what are the steps to developing a hypothesis?

Learning Objectives

1. Distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis.
2. Discover how theories are used to generate hypotheses and how the results of studies can be used to further inform theories.
3. Empathise the characteristics of a adept hypothesis.

Theories and Hypotheses

Earlier describing how to develop a hypothesis it is imporant to distinguish betwee a theory and a hypothesis. Atheory is a coherent explanation or interpretation of 1 or more phenomena. Although theories tin take a variety of forms, one thing they accept in common is that they become across the phenomena they explicate 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 full general country of physiological arousal, which increases the likelihood of the dominant (well-nigh likely) response. So for highly practiced tasks, being watched increases the trend to brand correct responses, just for relatively unpracticed tasks, beingness watched increases the tendency to make incorrect responses. Notice that this theory—which has come to be chosen drive theory—provides an caption of both social facilitation and social inhibition that goes across the phenomena themselves by including concepts such equally "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 frequently implies that it is untested—maybe no more than a wild guess. In science, however, the term theory has no such implication. A theory is just an caption or interpretation of a set of phenomena. Information technology can exist untested, but it can besides be extensively tested, well supported, and accepted every bit an accurate description of the world by the scientific community. The theory of development by natural option, for example, is a theory because information technology is an explanation of the diverseness of life on globe—not because it is untested or unsupported by scientific research. On the contrary, the show for this theory is overwhelmingly positive and nearly all scientists take its basic assumptions as accurate. Similarly, the "germ theory" of affliction is a theory because it is an caption of the origin of various diseases, not considering in that location is whatsoever doubt that many diseases are acquired by microorganisms that infect the body.

Ahypothesis, on the other hand, is a specific prediction about a new miracle that should exist observed if a particular theory is accurate. Information technology is an explanation that relies on just a few key concepts. Hypotheses are often specific predictions about what volition happen in a detail written report. They are developed by because existing evidence and using reasoning to infer what will happen in the specific context of interest. Hypotheses are often but non ever derived from theories. So a hypothesis is frequently a prediction based on a theory merely some hypotheses are a-theoretical and merely later a set of observations have been made, is a theory adult. This is because theories are broad in nature and they explain larger bodies of information. So if our research question is really original then nosotros may need to collect some information and make some observation before we can develop a broader theory.

Theories and hypotheses always take this if-and then  human relationship. " If bulldoze theory is right, then  cockroaches should run through a straight runway faster, and a branching runway more slowly, when other cockroaches are present." Although hypotheses are commonly expressed as statements, they can always be rephrased equally questions. "Practise cockroaches run through a straight runway faster when other cockroaches are present?" Thus deriving hypotheses from theories is an excellent mode of generating interesting inquiry questions.

Just how practise researchers derive hypotheses from theories? 1 way is to generate a enquiry 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 equally much as expressive writing about traumatic experiences. Although this  question  is an interesting one  on its own, you might and 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 near positive experiences should not be effective because information technology would non 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 however been straight observed. For example, a researcher could focus on the process of habituation—possibly 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 believing they are (Schwarz et al., 1991) ^[i]. Both theories held that such judgments are based on relevant examples that people bring to mind. However, one theory was that people base of operations their judgments on the number  of examples they bring to mind and the other was that people base their judgments on how hands  they bring those examples to mind. To test these theories, the researchers asked people to think either half dozen times when they were assertive (which is easy for nigh people) or 12 times (which is difficult for most people). And then they asked them to judge their own assertiveness. Notation that the number-of-examples theory implies that people who recalled 12 examples should approximate themselves to be more than believing because they recalled more than examples, but the ease-of-examples theory implies that participants who recalled half-dozen examples should judge themselves equally more assertive because recalling the examples was easier. Thus the ii theories made opposite predictions so that only i of the predictions could be confirmed. The surprising result was that participants who recalled fewer examples judged themselves to exist more than believing—providing particularly convincing prove in favor of the ease-of-retrieval theory over the number-of-examples theory.

Theory Testing

The primary mode that scientific researchers apply 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 up of phenomena and either constructs a theory to explain or interpret them or chooses an existing theory to piece of work with. He or she then makes a prediction about some new phenomenon that should be observed if the theory is correct. Over again, this prediction is chosen a hypothesis. The researcher then conducts an empirical study to examination 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 so derive a new hypothesis from the revised theory, behave a new empirical written report 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 than detailed model of "theoretically motivated" or "theory-driven" research.

Figure two.2 Hypothetico-Deductive Method Combined With the Full general Model of Scientific Research in Psychology Together they form a model of theoretically motivated research.

Every bit an example, let united states consider Zajonc's enquiry on social facilitation and inhibition. He started with a somewhat contradictory pattern of results from the research literature. He then constructed his drive theory, co-ordinate 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—only he still needed to test it. He hypothesized that if his theory was right, he should find that the presence of others improves performance in a elementary laboratory task just inhibits performance in a difficult version of the very aforementioned laboratory chore. To examination this hypothesis, one of the studies he conducted used cockroaches as subjects (Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman, 1969)^[2]. The cockroaches ran either down a directly rails (an piece of cake task for a cockroach) or through a cross-shaped maze (a difficult task for a cockroach) to escape into a nighttime chamber when a light was shined on them. They did this either while solitary or in the presence of other cockroaches in articulate plastic "audience boxes." Zajonc found that cockroaches in the straight runway reached their goal more than apace in the presence of other cockroaches, simply cockroaches in the cantankerous-shaped maze reached their goal more than slowly when they were in the presence of other cockroaches. Thus he confirmed his hypothesis and provided support for his drive theory. (Zajonc too showed that bulldoze theory existed in humans (Zajonc & Sales, 1966)^[3] in many other studies afterward).

Incorporating Theory into Your Research

When yous write your research report or programme your presentation, exist enlightened that there are ii basic ways that researchers ordinarily include theory. The first is to raise a research question, answer that question by conducting a new study, and and then offer one or more than theories (ordinarily more) to explain or interpret the results. This format works well for applied enquiry questions and for inquiry questions that existing theories do not address. The 2d manner is to describe ane or more existing theories, derive a hypothesis from one of those theories, examination the hypothesis in a new report, and finally reevaluate the theory. This format works well when at that place is an existing theory that addresses the inquiry question—especially if the resulting hypothesis is surprising or conflicts with a hypothesis derived from a unlike 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 piece of work. Psychologists take been interested in a diversity of human behaviors and have adult many theories along the fashion. Using established theories will help you break new footing as a researcher, not limit y'all from developing your ain ideas.

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

There are three general characteristics of a proficient hypothesis. First, a good hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. We must be able to test the hypothesis using the methods of scientific discipline and if you'll think Popper's falsifiability criterion, it must exist possible to assemble evidence that volition disconfirm the hypothesis if it is indeed faux. 2d, a practiced hypothesis must belogical. Equally described above, hypotheses are more than just a random estimate. Hypotheses should exist informed past previous theories or observations and logical reasoning. Typically, we begin with a broad and general theory and usedeductive reasoning to generate a more specific hypothesis to test based on that theory. Occasionally, even so, when there is no theory to inform our hypothesis, we useinductive reasoningwhich involves using specific observations or inquiry findings to form a more full general hypothesis. Finally, the hypothesis should bepositive.That is, the hypothesis should make a positive statement almost the being of a human relationship or outcome, rather than a statement that a human relationship or effect does not be. As scientists, we don't set out to show that relationships do not exist or that effects practise not occur so our hypotheses should not be worded in a way to propose that an effect or human relationship does not be. The nature of scientific discipline 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 lot 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.

Fundamental Takeaways

• A theory is wide in nature and explains larger bodies of information. A hypothesis is more than specific and makes a prediction almost the outcome of a particular study.
• Working with theories is not "icing on the cake." It is a basic ingredient of psychological research.
• Similar other scientists, psychologists employ 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 and then reevaluate the theories in low-cal of the new results.

Exercise

1. Do: Find a recent empirical research study in a professional journal. Read the introduction and highlight in different colors descriptions of theories and hypotheses.

---

greenforgess.blogspot.com

Source: https://opentext.wsu.edu/carriecuttler/chapter/developing-a-hypothesis/

Share this post