering from depression or a depressive illness is lower than the percent in the general adult American population.

• Is this a test of one mean or proportion?
• State the null and alternative hypotheses. \(H_{0}\) : ____________________ \(H_{a}\) : ____________________
• Is this a right-tailed, left-tailed, or two-tailed test?
• What symbol represents the random variable for this test?
• In words, define the random variable for this test.
• \(x =\) ________________
• \(n =\) ________________
• \(p′ =\) _____________
• Calculate \(\sigma_{x} =\) __________. Show the formula set-up.
• State the distribution to use for the hypothesis test.
• Find the \(p\text{-value}\).
• Reason for the decision:
• Conclusion (write out in a complete sentence):

9.6: Additional Information and Full Hypothesis Test Examples

For each of the word problems, use a solution sheet to do the hypothesis test. The solution sheet is found in [link] . Please feel free to make copies of the solution sheets. For the online version of the book, it is suggested that you copy the .doc or the .pdf files.

If you are using a Student's \(t\) - distribution for one of the following homework problems, you may assume that the underlying population is normally distributed. (In general, you must first prove that assumption, however.)

A particular brand of tires claims that its deluxe tire averages at least 50,000 miles before it needs to be replaced. From past studies of this tire, the standard deviation is known to be 8,000. A survey of owners of that tire design is conducted. From the 28 tires surveyed, the mean lifespan was 46,500 miles with a standard deviation of 9,800 miles. Using \(\alpha = 0.05\), is the data highly inconsistent with the claim?

• \(H_{0}: \mu \geq 50,000\)
• \(H_{a}: \mu < 50,000\)
• Let \(\bar{X} =\) the average lifespan of a brand of tires.
• normal distribution
• \(z = -2.315\)
• \(p\text{-value} = 0.0103\)
• Check student’s solution.
• alpha: 0.05
• Decision: Reject the null hypothesis.
• Reason for decision: The \(p\text{-value}\) is less than 0.05.
• Conclusion: There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the mean lifespan of the tires is less than 50,000 miles.
• \((43,537, 49,463)\)

From generation to generation, the mean age when smokers first start to smoke varies. However, the standard deviation of that age remains constant of around 2.1 years. A survey of 40 smokers of this generation was done to see if the mean starting age is at least 19. The sample mean was 18.1 with a sample standard deviation of 1.3. Do the data support the claim at the 5% level?

The cost of a daily newspaper varies from city to city. However, the variation among prices remains steady with a standard deviation of 20¢. A study was done to test the claim that the mean cost of a daily newspaper is $1.00. Twelve costs yield a mean cost of 95¢ with a standard deviation of 18¢. Do the data support the claim at the 1% level?

• \(H_{0}: \mu = $1.00\)
• \(H_{a}: \mu \neq $1.00\)
• Let \(\bar{X} =\) the average cost of a daily newspaper.
• \(z = –0.866\)
• \(p\text{-value} = 0.3865\)
• \(\alpha: 0.01\)
• Decision: Do not reject the null hypothesis.
• Reason for decision: The \(p\text{-value}\) is greater than 0.01.
• Conclusion: There is sufficient evidence to support the claim that the mean cost of daily papers is $1. The mean cost could be $1.
• \(($0.84, $1.06)\)

An article in the San Jose Mercury News stated that students in the California state university system take 4.5 years, on average, to finish their undergraduate degrees. Suppose you believe that the mean time is longer. You conduct a survey of 49 students and obtain a sample mean of 5.1 with a sample standard deviation of 1.2. Do the data support your claim at the 1% level?

The mean number of sick days an employee takes per year is believed to be about ten. Members of a personnel department do not believe this figure. They randomly survey eight employees. The number of sick days they took for the past year are as follows: 12; 4; 15; 3; 11; 8; 6; 8. Let \(x =\) the number of sick days they took for the past year. Should the personnel team believe that the mean number is ten?

• \(H_{0}: \mu = 10\)
• \(H_{a}: \mu \neq 10\)
• Let \(\bar{X}\) the mean number of sick days an employee takes per year.
• Student’s t -distribution
• \(t = –1.12\)
• \(p\text{-value} = 0.300\)
• \(\alpha: 0.05\)
• Reason for decision: The \(p\text{-value}\) is greater than 0.05.
• Conclusion: At the 5% significance level, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the mean number of sick days is not ten.
• \((4.9443, 11.806)\)

In 1955, Life Magazine reported that the 25 year-old mother of three worked, on average, an 80 hour week. Recently, many groups have been studying whether or not the women's movement has, in fact, resulted in an increase in the average work week for women (combining employment and at-home work). Suppose a study was done to determine if the mean work week has increased. 81 women were surveyed with the following results. The sample mean was 83; the sample standard deviation was ten. Does it appear that the mean work week has increased for women at the 5% level?

Your statistics instructor claims that 60 percent of the students who take her Elementary Statistics class go through life feeling more enriched. For some reason that she can't quite figure out, most people don't believe her. You decide to check this out on your own. You randomly survey 64 of her past Elementary Statistics students and find that 34 feel more enriched as a result of her class. Now, what do you think?

• \(H_{0}: p \geq 0.6\)
• \(H_{a}: p < 0.6\)
• Let \(P′ =\) the proportion of students who feel more enriched as a result of taking Elementary Statistics.
• normal for a single proportion
• \(p\text{-value} = 0.1308\)
• Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to conclude that less than 60 percent of her students feel more enriched.

The “plus-4s” confidence interval is \((0.411, 0.648)\)

A Nissan Motor Corporation advertisement read, “The average man’s I.Q. is 107. The average brown trout’s I.Q. is 4. So why can’t man catch brown trout?” Suppose you believe that the brown trout’s mean I.Q. is greater than four. You catch 12 brown trout. A fish psychologist determines the I.Q.s as follows: 5; 4; 7; 3; 6; 4; 5; 3; 6; 3; 8; 5. Conduct a hypothesis test of your belief.

Refer to Exercise 9.119 . Conduct a hypothesis test to see if your decision and conclusion would change if your belief were that the brown trout’s mean I.Q. is not four.

• \(H_{0}: \mu = 4\)
• \(H_{a}: \mu \neq 4\)
• Let \(\bar{X}\) the average I.Q. of a set of brown trout.
• two-tailed Student's t-test
• \(t = 1.95\)
• \(p\text{-value} = 0.076\)
• Reason for decision: The \(p\text{-value}\) is greater than 0.05
• Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the average IQ of brown trout is not four.
• \((3.8865,5.9468)\)

According to an article in Newsweek , the natural ratio of girls to boys is 100:105. In China, the birth ratio is 100: 114 (46.7% girls). Suppose you don’t believe the reported figures of the percent of girls born in China. You conduct a study. In this study, you count the number of girls and boys born in 150 randomly chosen recent births. There are 60 girls and 90 boys born of the 150. Based on your study, do you believe that the percent of girls born in China is 46.7?

A poll done for Newsweek found that 13% of Americans have seen or sensed the presence of an angel. A contingent doubts that the percent is really that high. It conducts its own survey. Out of 76 Americans surveyed, only two had seen or sensed the presence of an angel. As a result of the contingent’s survey, would you agree with the Newsweek poll? In complete sentences, also give three reasons why the two polls might give different results.

• \(H_{a}: p < 0.13\)
• Let \(P′ =\) the proportion of Americans who have seen or sensed angels
• –2.688
• \(p\text{-value} = 0.0036\)
• Reason for decision: The \(p\text{-value}\)e is less than 0.05.
• Conclusion: There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the percentage of Americans who have seen or sensed an angel is less than 13%.

The“plus-4s” confidence interval is (0.0022, 0.0978)

The mean work week for engineers in a start-up company is believed to be about 60 hours. A newly hired engineer hopes that it’s shorter. She asks ten engineering friends in start-ups for the lengths of their mean work weeks. Based on the results that follow, should she count on the mean work week to be shorter than 60 hours?

Data (length of mean work week): 70; 45; 55; 60; 65; 55; 55; 60; 50; 55.

Use the “Lap time” data for Lap 4 (see [link] ) to test the claim that Terri finishes Lap 4, on average, in less than 129 seconds. Use all twenty races given.

• \(H_{0}: \mu \geq 129\)
• \(H_{a}: \mu < 129\)
• Let \(\bar{X} =\) the average time in seconds that Terri finishes Lap 4.
• Student's t -distribution
• \(t = 1.209\)
• Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to conclude that Terri’s mean lap time is less than 129 seconds.
• \((128.63, 130.37)\)

Use the “Initial Public Offering” data (see [link] ) to test the claim that the mean offer price was $18 per share. Do not use all the data. Use your random number generator to randomly survey 15 prices.

The following questions were written by past students. They are excellent problems!

"Asian Family Reunion," by Chau Nguyen

Every two years it comes around.

We all get together from different towns.

In my honest opinion,

It's not a typical family reunion.

Not forty, or fifty, or sixty,

But how about seventy companions!

The kids would play, scream, and shout

One minute they're happy, another they'll pout.

The teenagers would look, stare, and compare

From how they look to what they wear.

The men would chat about their business

That they make more, but never less.

Money is always their subject

And there's always talk of more new projects.

The women get tired from all of the chats

They head to the kitchen to set out the mats.

Some would sit and some would stand

Eating and talking with plates in their hands.

Then come the games and the songs

And suddenly, everyone gets along!

With all that laughter, it's sad to say

That it always ends in the same old way.

They hug and kiss and say "good-bye"

And then they all begin to cry!

I say that 60 percent shed their tears

But my mom counted 35 people this year.

She said that boys and men will always have their pride,

So we won't ever see them cry.

I myself don't think she's correct,

So could you please try this problem to see if you object?

• \(H_{0}: p = 0.60\)
• \(H_{a}: p < 0.60\)
• Let \(P′ =\) the proportion of family members who shed tears at a reunion.
• –1.71
• Reason for decision: \(p\text{-value} < \alpha\)
• Conclusion: At the 5% significance level, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the proportion of family members who shed tears at a reunion is less than 0.60. However, the test is weak because the \(p\text{-value}\) and alpha are quite close, so other tests should be done.
• We are 95% confident that between 38.29% and 61.71% of family members will shed tears at a family reunion. \((0.3829, 0.6171)\). The“plus-4s” confidence interval (see chapter 8) is \((0.3861, 0.6139)\)

Note that here the “large-sample” \(1 - \text{PropZTest}\) provides the approximate \(p\text{-value}\) of 0.0438. Whenever a \(p\text{-value}\) based on a normal approximation is close to the level of significance, the exact \(p\text{-value}\) based on binomial probabilities should be calculated whenever possible. This is beyond the scope of this course.

"The Problem with Angels," by Cyndy Dowling

Although this problem is wholly mine,

The catalyst came from the magazine, Time.

On the magazine cover I did find

The realm of angels tickling my mind.

Inside, 69% I found to be

In angels, Americans do believe.

Then, it was time to rise to the task,

Ninety-five high school and college students I did ask.

Viewing all as one group,

Random sampling to get the scoop.

So, I asked each to be true,

"Do you believe in angels?" Tell me, do!

Hypothesizing at the start,

Totally believing in my heart

That the proportion who said yes

Would be equal on this test.

Lo and behold, seventy-three did arrive,

Out of the sample of ninety-five.

Now your job has just begun,

Solve this problem and have some fun.

"Blowing Bubbles," by Sondra Prull

Studying stats just made me tense,

I had to find some sane defense.

Some light and lifting simple play

To float my math anxiety away.

Blowing bubbles lifts me high

Takes my troubles to the sky.

POIK! They're gone, with all my stress

Bubble therapy is the best.

The label said each time I blew

The average number of bubbles would be at least 22.

I blew and blew and this I found

From 64 blows, they all are round!

But the number of bubbles in 64 blows

Varied widely, this I know.

20 per blow became the mean

They deviated by 6, and not 16.

From counting bubbles, I sure did relax

But now I give to you your task.

Was 22 a reasonable guess?

Find the answer and pass this test!

• \(H_{0}: \mu \geq 22\)
• \(H_{a}: \mu < 22\)
• Let \(\bar{X} =\) the mean number of bubbles per blow.
• –2.667
• \(p\text{-value} = 0.00486\)
• Conclusion: There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the mean number of bubbles per blow is less than 22.
• \((18.501, 21.499)\)

"Dalmatian Darnation," by Kathy Sparling

A greedy dog breeder named Spreckles

Bred puppies with numerous freckles

The Dalmatians he sought

Possessed spot upon spot

The more spots, he thought, the more shekels.

His competitors did not agree

That freckles would increase the fee.

They said, “Spots are quite nice

But they don't affect price;

One should breed for improved pedigree.”

The breeders decided to prove

This strategy was a wrong move.

Breeding only for spots

Would wreak havoc, they thought.

His theory they want to disprove.

They proposed a contest to Spreckles

Comparing dog prices to freckles.

In records they looked up

One hundred one pups:

Dalmatians that fetched the most shekels.

They asked Mr. Spreckles to name

An average spot count he'd claim

To bring in big bucks.

Said Spreckles, “Well, shucks,

It's for one hundred one that I aim.”

Said an amateur statistician

Who wanted to help with this mission.

“Twenty-one for the sample

Standard deviation's ample:

They examined one hundred and one

Dalmatians that fetched a good sum.

They counted each spot,

Mark, freckle and dot

And tallied up every one.

Instead of one hundred one spots

They averaged ninety six dots

Can they muzzle Spreckles’

Obsession with freckles

Based on all the dog data they've got?

"Macaroni and Cheese, please!!" by Nedda Misherghi and Rachelle Hall

As a poor starving student I don't have much money to spend for even the bare necessities. So my favorite and main staple food is macaroni and cheese. It's high in taste and low in cost and nutritional value.

One day, as I sat down to determine the meaning of life, I got a serious craving for this, oh, so important, food of my life. So I went down the street to Greatway to get a box of macaroni and cheese, but it was SO expensive! $2.02 !!! Can you believe it? It made me stop and think. The world is changing fast. I had thought that the mean cost of a box (the normal size, not some super-gigantic-family-value-pack) was at most $1, but now I wasn't so sure. However, I was determined to find out. I went to 53 of the closest grocery stores and surveyed the prices of macaroni and cheese. Here are the data I wrote in my notebook:

Price per box of Mac and Cheese:

• 5 stores @ $2.02
• 15 stores @ $0.25
• 3 stores @ $1.29
• 6 stores @ $0.35
• 4 stores @ $2.27
• 7 stores @ $1.50
• 5 stores @ $1.89
• 8 stores @ 0.75.

I could see that the cost varied but I had to sit down to figure out whether or not I was right. If it does turn out that this mouth-watering dish is at most $1, then I'll throw a big cheesy party in our next statistics lab, with enough macaroni and cheese for just me. (After all, as a poor starving student I can't be expected to feed our class of animals!)

• \(H_{0}: \mu \leq 1\)
• \(H_{a}: \mu > 1\)
• Let \(\bar{X} =\) the mean cost in dollars of macaroni and cheese in a certain town.
• Student's \(t\)-distribution
• \(t = 0.340\)
• \(p\text{-value} = 0.36756\)
• Conclusion: The mean cost could be $1, or less. At the 5% significance level, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the mean price of a box of macaroni and cheese is more than $1.
• \((0.8291, 1.241)\)

"William Shakespeare: The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark," by Jacqueline Ghodsi

THE CHARACTERS (in order of appearance):

• HAMLET, Prince of Denmark and student of Statistics
• POLONIUS, Hamlet’s tutor
• HOROTIO, friend to Hamlet and fellow student

Scene: The great library of the castle, in which Hamlet does his lessons

(The day is fair, but the face of Hamlet is clouded. He paces the large room. His tutor, Polonius, is reprimanding Hamlet regarding the latter’s recent experience. Horatio is seated at the large table at right stage.)

POLONIUS: My Lord, how cans’t thou admit that thou hast seen a ghost! It is but a figment of your imagination!

HAMLET: I beg to differ; I know of a certainty that five-and-seventy in one hundred of us, condemned to the whips and scorns of time as we are, have gazed upon a spirit of health, or goblin damn’d, be their intents wicked or charitable.

POLONIUS If thou doest insist upon thy wretched vision then let me invest your time; be true to thy work and speak to me through the reason of the null and alternate hypotheses. (He turns to Horatio.) Did not Hamlet himself say, “What piece of work is man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties? Then let not this foolishness persist. Go, Horatio, make a survey of three-and-sixty and discover what the true proportion be. For my part, I will never succumb to this fantasy, but deem man to be devoid of all reason should thy proposal of at least five-and-seventy in one hundred hold true.

HORATIO (to Hamlet): What should we do, my Lord?

HAMLET: Go to thy purpose, Horatio.

HORATIO: To what end, my Lord?

HAMLET: That you must teach me. But let me conjure you by the rights of our fellowship, by the consonance of our youth, but the obligation of our ever-preserved love, be even and direct with me, whether I am right or no.

(Horatio exits, followed by Polonius, leaving Hamlet to ponder alone.)

(The next day, Hamlet awaits anxiously the presence of his friend, Horatio. Polonius enters and places some books upon the table just a moment before Horatio enters.)

POLONIUS: So, Horatio, what is it thou didst reveal through thy deliberations?

HORATIO: In a random survey, for which purpose thou thyself sent me forth, I did discover that one-and-forty believe fervently that the spirits of the dead walk with us. Before my God, I might not this believe, without the sensible and true avouch of mine own eyes.

POLONIUS: Give thine own thoughts no tongue, Horatio. (Polonius turns to Hamlet.) But look to’t I charge you, my Lord. Come Horatio, let us go together, for this is not our test. (Horatio and Polonius leave together.)

HAMLET: To reject, or not reject, that is the question: whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous statistics, or to take arms against a sea of data, and, by opposing, end them. (Hamlet resignedly attends to his task.)

(Curtain falls)

"Untitled," by Stephen Chen

I've often wondered how software is released and sold to the public. Ironically, I work for a company that sells products with known problems. Unfortunately, most of the problems are difficult to create, which makes them difficult to fix. I usually use the test program X, which tests the product, to try to create a specific problem. When the test program is run to make an error occur, the likelihood of generating an error is 1%.

So, armed with this knowledge, I wrote a new test program Y that will generate the same error that test program X creates, but more often. To find out if my test program is better than the original, so that I can convince the management that I'm right, I ran my test program to find out how often I can generate the same error. When I ran my test program 50 times, I generated the error twice. While this may not seem much better, I think that I can convince the management to use my test program instead of the original test program. Am I right?

• \(H_{0}: p = 0.01\)
• \(H_{a}: p > 0.01\)
• Let \(P′ =\) the proportion of errors generated
• Normal for a single proportion
• Decision: Reject the null hypothesis
• Conclusion: At the 5% significance level, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the proportion of errors generated is more than 0.01.

The“plus-4s” confidence interval is \((0.004, 0.144)\).

"Japanese Girls’ Names"

by Kumi Furuichi

It used to be very typical for Japanese girls’ names to end with “ko.” (The trend might have started around my grandmothers’ generation and its peak might have been around my mother’s generation.) “Ko” means “child” in Chinese characters. Parents would name their daughters with “ko” attaching to other Chinese characters which have meanings that they want their daughters to become, such as Sachiko—happy child, Yoshiko—a good child, Yasuko—a healthy child, and so on.

However, I noticed recently that only two out of nine of my Japanese girlfriends at this school have names which end with “ko.” More and more, parents seem to have become creative, modernized, and, sometimes, westernized in naming their children.

I have a feeling that, while 70 percent or more of my mother’s generation would have names with “ko” at the end, the proportion has dropped among my peers. I wrote down all my Japanese friends’, ex-classmates’, co-workers, and acquaintances’ names that I could remember. Following are the names. (Some are repeats.) Test to see if the proportion has dropped for this generation.

Ai, Akemi, Akiko, Ayumi, Chiaki, Chie, Eiko, Eri, Eriko, Fumiko, Harumi, Hitomi, Hiroko, Hiroko, Hidemi, Hisako, Hinako, Izumi, Izumi, Junko, Junko, Kana, Kanako, Kanayo, Kayo, Kayoko, Kazumi, Keiko, Keiko, Kei, Kumi, Kumiko, Kyoko, Kyoko, Madoka, Maho, Mai, Maiko, Maki, Miki, Miki, Mikiko, Mina, Minako, Miyako, Momoko, Nana, Naoko, Naoko, Naoko, Noriko, Rieko, Rika, Rika, Rumiko, Rei, Reiko, Reiko, Sachiko, Sachiko, Sachiyo, Saki, Sayaka, Sayoko, Sayuri, Seiko, Shiho, Shizuka, Sumiko, Takako, Takako, Tomoe, Tomoe, Tomoko, Touko, Yasuko, Yasuko, Yasuyo, Yoko, Yoko, Yoko, Yoshiko, Yoshiko, Yoshiko, Yuka, Yuki, Yuki, Yukiko, Yuko, Yuko.

"Phillip’s Wish," by Suzanne Osorio

My nephew likes to play

Chasing the girls makes his day.

He asked his mother

If it is okay

To get his ear pierced.

She said, “No way!”

To poke a hole through your ear,

Is not what I want for you, dear.

He argued his point quite well,

Says even my macho pal, Mel,

Has gotten this done.

It’s all just for fun.

C’mon please, mom, please, what the hell.

Again Phillip complained to his mother,

Saying half his friends (including their brothers)

Are piercing their ears

And they have no fears

He wants to be like the others.

She said, “I think it’s much less.

We must do a hypothesis test.

And if you are right,

I won’t put up a fight.

But, if not, then my case will rest.”

We proceeded to call fifty guys

To see whose prediction would fly.

Nineteen of the fifty

Said piercing was nifty

And earrings they’d occasionally buy.

Then there’s the other thirty-one,

Who said they’d never have this done.

So now this poem’s finished.

Will his hopes be diminished,

Or will my nephew have his fun?

• \(H_{0}: p = 0.50\)
• \(H_{a}: p < 0.50\)
• Let \(P′ =\) the proportion of friends that has a pierced ear.
• –1.70
• \(p\text{-value} = 0.0448\)
• Reason for decision: The \(p\text{-value}\) is less than 0.05. (However, they are very close.)
• Conclusion: There is sufficient evidence to support the claim that less than 50% of his friends have pierced ears.
• Confidence Interval: \((0.245, 0.515)\): The “plus-4s” confidence interval is \((0.259, 0.519)\).

"The Craven," by Mark Salangsang

Once upon a morning dreary

In stats class I was weak and weary.

Pondering over last night’s homework

Whose answers were now on the board

This I did and nothing more.

While I nodded nearly napping

Suddenly, there came a tapping.

As someone gently rapping,

Rapping my head as I snore.

Quoth the teacher, “Sleep no more.”

“In every class you fall asleep,”

The teacher said, his voice was deep.

“So a tally I’ve begun to keep

Of every class you nap and snore.

The percentage being forty-four.”

“My dear teacher I must confess,

While sleeping is what I do best.

The percentage, I think, must be less,

A percentage less than forty-four.”

This I said and nothing more.

“We’ll see,” he said and walked away,

And fifty classes from that day

He counted till the month of May

The classes in which I napped and snored.

The number he found was twenty-four.

At a significance level of 0.05,

Please tell me am I still alive?

Or did my grade just take a dive

Plunging down beneath the floor?

Upon thee I hereby implore.

Toastmasters International cites a report by Gallop Poll that 40% of Americans fear public speaking. A student believes that less than 40% of students at her school fear public speaking. She randomly surveys 361 schoolmates and finds that 135 report they fear public speaking. Conduct a hypothesis test to determine if the percent at her school is less than 40%.

• \(H_{0}: p = 0.40\)
• \(H_{a}: p < 0.40\)
• Let \(P′ =\) the proportion of schoolmates who fear public speaking.
• –1.01
• \(p\text{-value} = 0.1563\)
• Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to support the claim that less than 40% of students at the school fear public speaking.
• Confidence Interval: \((0.3241, 0.4240)\): The “plus-4s” confidence interval is \((0.3257, 0.4250)\).

Sixty-eight percent of online courses taught at community colleges nationwide were taught by full-time faculty. To test if 68% also represents California’s percent for full-time faculty teaching the online classes, Long Beach City College (LBCC) in California, was randomly selected for comparison. In the same year, 34 of the 44 online courses LBCC offered were taught by full-time faculty. Conduct a hypothesis test to determine if 68% represents California. NOTE: For more accurate results, use more California community colleges and this past year's data.

According to an article in Bloomberg Businessweek , New York City's most recent adult smoking rate is 14%. Suppose that a survey is conducted to determine this year’s rate. Nine out of 70 randomly chosen N.Y. City residents reply that they smoke. Conduct a hypothesis test to determine if the rate is still 14% or if it has decreased.

• \(H_{0}: p = 0.14\)
• \(H_{a}: p < 0.14\)
• Let \(P′ =\) the proportion of NYC residents that smoke.
• –0.2756
• \(p\text{-value} = 0.3914\)
• At the 5% significance level, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the proportion of NYC residents who smoke is less than 0.14.
• Confidence Interval: \((0.0502, 0.2070)\): The “plus-4s” confidence interval (see chapter 8) is \((0.0676, 0.2297)\).

The mean age of De Anza College students in a previous term was 26.6 years old. An instructor thinks the mean age for online students is older than 26.6. She randomly surveys 56 online students and finds that the sample mean is 29.4 with a standard deviation of 2.1. Conduct a hypothesis test.

Registered nurses earned an average annual salary of $69,110. For that same year, a survey was conducted of 41 California registered nurses to determine if the annual salary is higher than $69,110 for California nurses. The sample average was $71,121 with a sample standard deviation of $7,489. Conduct a hypothesis test.

• \(H_{0}: \mu = 69,110\)
• \(H_{0}: \mu > 69,110\)
• Let \(\bar{X} =\) the mean salary in dollars for California registered nurses.
• \(t = 1.719\)
• \(p\text{-value}: 0.0466\)
• Conclusion: At the 5% significance level, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the mean salary of California registered nurses exceeds $69,110.
• \(($68,757, $73,485)\)

La Leche League International reports that the mean age of weaning a child from breastfeeding is age four to five worldwide. In America, most nursing mothers wean their children much earlier. Suppose a random survey is conducted of 21 U.S. mothers who recently weaned their children. The mean weaning age was nine months (3/4 year) with a standard deviation of 4 months. Conduct a hypothesis test to determine if the mean weaning age in the U.S. is less than four years old.

Over the past few decades, public health officials have examined the link between weight concerns and teen girls' smoking. Researchers surveyed a group of 273 randomly selected teen girls living in Massachusetts (between 12 and 15 years old). After four years the girls were surveyed again. Sixty-three said they smoked to stay thin. Is there good evidence that more than thirty percent of the teen girls smoke to stay thin?

After conducting the test, your decision and conclusion are

• Reject \(H_{0}\): There is sufficient evidence to conclude that more than 30% of teen girls smoke to stay thin.
• Do not reject \(H_{0}\): There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that less than 30% of teen girls smoke to stay thin.
• Do not reject \(H_{0}\): There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that more than 30% of teen girls smoke to stay thin.
• Reject \(H_{0}\): There is sufficient evidence to conclude that less than 30% of teen girls smoke to stay thin.

A statistics instructor believes that fewer than 20% of Evergreen Valley College (EVC) students attended the opening night midnight showing of the latest Harry Potter movie. She surveys 84 of her students and finds that 11 of them attended the midnight showing.

At a 1% level of significance, an appropriate conclusion is:

• There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the percent of EVC students who attended the midnight showing of Harry Potter is less than 20%.
• There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the percent of EVC students who attended the midnight showing of Harry Potter is more than 20%.
• There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the percent of EVC students who attended the midnight showing of Harry Potter is less than 20%.
• There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the percent of EVC students who attended the midnight showing of Harry Potter is at least 20%.

Previously, an organization reported that teenagers spent 4.5 hours per week, on average, on the phone. The organization thinks that, currently, the mean is higher. Fifteen randomly chosen teenagers were asked how many hours per week they spend on the phone. The sample mean was 4.75 hours with a sample standard deviation of 2.0. Conduct a hypothesis test.

At a significance level of \(a = 0.05\), what is the correct conclusion?

• There is enough evidence to conclude that the mean number of hours is more than 4.75
• There is enough evidence to conclude that the mean number of hours is more than 4.5
• There is not enough evidence to conclude that the mean number of hours is more than 4.5
• There is not enough evidence to conclude that the mean number of hours is more than 4.75

Instructions: For the following ten exercises,

Hypothesis testing: For the following ten exercises, answer each question.

State the null and alternate hypothesis.

State the \(p\text{-value}\).

State \(\alpha\).

What is your decision?

Write a conclusion.

Answer any other questions asked in the problem.

According to the Center for Disease Control website, in 2011 at least 18% of high school students have smoked a cigarette. An Introduction to Statistics class in Davies County, KY conducted a hypothesis test at the local high school (a medium sized–approximately 1,200 students–small city demographic) to determine if the local high school’s percentage was lower. One hundred fifty students were chosen at random and surveyed. Of the 150 students surveyed, 82 have smoked. Use a significance level of 0.05 and using appropriate statistical evidence, conduct a hypothesis test and state the conclusions.

A recent survey in the N.Y. Times Almanac indicated that 48.8% of families own stock. A broker wanted to determine if this survey could be valid. He surveyed a random sample of 250 families and found that 142 owned some type of stock. At the 0.05 significance level, can the survey be considered to be accurate?

• \(H_{0}: p = 0.488\) \(H_{a}: p \neq 0.488\)
• \(p\text{-value} = 0.0114\)
• \(\alpha = 0.05\)
• Reject the null hypothesis.
• At the 5% level of significance, there is enough evidence to conclude that 48.8% of families own stocks.
• The survey does not appear to be accurate.

Driver error can be listed as the cause of approximately 54% of all fatal auto accidents, according to the American Automobile Association. Thirty randomly selected fatal accidents are examined, and it is determined that 14 were caused by driver error. Using \(\alpha = 0.05\), is the AAA proportion accurate?

The US Department of Energy reported that 51.7% of homes were heated by natural gas. A random sample of 221 homes in Kentucky found that 115 were heated by natural gas. Does the evidence support the claim for Kentucky at the \(\alpha = 0.05\) level in Kentucky? Are the results applicable across the country? Why?

• \(H_{0}: p = 0.517\) \(H_{0}: p \neq 0.517\)
• \(p\text{-value} = 0.9203\).
• \(\alpha = 0.05\).
• Do not reject the null hypothesis.
• At the 5% significance level, there is not enough evidence to conclude that the proportion of homes in Kentucky that are heated by natural gas is 0.517.
• However, we cannot generalize this result to the entire nation. First, the sample’s population is only the state of Kentucky. Second, it is reasonable to assume that homes in the extreme north and south will have extreme high usage and low usage, respectively. We would need to expand our sample base to include these possibilities if we wanted to generalize this claim to the entire nation.

For Americans using library services, the American Library Association claims that at most 67% of patrons borrow books. The library director in Owensboro, Kentucky feels this is not true, so she asked a local college statistic class to conduct a survey. The class randomly selected 100 patrons and found that 82 borrowed books. Did the class demonstrate that the percentage was higher in Owensboro, KY? Use \(\alpha = 0.01\) level of significance. What is the possible proportion of patrons that do borrow books from the Owensboro Library?

The Weather Underground reported that the mean amount of summer rainfall for the northeastern US is at least 11.52 inches. Ten cities in the northeast are randomly selected and the mean rainfall amount is calculated to be 7.42 inches with a standard deviation of 1.3 inches. At the \(\alpha = 0.05 level\), can it be concluded that the mean rainfall was below the reported average? What if \(\alpha = 0.01\)? Assume the amount of summer rainfall follows a normal distribution.

• \(H_{0}: \mu \geq 11.52\) \(H_{a}: \mu < 11.52\)
• \(p\text{-value} = 0.000002\) which is almost 0.
• At the 5% significance level, there is enough evidence to conclude that the mean amount of summer rain in the northeaster US is less than 11.52 inches, on average.
• We would make the same conclusion if alpha was 1% because the \(p\text{-value}\) is almost 0.

A survey in the N.Y. Times Almanac finds the mean commute time (one way) is 25.4 minutes for the 15 largest US cities. The Austin, TX chamber of commerce feels that Austin’s commute time is less and wants to publicize this fact. The mean for 25 randomly selected commuters is 22.1 minutes with a standard deviation of 5.3 minutes. At the \(\alpha = 0.10\) level, is the Austin, TX commute significantly less than the mean commute time for the 15 largest US cities?

A report by the Gallup Poll found that a woman visits her doctor, on average, at most 5.8 times each year. A random sample of 20 women results in these yearly visit totals

3; 2; 1; 3; 7; 2; 9; 4; 6; 6; 8; 0; 5; 6; 4; 2; 1; 3; 4; 1

At the \(\alpha = 0.05\) level can it be concluded that the sample mean is higher than 5.8 visits per year?

• \(H_{0}: \mu \leq 5.8\) \(H_{a}: \mu > 5.8\)
• \(p\text{-value} = 0.9987\)
• At the 5% level of significance, there is not enough evidence to conclude that a woman visits her doctor, on average, more than 5.8 times a year.

According to the N.Y. Times Almanac the mean family size in the U.S. is 3.18. A sample of a college math class resulted in the following family sizes:

5; 4; 5; 4; 4; 3; 6; 4; 3; 3; 5; 5; 6; 3; 3; 2; 7; 4; 5; 2; 2; 2; 3; 2

At \(\alpha = 0.05\) level, is the class’ mean family size greater than the national average? Does the Almanac result remain valid? Why?

The student academic group on a college campus claims that freshman students study at least 2.5 hours per day, on average. One Introduction to Statistics class was skeptical. The class took a random sample of 30 freshman students and found a mean study time of 137 minutes with a standard deviation of 45 minutes. At α = 0.01 level, is the student academic group’s claim correct?

• \(H_{0}: \mu \geq 150\) \(H_{0}: \mu < 150\)
• \(p\text{-value} = 0.0622\)
• \(\alpha = 0.01\)
• At the 1% significance level, there is not enough evidence to conclude that freshmen students study less than 2.5 hours per day, on average.
• The student academic group’s claim appears to be correct.

9.7: Hypothesis Testing of a Single Mean and Single Proportion

What is a scientific hypothesis?

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

Hypothesis basics

What makes a hypothesis testable.

• Types of hypotheses
• Hypothesis versus theory

Additional resources

Bibliography.

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

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

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

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

Here are some examples of hypothesis statements:

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

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

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

Types of scientific hypotheses

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scientific theory vs. scientific hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

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

Y chromosome is evolving faster than the X, primate study reveals

Earth from space: Trio of ringed ice caps look otherworldly on Russian Arctic islands

Strawberry Moon 2024: See summer's first full moon rise a day after solstice

Most Popular

• 2 Mysterious 4,000-year-old 'palace' with maze-like walls found on Greek island of Crete
• 3 NASA will put a 'new star' in the sky by the end of the decade in 1st-of-its-kind mission
• 4 How long would it take to reach Planet 9, if we ever find it?
• 5 Planet Nine: Is the search for this elusive world nearly over?
• 2 Scientists inserted a window in a man's skull to read his brain with ultrasound
• 3 Gilgamesh flood tablet: A 2,600-year-old text that's eerily similar to the story of Noah's Ark
• 4 Y chromosome is evolving faster than the X, primate study reveals
• 5 The sun's magnetic field is about to flip. Here's what to expect.