define hypothesis in psychology

Research Hypothesis In Psychology: Types, & Examples

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.

Learn about our Editorial Process

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 research hypothesis, in its plural form “hypotheses,” is a specific, testable prediction about the anticipated results of a study, established at its outset. It is a key component of the scientific method .

Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding

Some key points about hypotheses:

• A hypothesis expresses an expected pattern or relationship. It connects the variables under investigation.
• It is stated in clear, precise terms before any data collection or analysis occurs. This makes the hypothesis testable.
• A hypothesis must be falsifiable. It should be possible, even if unlikely in practice, to collect data that disconfirms rather than supports the hypothesis.
• Hypotheses guide research. Scientists design studies to explicitly evaluate hypotheses about how nature works.
• For a hypothesis to be valid, it must be testable against empirical evidence. The evidence can then confirm or disprove the testable predictions.
• Hypotheses are informed by background knowledge and observation, but go beyond what is already known to propose an explanation of how or why something occurs.

Predictions typically arise from a thorough knowledge of the research literature, curiosity about real-world problems or implications, and integrating this to advance theory. They build on existing literature while providing new insight.

Types of Research Hypotheses

Alternative hypothesis.

The research hypothesis is often called the alternative or experimental hypothesis in experimental research.

It typically suggests a potential relationship between two key variables: the independent variable, which the researcher manipulates, and the dependent variable, which is measured based on those changes.

The alternative hypothesis states a relationship exists between the two variables being studied (one variable affects the other).

A hypothesis is a testable statement or prediction about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a key component of the scientific method. Some key points about hypotheses:

• Important hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested empirically. The evidence can then confirm or disprove the testable predictions.

In summary, a hypothesis is a precise, testable statement of what researchers expect to happen in a study and why. Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding.

An experimental hypothesis predicts what change(s) will occur in the dependent variable when the independent variable is manipulated.

It states that the results are not due to chance and are significant in supporting the theory being investigated.

The alternative hypothesis can be directional, indicating a specific direction of the effect, or non-directional, suggesting a difference without specifying its nature. It’s what researchers aim to support or demonstrate through their study.

Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis states no relationship exists between the two variables being studied (one variable does not affect the other). There will be no changes in the dependent variable due to manipulating the independent variable.

It states results are due to chance and are not significant in supporting the idea being investigated.

The null hypothesis, positing no effect or relationship, is a foundational contrast to the research hypothesis in scientific inquiry. It establishes a baseline for statistical testing, promoting objectivity by initiating research from a neutral stance.

Many statistical methods are tailored to test the null hypothesis, determining the likelihood of observed results if no true effect exists.

This dual-hypothesis approach provides clarity, ensuring that research intentions are explicit, and fosters consistency across scientific studies, enhancing the standardization and interpretability of research outcomes.

Nondirectional Hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis, also known as a two-tailed hypothesis, predicts that there is a difference or relationship between two variables but does not specify the direction of this relationship.

It merely indicates that a change or effect will occur without predicting which group will have higher or lower values.

For example, “There is a difference in performance between Group A and Group B” is a non-directional hypothesis.

Directional Hypothesis

A directional (one-tailed) hypothesis predicts the nature of the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. It predicts in which direction the change will take place. (i.e., greater, smaller, less, more)

It specifies whether one variable is greater, lesser, or different from another, rather than just indicating that there’s a difference without specifying its nature.

For example, “Exercise increases weight loss” is a directional hypothesis.

Falsifiability

The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper , is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory or hypothesis to be considered scientific, it must be testable and irrefutable.

Falsifiability emphasizes that scientific claims shouldn’t just be confirmable but should also have the potential to be proven wrong.

It means that there should exist some potential evidence or experiment that could prove the proposition false.

However many confirming instances exist for a theory, it only takes one counter observation to falsify it. For example, the hypothesis that “all swans are white,” can be falsified by observing a black swan.

For Popper, science should attempt to disprove a theory rather than attempt to continually provide evidence to support a research hypothesis.

Can a Hypothesis be Proven?

Hypotheses make probabilistic predictions. They state the expected outcome if a particular relationship exists. However, a study result supporting a hypothesis does not definitively prove it is true.

All studies have limitations. There may be unknown confounding factors or issues that limit the certainty of conclusions. Additional studies may yield different results.

In science, hypotheses can realistically only be supported with some degree of confidence, not proven. The process of science is to incrementally accumulate evidence for and against hypothesized relationships in an ongoing pursuit of better models and explanations that best fit the empirical data. But hypotheses remain open to revision and rejection if that is where the evidence leads.

• Disproving a hypothesis is definitive. Solid disconfirmatory evidence will falsify a hypothesis and require altering or discarding it based on the evidence.
• However, confirming evidence is always open to revision. Other explanations may account for the same results, and additional or contradictory evidence may emerge over time.

We can never 100% prove the alternative hypothesis. Instead, we see if we can disprove, or reject the null hypothesis.

If we reject the null hypothesis, this doesn’t mean that our alternative hypothesis is correct but does support the alternative/experimental hypothesis.

Upon analysis of the results, an alternative hypothesis can be rejected or supported, but it can never be proven to be correct. We must avoid any reference to results proving a theory as this implies 100% certainty, and there is always a chance that evidence may exist which could refute a theory.

How to Write a Hypothesis

• Identify variables . The researcher manipulates the independent variable and the dependent variable is the measured outcome.
• Operationalized the variables being investigated . Operationalization of a hypothesis refers to the process of making the variables physically measurable or testable, e.g. if you are about to study aggression, you might count the number of punches given by participants.
• Decide on a direction for your prediction . If there is evidence in the literature to support a specific effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, write a directional (one-tailed) hypothesis. If there are limited or ambiguous findings in the literature regarding the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, write a non-directional (two-tailed) hypothesis.
• Make it Testable : Ensure your hypothesis can be tested through experimentation or observation. It should be possible to prove it false (principle of falsifiability).
• Clear & concise language . A strong hypothesis is concise (typically one to two sentences long), and formulated using clear and straightforward language, ensuring it’s easily understood and testable.

Consider a hypothesis many teachers might subscribe to: students work better on Monday morning than on Friday afternoon (IV=Day, DV= Standard of work).

Now, if we decide to study this by giving the same group of students a lesson on a Monday morning and a Friday afternoon and then measuring their immediate recall of the material covered in each session, we would end up with the following:

• The alternative hypothesis states that students will recall significantly more information on a Monday morning than on a Friday afternoon.
• The null hypothesis states that there will be no significant difference in the amount recalled on a Monday morning compared to a Friday afternoon. Any difference will be due to chance or confounding factors.

More Examples

• Memory : Participants exposed to classical music during study sessions will recall more items from a list than those who studied in silence.
• Social Psychology : Individuals who frequently engage in social media use will report higher levels of perceived social isolation compared to those who use it infrequently.
• Developmental Psychology : Children who engage in regular imaginative play have better problem-solving skills than those who don’t.
• Clinical Psychology : Cognitive-behavioral therapy will be more effective in reducing symptoms of anxiety over a 6-month period compared to traditional talk therapy.
• Cognitive Psychology : Individuals who multitask between various electronic devices will have shorter attention spans on focused tasks than those who single-task.
• Health Psychology : Patients who practice mindfulness meditation will experience lower levels of chronic pain compared to those who don’t meditate.
• Organizational Psychology : Employees in open-plan offices will report higher levels of stress than those in private offices.
• Behavioral Psychology : Rats rewarded with food after pressing a lever will press it more frequently than rats who receive no reward.

Related Articles

Research Methodology

Mixed Methods Research

Conversation Analysis

Discourse Analysis

Phenomenology In Qualitative Research

Ethnography In Qualitative Research

Narrative Analysis In Qualitative Research

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

• Privacy Policy

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

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Definition:

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

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

Types of Hypothesis

Types of Hypothesis are as follows:

Research Hypothesis

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

Null Hypothesis

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

Alternative Hypothesis

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

Directional Hypothesis

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

Non-directional Hypothesis

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

Statistical Hypothesis

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

Composite Hypothesis

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

Empirical Hypothesis

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

Simple Hypothesis

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

Complex Hypothesis

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

Applications of Hypothesis

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

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

How to write a Hypothesis

Here are the steps to follow when writing a hypothesis:

Identify the Research Question

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

Conduct a Literature Review

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

Determine the Variables

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

Formulate the Hypothesis

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

Write the Null Hypothesis

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

Refine the Hypothesis

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

Examples of Hypothesis

Here are a few examples of hypotheses in different fields:

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

Purpose of Hypothesis

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

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

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

When to use Hypothesis

Here are some common situations in which hypotheses are used:

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

Characteristics of Hypothesis

Here are some common characteristics of a hypothesis:

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

Advantages of Hypothesis

Hypotheses have several advantages in scientific research and experimentation:

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

Limitations of Hypothesis

Some Limitations of the Hypothesis are as follows:

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

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Survey Instruments – List and Their Uses

Research Methodology – Types, Examples and...

Research Recommendations – Examples and Writing...

Thesis Format – Templates and Samples

Future Research – Thesis Guide

Research Questions – Types, Examples and Writing...

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 .

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Step 1. ask a question.

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

Step 2. Do some preliminary research

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

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

Step 3. Formulate your hypothesis

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

4. Refine your hypothesis

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

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

5. Phrase your hypothesis in three ways

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

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

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

6. Write a null hypothesis

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

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

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, November 20). How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved July 1, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/hypothesis/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

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

A hypothesis is an educated guess or proposition made as a basis for reasoning or research without any assumption of its truth. It's testable and falsifiable statement about two or more variables related in some way.

" Hypothesis " appears in:

Subjects ( 9 ).

• AP Art & Design
• AP Human Geography
• AP Research
• College Biology
• Concepts of Biology for Non-Science Majors
• Contemporary Mathematics for Non-Math Majors
• Intro to Chemistry
• Intro to Political Science
• Intro to Sociology

Study guides ( 1 )

• AP Psychology - 1.3 Defining Psychological Science: The Experimental Method

Practice Questions ( 1 )

• Which of the following experiments would best test the hypothesis that sleep deprivation disrupts the consolidation of long-term memories?

Related terms

Dependent Variable : This is what you measure in an experiment and what changes when you change the independent variable - like how much you enjoy the movie after watching it.

Independent Variable : The factor that's manipulated by researchers in an experiment - like choosing which movie genre to watch.

Control Group : This is a group in an experiment that does not receive the treatment or test variable. It's like your friend who didn't watch any movie but still rates their evening.

Stay Connected

© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.

AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.

A testable prediction about the relationship between at least two events, characteristics, or variables. Hypotheses usually come from theories; when planning an experiment, a researcher finds as much previous research on the topic of study as possible. From all of the previous work, the researcher can develop a theory about the topic of study and then make specific predictions about the study he/she is planning. It is important to note that hypotheses should be as specific as possible since you are trying to find truth, and the more vague your hypotheses, the more vague your conclusions. For example, if I am conducting a study on the effects of different drugs on pain relief, it would be bad to hypothesize that "one drug will have an effect on pain." What the heck does that mean? How can you test to find out if that is true? A better hypothesis might be, "Drug A (whatever that is in that study) will reduce the amount of pain significantly more than Drug B according to participants' ratings of pain using the Pain Intensity Scale." Related term of interest: Null Hypothesis.

Word of the Day

Get the word of the day delivered to your inbox

What Is A Research (Scientific) Hypothesis? A plain-language explainer + examples

By:  Derek Jansen (MBA)  | Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2020

If you’re new to the world of research, or it’s your first time writing a dissertation or thesis, you’re probably noticing that the words “research hypothesis” and “scientific hypothesis” are used quite a bit, and you’re wondering what they mean in a research context .

“Hypothesis” is one of those words that people use loosely, thinking they understand what it means. However, it has a very specific meaning within academic research. So, it’s important to understand the exact meaning before you start hypothesizing. 

Research Hypothesis 101

• What is a hypothesis ?
• What is a research hypothesis (scientific hypothesis)?
• Requirements for a research hypothesis
• Definition of a research hypothesis
• The null hypothesis

What is a hypothesis?

Let’s start with the general definition of a hypothesis (not a research hypothesis or scientific hypothesis), according to the Cambridge Dictionary:

Hypothesis: an idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proved.

In other words, it’s a statement that provides an explanation for why or how something works, based on facts (or some reasonable assumptions), but that has not yet been specifically tested . For example, a hypothesis might look something like this:

Hypothesis: sleep impacts academic performance.

This statement predicts that academic performance will be influenced by the amount and/or quality of sleep a student engages in – sounds reasonable, right? It’s based on reasonable assumptions , underpinned by what we currently know about sleep and health (from the existing literature). So, loosely speaking, we could call it a hypothesis, at least by the dictionary definition.

But that’s not good enough…

Unfortunately, that’s not quite sophisticated enough to describe a research hypothesis (also sometimes called a scientific hypothesis), and it wouldn’t be acceptable in a dissertation, thesis or research paper . In the world of academic research, a statement needs a few more criteria to constitute a true research hypothesis .

What is a research hypothesis?

A research hypothesis (also called a scientific hypothesis) is a statement about the expected outcome of a study (for example, a dissertation or thesis). To constitute a quality hypothesis, the statement needs to have three attributes – specificity , clarity and testability .

Let’s take a look at these more closely.

Need a helping hand?

Hypothesis Essential #1: Specificity & Clarity

A good research hypothesis needs to be extremely clear and articulate about both what’ s being assessed (who or what variables are involved ) and the expected outcome (for example, a difference between groups, a relationship between variables, etc.).

Let’s stick with our sleepy students example and look at how this statement could be more specific and clear.

Hypothesis: Students who sleep at least 8 hours per night will, on average, achieve higher grades in standardised tests than students who sleep less than 8 hours a night.

As you can see, the statement is very specific as it identifies the variables involved (sleep hours and test grades), the parties involved (two groups of students), as well as the predicted relationship type (a positive relationship). There’s no ambiguity or uncertainty about who or what is involved in the statement, and the expected outcome is clear.

Contrast that to the original hypothesis we looked at – “Sleep impacts academic performance” – and you can see the difference. “Sleep” and “academic performance” are both comparatively vague , and there’s no indication of what the expected relationship direction is (more sleep or less sleep). As you can see, specificity and clarity are key.

Hypothesis Essential #2: Testability (Provability)

A statement must be testable to qualify as a research hypothesis. In other words, there needs to be a way to prove (or disprove) the statement. If it’s not testable, it’s not a hypothesis – simple as that.

For example, consider the hypothesis we mentioned earlier:

Hypothesis: Students who sleep at least 8 hours per night will, on average, achieve higher grades in standardised tests than students who sleep less than 8 hours a night.  

We could test this statement by undertaking a quantitative study involving two groups of students, one that gets 8 or more hours of sleep per night for a fixed period, and one that gets less. We could then compare the standardised test results for both groups to see if there’s a statistically significant difference. 

Again, if you compare this to the original hypothesis we looked at – “Sleep impacts academic performance” – you can see that it would be quite difficult to test that statement, primarily because it isn’t specific enough. How much sleep? By who? What type of academic performance?

So, remember the mantra – if you can’t test it, it’s not a hypothesis 🙂

Defining A Research Hypothesis

You’re still with us? Great! Let’s recap and pin down a clear definition of a hypothesis.

A research hypothesis (or scientific hypothesis) is a statement about an expected relationship between variables, or explanation of an occurrence, that is clear, specific and testable.

So, when you write up hypotheses for your dissertation or thesis, make sure that they meet all these criteria. If you do, you’ll not only have rock-solid hypotheses but you’ll also ensure a clear focus for your entire research project.

What about the null hypothesis?

You may have also heard the terms null hypothesis , alternative hypothesis, or H-zero thrown around. At a simple level, the null hypothesis is the counter-proposal to the original hypothesis.

For example, if the hypothesis predicts that there is a relationship between two variables (for example, sleep and academic performance), the null hypothesis would predict that there is no relationship between those variables.

At a more technical level, the null hypothesis proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations and that any differences are due to chance alone.

And there you have it – hypotheses in a nutshell. 

If you have any questions, be sure to leave a comment below and we’ll do our best to help you. If you need hands-on help developing and testing your hypotheses, consider our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the research journey.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

16 Comments

Very useful information. I benefit more from getting more information in this regard.

Very great insight,educative and informative. Please give meet deep critics on many research data of public international Law like human rights, environment, natural resources, law of the sea etc

In a book I read a distinction is made between null, research, and alternative hypothesis. As far as I understand, alternative and research hypotheses are the same. Can you please elaborate? Best Afshin

This is a self explanatory, easy going site. I will recommend this to my friends and colleagues.

Very good definition. How can I cite your definition in my thesis? Thank you. Is nul hypothesis compulsory in a research?

It’s a counter-proposal to be proven as a rejection

Please what is the difference between alternate hypothesis and research hypothesis?

It is a very good explanation. However, it limits hypotheses to statistically tasteable ideas. What about for qualitative researches or other researches that involve quantitative data that don’t need statistical tests?

In qualitative research, one typically uses propositions, not hypotheses.

could you please elaborate it more

I’ve benefited greatly from these notes, thank you.

This is very helpful

well articulated ideas are presented here, thank you for being reliable sources of information

Excellent. Thanks for being clear and sound about the research methodology and hypothesis (quantitative research)

I have only a simple question regarding the null hypothesis. – Is the null hypothesis (Ho) known as the reversible hypothesis of the alternative hypothesis (H1? – How to test it in academic research?

this is very important note help me much more

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• What Is Research Methodology? Simple Definition (With Examples) - Grad Coach - […] Contrasted to this, a quantitative methodology is typically used when the research aims and objectives are confirmatory in nature. For example,…

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

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

A hypothesis is a testable prediction about the variables in a study. The hypothesis should always contain the independent variable (IV) and the dependent variable (DV). A hypothesis can be directional (one-tailed) or non-directional (two-tailed).

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

Example Answers for Research Methods: A Level Psychology, Paper 2, June 2019 (AQA)

Exam Support

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)

Example answer for question 14 paper 2: as psychology, june 2017 (aqa), 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.

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

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Are Psychological Theories?

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

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

Verywell / Colleen Tighe 

5 Major Psychological Theories

• Types of Theories

Psychological theories are fact-based ideas that describe a phenomenon of human behavior. These theories are based on a hypothesis , which is backed by evidence. Thus, the two key components of a psychological theory are:

• It must describe a behavior.
• It must make predictions about future behaviors.

The term "theory" is used with surprising frequency in everyday language. It is often used to mean a guess, hunch, or supposition. You may even hear people dismiss certain information because it is "only a theory."

But in the realm of science, a theory is not merely a guess. A theory presents a concept or idea that is testable. Scientists can test a theory through empirical research and gather evidence that supports or refutes it.

As new evidence surfaces and more research is done, a theory may be refined, modified, or even rejected if it does not fit with the latest scientific findings. The overall strength of a scientific theory hinges on its ability to explain diverse phenomena.

Some of the best-known psychological theories stem from the perspectives of various branches within psychology . There are five major types of psychological theories.

Behavioral Theories

Behavioral psychology, also known as behaviorism, is a theory of learning based on the idea that all behaviors are acquired through conditioning.

Advocated by famous psychologists such as John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner , behavioral theories dominated psychology during the early half of the twentieth century. Today, behavioral techniques are still widely used by therapists to help clients learn new skills and behaviors.

Cognitive Theories

Cognitive theories of psychology are focused on internal states, such as motivation, problem-solving, decision-making , thinking, and attention. Such theories strive to explain different mental processes including how the mind processes information and how our thoughts lead to certain emotions and behaviors.

Humanistic Theories

Humanistic psychology theories began to grow in popularity during the 1950s. Some of the major humanist theorists included Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow .

While earlier theories often focused on abnormal behavior and psychological problems, humanist theories about behavior instead emphasized the basic goodness of human beings.

Psychodynamic Theories

Psychodynamic theories examine the unconscious concepts that shape our emotions, attitudes, and personalities. Psychodynamic approaches seek to understand the root causes of unconscious behavior.

These theories are strongly linked with Sigmund Freud and his followers. The psychodynamic approach is seen in many Freudian claims—for instance, that our adult behaviors have their roots in our childhood experiences and that the personality is made up of three parts: the ID, the ego, and the superego.

Biological Theories

Biological theories in psychology attribute human emotion and behavior to biological causes. For instance, in the nature versus nurture debate on human behavior, the biological perspective would side with nature.

Biological theories are rooted in the ideas of Charles Darwin, who is famous for theorizing about the roles that evolution and genetics play in psychology.

Someone examining a psychological issue from a biological lens might investigate whether there are bodily injuries causing a specific type of behavior or whether the behavior was inherited.

Different Types of Psychological Theories

There are many psychology theories, but most can be categorized as one of four key types.

Developmental Theories

Theories of development provide a framework for thinking about human growth, development, and learning. If you have ever wondered about what motivates human thought and behavior, understanding these theories can provide useful insight into individuals and society.

Developmental theories provide a set of guiding principles and concepts that describe and explain human development. Some developmental theories focus on the formation of a particular quality, such as Kohlberg's theory of moral development. Other developmental theories focus on growth that happens throughout the lifespan, such as  Erikson's theory of psychosocial development .

Grand Theories

Grand theories are those comprehensive ideas often proposed by major thinkers such as Sigmund Freud,  Erik Erikson , and  Jean Piaget . Grand theories of development include psychoanalytic theory,  learning theory , and  cognitive theory .

These theories seek to explain much of human behavior, but are often considered outdated and incomplete in the face of modern research. Psychologists and researchers often use grand theories as a basis for exploration, but consider smaller theories and recent research as well.

Mini-Theories

Mini-theories describe a small, very particular aspect of development. A mini-theory might explain relatively narrow behaviors, such as how self-esteem is formed or early childhood socialization. These theories are often rooted in the ideas established by grand theories, but they do not seek to describe and explain the whole of human behavior and growth.

Emergent Theories

Emergent theories are those that have been created relatively recently. They are often formed by systematically combining various mini-theories. These theories draw on research and ideas from different disciplines but are not yet as broad or far-reaching as grand theories. The  sociocultural theory  proposed by Lev Vygotsky  is a good example of an emergent theory of development.

The Purpose of Psychological Theories

You may find yourself questioning how necessary it is to learn about different psychology theories, especially those that are considered inaccurate or outdated.

However, theories provide valuable information about the history of psychology and the progression of thought on a particular topic. They also allow a deeper understanding of current theories. Each one helps contribute to our knowledge of the human mind and behavior.

By understanding how thinking has progressed, you can get a better idea not only of where psychology has been, but where it might be going in the future.

Studying scientific theories can improve your understanding of how scientific explanations for behavior and other phenomena in the natural world are formed, investigated, and accepted by the scientific community.

While debates continues to rage over hot topics, it is worthwhile to study science and the psychological theories that have emerged from such research, even when what is often revealed might come as a harsh or inconvenient truth.

As Carl Sagan once wrote, "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Examples of Psychological Theories

These are a few examples of psychological theories that have maintained relevance, even today.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory is commonly represented by a pyramid, with five different types of human needs listed. From bottom to top, these needs are:

• Physiological : Food, water, shelter
• Safety needs : Security, resources
• Belongingness and love : Intimate relationships
• Esteem needs : Feeling accomplished
• Self-actualization : Living your full potential creatively and spiritually

According to Maslow, these needs represent what humans require to feel fulfilled and lead productive lives. However, one must satisfy these needs from the bottom up, according to Maslow.

For instance, the most basic and most immediate needs are physiological. Once those are met, you can focus on subsequent needs like relationships and self-esteem.

Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development

Piaget's theory of cognitive development focuses on how children learn and evolve in their understanding of the world around them. According to his theory, there are four stages children go through during cognitive development:

• Sensorimotor stage : This stage lasts from birth to age two. Infants and toddlers learn about the world around them through reflexes, their five senses, and motor responses.
• Preoperational stage : This stage occurs from two to seven years old. Kids start to learn how to think symbolically, but they struggle to understand the perspectives of others.
• Concrete operational stage : This stage lasts from seven to 11 years old. Kids begin to think logically and are capable of reasoning from specific information to form a general principle.
• Formal operational stage : This stage starts at age 12 and continues from there. This is when we begin to think in abstract terms, such as contemplating moral, philosophical, and political issues.

Freud's Psychoanalytic Theory

Still widely discussed today is Freud's famous psychoanalytic theory . In his theory, Freud proposed that a human personality is made up of the id, the ego, and the superego.

The id, according to Freud, is a primal component of personality. It is unconscious and desires pleasure and immediate gratification. For instance, an infant crying because they're hungry is an example of the id at work. In order to get their needs met, they respond to hunger by crying.

The ego is responsible for managing the impulses of the id so they conform to the norms of the outside world. As you age, your ego develops.

For instance, as an adult, you know that crying doesn't get you the same type of attention and care that it did as an infant. So the ego manages the id's primal impulses, while making sure your responses are appropriate for the time and place.

The superego is made up of what we internalize to be right and wrong based on what we've been taught (our conscience is part of the superego). The superego works to make our behavior acceptable and it urges the ego to make decisions based on what's idealistic (not realistic).

A Word From Verywell

Much of what we know about human thought and behavior has emerged thanks to various psychology theories. For example, behavioral theories demonstrated how conditioning can be used to promote learning. By learning more about these theories, you can gain a deeper and richer understanding of psychology's past, present, and future.

Borghi AM, Fini C. Theories and explanations in psychology . Front Psychol. 2019;10:958. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00958

Schwarzer R, Frensch P, eds. Personality, Human Development, and Culture: International Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 2 . Psychology Press.

American Psychological Association. Cognitive theories .

Brady-Amoon P, Keefe-Cooperman K. Psychology, counseling psychology, and professional counseling: Shared roots, challenges, and opportunities . Eur J Couns Psychol. 2017;6(1). doi:10.5964/ejcop.v6i1.105

American Psychological Association. Psychodynamic approach .

Giacolini T, Sabatello U. Psychoanalysis and affective neuroscience. The motivational/emotional system of aggression in human relations . Front Psychol . 2019;9. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02475

D’Hooge R, Balschun D. Biological psychology . In: Runehov ALC, Oviedo L, eds. Encyclopedia of Sciences and Religions . 2013:231-239. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8265-8_240

Walrath R. Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development In: Goldstein S, Naglieri JA, eds. Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development . Springer.

Gilleard C, Higgs P. Connecting life span development with the sociology of the life course: A new direction . Sociology . 2016;50(2):301-315. doi:10.1177/0038038515577906

Cvencek D, Greenwald A, Meltzoff A. Implicit measures for preschool children confirm self-esteem’s role in maintaining a balanced identity . J Exp Psychol . 2016(62):50-57. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.015

Benson J, Haith M, eds. Social and Emotional Development in Infancy and Early Childhood . Elsevier.

Sagan C. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark . Random House.

Taormina RJ, Gao JH. Maslow and the motivation hierarchy: Measuring satisfaction of the needs . American J Psychol. 2013;126(2):155-177. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.126.2.0155

Rabindran, Madanagopal D. Piaget’s theory and stages of cognitive development- An overview . SJAMS. 2020;8(9):2152-2157. doi:10.36347/sjams.2020.v08i09.034

Boag S.  Ego, drives, and the dynamics of internal objects.   Front Psychol.  2014;5:666. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00666

McComas WF. The Language of Science Education . Springer Science & Business Media.

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

1.1 What Is Psychology?

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Define psychology
• Understand the merits of an education in psychology

What is creativity? What are prejudice and discrimination? What is consciousness? The field of psychology explores questions like these. Psychology refers to the scientific study of the mind and behavior. Psychologists use the scientific method to acquire knowledge. To apply the scientific method, a researcher with a question about how or why something happens will propose a tentative explanation, called a hypothesis, to explain the phenomenon. A hypothesis should fit into the context of a scientific theory, which is a broad explanation or group of explanations for some aspect of the natural world that is consistently supported by evidence over time. A theory is the best understanding we have of that part of the natural world. The researcher then makes observations or carries out an experiment to test the validity of the hypothesis. Those results are then published or presented at research conferences so that others can replicate or build on the results.

Scientists test that which is perceivable and measurable. For example, the hypothesis that a bird sings because it is happy is not a hypothesis that can be tested since we have no way to measure the happiness of a bird. We must ask a different question, perhaps about the brain state of the bird, since this can be measured. However, we can ask individuals about whether they sing because they are happy since they are able to tell us. Thus, psychological science is empirical, based on measurable data.

In general, science deals only with matter and energy, that is, those things that can be measured, and it cannot arrive at knowledge about values and morality. This is one reason why our scientific understanding of the mind is so limited, since thoughts, at least as we experience them, are neither matter nor energy. The scientific method is also a form of empiricism. An empirical method for acquiring knowledge is one based on observation, including experimentation, rather than a method based only on forms of logical argument or previous authorities.

It was not until the late 1800s that psychology became accepted as its own academic discipline. Before this time, the workings of the mind were considered under the auspices of philosophy. Given that any behavior is, at its roots, biological, some areas of psychology take on aspects of a natural science like biology. No biological organism exists in isolation, and our behavior is influenced by our interactions with others. Therefore, psychology is also a social science.

WHY STUDY PSYCHOLOGY?

Often, students take their first psychology course because they are interested in helping others and want to learn more about themselves and why they act the way they do. Sometimes, students take a psychology course because it either satisfies a general education requirement or is required for a program of study such as nursing or pre-med. Many of these students develop such an interest in the area that they go on to declare psychology as their major. As a result, psychology is one of the most popular majors on college campuses across the United States (Johnson & Lubin, 2011). A number of well-known individuals were psychology majors. Just a few famous names on this list are Facebook’s creator Mark Zuckerberg, television personality and political satirist Jon Stewart, actress Natalie Portman, and filmmaker Wes Craven (Halonen, 2011). About 6 percent of all bachelor degrees granted in the United States are in the discipline of psychology (U.S. Department of Education, 2016).

An education in psychology is valuable for a number of reasons. Psychology students hone critical thinking skills and are trained in the use of the scientific method. Critical thinking is the active application of a set of skills to information for the understanding and evaluation of that information. The evaluation of information—assessing its reliability and usefulness— is an important skill in a world full of competing “facts,” many of which are designed to be misleading. For example, critical thinking involves maintaining an attitude of skepticism, recognizing internal biases, making use of logical thinking, asking appropriate questions, and making observations. Psychology students also can develop better communication skills during the course of their undergraduate coursework (American Psychological Association, 2011). Together, these factors increase students’ scientific literacy and prepare students to critically evaluate the various sources of information they encounter.

In addition to these broad-based skills, psychology students come to understand the complex factors that shape one’s behavior. They appreciate the interaction of our biology, our environment, and our experiences in determining who we are and how we will behave. They learn about basic principles that guide how we think and behave, and they come to recognize the tremendous diversity that exists across individuals and across cultural boundaries (American Psychological Association, 2011).

Link to Learning

Watch a brief video about some questions to consider before deciding to major in psychology to learn more.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Psychology 2e
• Publication date: Apr 22, 2020
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-1-what-is-psychology

© Jan 6, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Find over 25,000 psychological definitions

Browse dictionary by letter

Psychology term of the day.

July 2nd 2024

Hypothesis ( AQA A Level Psychology )

Revision note.

Psychology Content Creator

• A hypothesis is a testable statement written as a prediction of what the researcher expects to find as a result of their experiment
• A hypothesis should be no more than one sentence long
• The hypothesis needs to include the independent variable (IV) and the dependent variable (DV)
• For example - stating that you will measure ‘aggression’ is not enough ('aggression' has not been operationalised)
• by exposing some children to an aggressive adult model whilst other children are not exposed to an aggressive adult model (operationalisation of the IV) 
• number of imitative and non-imitative acts of aggression performed by the child (operationalisation of the DV)

The Experimental Hypothesis

• Children who are exposed to an aggressive adult model will perform more acts of imitative and non-imitative aggression than children who have not been exposed to an aggressive adult model
• The experimental hypothesis can be written as a  directional hypothesis or as a non-directional hypothesis

The Experimental Hypothesis: Directional 

• A directional experimental hypothesis (also known as one-tailed)  predicts the direction of the change/difference (it anticipates more specifically what might happen)
• A directional hypothesis is usually used when there is previous research which support a particular theory or outcome i.e. what a researcher might expect to happen
• Participants who drink 200ml of an energy drink 5 minutes before running 100m will be faster (in seconds) than participants who drink 200ml of water 5 minutes before running 100m
• Participants who learn a poem in a room in which loud music is playing will recall less of the poem's content than participants who learn the same poem in a silent room

 The Experimental Hypothesis: Non-Directional 

• A non-directional experimental hypothesis (also known as two -tailed) does not predict the direction of the change/difference (it is an 'open goal' i.e. anything could happen)
• A non-directional hypothesis is usually used when there is either no or little previous research which support a particular theory or outcome i.e. what the researcher cannot be confident as to what will happen
• There will be a difference in time taken (in seconds) to run 100m depending on whether participants have drunk 200ml of an energy drink or 200ml of water 5 minutes before running 
• There will be a difference in recall of a poem depending on whether participants learn the poem in a room in which loud music is playing or in a silent room

The Null Hypothesis

• All published psychology research must include the null hypothesis
• There will be no difference in children's acts of imitative and non-imitative aggression depending on whether they have observed an aggressive adult model or a non-aggressive adult model
• The null hypothesis has to begin with the idea that the IV will have no effect on the DV  because until the experiment is run and the results are analysed it is impossible to state anything else! 
• To put this in 'laymen's terms: if you bought a lottery ticket you could not predict that you are going to win the jackpot: you have to wait for the results to find out (spoiler alert: the chances of this happening are soooo low that you might as well save your cash!)
• There will be no difference in time taken (in seconds) to run 100m depending on whether participants have drunk 200ml of an energy drink or 200ml of water 5 minutes before running 
• There will be no difference in recall of a poem depending on whether participants learn the poem in a room in which loud music is playing or in a silent room
• (NB this is not quite so slick and easy with a directional hypothesis as this sort of hypothesis will never begin with 'There will be a difference')
• this is why the null hypothesis is so important - it tells the researcher whether or not their experiment has shown a difference in conditions (which is generally what they want to see, otherwise it's back to the drawing board...)

Worked example

Jim wants to test the theory that chocolate helps your ability to solve word-search puzzles

He believes that sugar helps memory as he has read some research on this in a text book

He puts up a poster in his sixth-form common room asking for people to take part after school one day and explains that they will be required to play two memory games, where eating chocolate will be involved

(a)  Should Jim use a directional hypothesis in this study? Explain your answer (2 marks)

(b)  Write a suitable hypothesis for this study. (4 marks)

a) Jim should use a directional hypothesis (1 mark)

    because previous research exists that states what might happen (2 nd mark)

b)  'Participants will remember more items from a shopping list in a memory game within the hour after eating 50g of chocolate, compared to when they have not consumed any chocolate'

• 1 st mark for directional
• 2 nd mark for IV- eating chocolate
• 3 rd mark for DV- number of items remembered
• 4 th mark for operationalising both IV & DV
• If you write a non-directional or null hypothesis the mark is 0
• If you do not get the direction correct the mark is zero
• Remember to operationalise the IV & DV

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.

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

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

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Education Resources Information Center - Understanding Hypotheses, Predictions, Laws, and Theories
• Simply Psychology - Research Hypothesis: Definition, Types, & Examples
• Cornell University - The Learning Strategies Center - Hypothesis
• Washington State University - Developing a Hypothesis
• Verywell Mind - Forming a Good Hypothesis for Scientific Research
• BCCampus Publishing - Research Methods for the Social Sciences: An Introduction - Hypotheses

hypothesis , something supposed or taken for granted, with the object of following out its consequences (Greek hypothesis , “a putting under,” the Latin equivalent being suppositio ).

In planning a course of action, one may consider various alternatives , working out each in detail. Although the word hypothesis is not typically used in this case, the procedure is virtually the same as that of an investigator of crime considering various suspects. Different methods may be used for deciding what the various alternatives may be, but what is fundamental is the consideration of a supposal as if it were true, without actually accepting it as true. One of the earliest uses of the word in this sense was in geometry . It is described by Plato in the Meno .

The most important modern use of a hypothesis is in relation to scientific investigation . A scientist is not merely concerned to accumulate such facts as can be discovered by observation: linkages must be discovered to connect those facts. An initial puzzle or problem provides the impetus , but clues must be used to ascertain which facts will help yield a solution. The best guide is a tentative hypothesis, which fits within the existing body of doctrine. It is so framed that, with its help, deductions can be made that under certain factual conditions (“initial conditions”) certain other facts would be found if the hypothesis were correct.

The concepts involved in the hypothesis need not themselves refer to observable objects. However, the initial conditions should be able to be observed or to be produced experimentally, and the deduced facts should be able to be observed. William Harvey ’s research on circulation in animals demonstrates how greatly experimental observation can be helped by a fruitful hypothesis. While a hypothesis can be partially confirmed by showing that what is deduced from it with certain initial conditions is actually found under those conditions, it cannot be completely proved in this way. What would have to be shown is that no other hypothesis would serve. Hence, in assessing the soundness of a hypothesis, stress is laid on the range and variety of facts that can be brought under its scope. Again, it is important that it should be capable of being linked systematically with hypotheses which have been found fertile in other fields.

If the predictions derived from the hypothesis are not found to be true, the hypothesis may have to be given up or modified. The fault may lie, however, in some other principle forming part of the body of accepted doctrine which has been utilized in deducing consequences from the hypothesis. It may also lie in the fact that other conditions, hitherto unobserved, are present beside the initial conditions, affecting the result. Thus the hypothesis may be kept, pending further examination of facts or some remodeling of principles. A good illustration of this is to be found in the history of the corpuscular and the undulatory hypotheses about light .

• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

Definition of hypothesis

Did you know.

The Difference Between Hypothesis and Theory

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

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

A hypothesis is usually tentative; it's an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.

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

In non-scientific use, however, hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably to mean simply an idea, speculation, or hunch, with theory being the more common choice.

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

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

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

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

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

• proposition
• supposition

hypothesis , theory , law mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature.

hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation.

theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth.

law implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions.

Examples of hypothesis in a Sentence

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'hypothesis.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put — more at do

1641, in the meaning defined at sense 1a

Phrases Containing hypothesis

• counter - hypothesis
• nebular hypothesis
• null hypothesis
• planetesimal hypothesis
• Whorfian hypothesis

Articles Related to hypothesis

This is the Difference Between a...

This is the Difference Between a Hypothesis and a Theory

In scientific reasoning, they're two completely different things

Dictionary Entries Near hypothesis

hypothermia

hypothesize

Cite this Entry

“Hypothesis.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis. Accessed 1 Jul. 2024.

Kids Definition

Kids definition of hypothesis, medical definition, medical definition of hypothesis, more from merriam-webster on hypothesis.

Nglish: Translation of hypothesis for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of hypothesis for Arabic Speakers

Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about hypothesis

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

Plural and possessive names: a guide, commonly misspelled words, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), absent letters that are heard anyway, how to use accents and diacritical marks, popular in wordplay, it's a scorcher words for the summer heat, flower etymologies for your spring garden, 12 star wars words, 'swash', 'praya', and 12 more beachy words, 8 words for lesser-known musical instruments, games & quizzes.

• Open access
• Published: 26 June 2024

Can watching the World Cup make you mentally healthier? Positive associations between involvement in physical activities and flourishing were mediated by psychological need satisfaction

• Hui Zhou 1 , 2 ,
• Bryant Pui Hung Hui 3 ,
• Hong Mian Yang 1 , 2 &
• Anise M. S. Wu 1 , 2  

BMC Psychology volume  12 , Article number:  366 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

163 Accesses

Metrics details

The current understanding of the relationship between physical activity involvement and flourishing, as well as the underlying psychological mechanisms, remains limited. Building upon the basic psychological need theory, this study investigates whether and how engaging in physical activities, either as a spectator (e.g., in sports events such as the World Cup) or a participant, explains individual differences in flourishing.

A total of 1201 Hong Kong-based Chinese adults ( M age = 42.90, SD  = 11.40; 54% female) completed an anonymous online survey from the quarter-final to final stages of the 2022 FIFA World Cup in December 2022.

Findings showed that spectator (World Cup) involvement and participant involvement were positively correlated. Moreover, both types of involvements were correlated with flourishing. In addition to the hypothesized positive association with relatedness satisfaction, spectator (World Cup) involvement was also demonstrated significant associations with autonomy and competence satisfaction. Path analysis indicated that associations between physical activities and flourishing were partially mediated by the satisfaction of all three basic psychological needs.

Conclusions

This study is the first to apply the basic psychological need theory in the context of physical activity and supports its relevance in understanding individual differences in flourishing. Different stakeholders are encouraged to recognize the benefits of both spectator and participant involvements in physical activities, which may help them develop supportive strategies (e.g., physical activities with parents, sports events for spectators and participants, and funding for media/communities) in mental health promotion.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Mental health refers to a state of mental wellbeing, which enables individuals to cope with life’s pressure, develop abilities, and function well [ 1 ]. Its unique contribution to human development, at both individual and community levels, is critically important [ 1 ]. Given the positive roles of physical activity involvement (e.g., physical exercise) in mental health [ 2 ], this study aims to understand individual differences in flourishing among Chinese adults by examining the antecedent roles of involvement in physical activities, drawing upon the basic psychological need theory (BPNT) [ 3 ]. Flourishing encompasses optimal functioning, which includes the fulfillment of self-competence, leading a meaningful life and fostering positive relationships [ 4 ]. As a vital and informative indicator of mental health, flourishing has garnered increasing research attention [ 4 , 5 ].

Physical activities and flourishing

Building on Humphreys and Ruseski’s definition of sports [ 6 ], we adopted a comprehensive definition of physical activities. This covered not only an individual’s own bodily movement (e.g., walking, running, and playing tennis) resulting in energy expenditure as a participant (hereafter “participant involvement”), but also engagement in others’ physical activities as a spectator (hereafter “spectator involvement”), which includes paying attention, watching, and seeking information related to the sports or events of interest. Previous research has already highlighted some benefits of spectator involvement [ 7 ]. For example, spectators of the World Cup have reported higher scores on a one-item measure of subjective wellbeing compared to those who had not involved in this global event [ 8 ]. However, no studies have explored the relationship between spectator involvement in physical activities and mental health, including flourishing.

In contrast, extensive empirical evidence has demonstrated the benefits of participant involvement, including its associations with flourishing among both adolescents and adults [ 9 , 10 ]. For instance, adolescents who had experiences of participant involvement reported higher levels of flourishing compared to those who did not [ 9 ]. Thus, investigating whether spectator involvement in physical activities is associated with individuals’ mental health (i.e., flourishing in this case), in addition to the direct involvement, is essential for a comprehensive understanding of the roles of physical activities. Moreover, our findings might offer insights into developing cost-effective mental health promotion strategies, such as allocating resources to support both spectators and participant involvements in physical activities. Based on existing research, this study hypothesized positive correlations between spectator (World Cup) involvement and flourishing (Hypothesis 1), as well as between participant involvement and flourishing (Hypothesis 2).

The effect of participant involvement in physical activities on flourishing has been attributed to hormonal changes. Increased endorphin and serotonin levels, as well as decreased cortisol levels, may lead to enhanced happiness and hedonic experiences, ultimately affecting individuals’ mental health [ 11 , 12 ]. However, no research has examined the potential psychological mediators of this relationship. Hence, the study also aimed to address this knowledge gap by investigating the associations between involvement in physical activities, either as spectators or participants, and individuals’ flourishing from the perspective of psychological need satisfaction [ 3 , 13 ].

The mediating role of psychological need satisfaction

Psychological need has been broadly defined as an essential and crucial resource contributing to human beings’ mental health [ 13 ], and the BPNT has been applied to understand the relationship between psychological need-relevant conditions and individuals’ mental health [ 3 , 14 ]. According to the BPNT, the extent to which individuals’ psychological needs are satisfied determines their optimal functioning and wellbeing [ 3 , 15 ]. The BPNT proposes three psychological needs: relatedness, autonomy, and competence [ 3 , 16 , 17 ]. Relatedness refers to the need to have a sense of interconnectedness with others and belonging. Autonomy represents the need to feel a sense of agency or volition, knowing that one is the origin of one’s own behaviors. Competence refers to the need to express or develop one’s abilities and experience success through various tasks. The satisfaction of these three psychological needs, reflecting positive human functioning, is crucial to individuals’ flourishing and can even enhance human flourishing [ 17 , 18 ]. In the literature, positive associations between psychological need satisfaction and flourishing have been well documented [ 19 , 20 ]. In view of this, the present study hypothesized positive associations between the satisfaction of these three psychological needs and flourishing (Hypothesis 3).

This study aimed to extend the BPNT to the realm of physical activity involvement. From the perspectives of both spectators and participants, it examined whether individuals’ flourishing increases with physical activity involvement through the satisfaction of psychological needs. Its findings might yield a better understanding of mental health development, such as whether the satisfaction of these three psychological needs plays an equally salient role in the relationship. For the need for relatedness, this inborn desire to connect and bond with others in a social group [ 21 ] may be satisfied through spectator involvement in sports events (e.g., the World Cup in our study). For instance, a sense of belonging can be developed directly from social activities (e.g., spending time with friends and family members to watch or discuss the World Cup) [ 22 ] or indirectly from cheering or supporting one’s favorite team [ 23 ]. Apart from this, the need for relatedness may also be satisfied through participant involvement. For example, when playing football, team members must have team spirit and gather up in a joint pursuit to win. During which, they care for and help each other to achieve the common goal, allowing them to feel connected and belonged.

With respect to autonomy and competence needs, both seem to be satisfied only by participant involvement rather than spectator involvement in physical activities. Decisions about whether to join any physical activities (e.g., playing table tennis) are made based on volition (without any outside pressure) and personal interests [ 24 ], and most people feel a sense of relaxation and delight when participating in physical activities. These self-driven actions contribute to a sense of autonomy [ 25 ]. On the other hand, the need for competence can be satisfied by outperforming others (e.g., winning at table tennis) or assigning meaning to skill/performance efforts and advancements. For example, individuals can gain a sense of competence and achievement from participating in physical activities and demonstrating their physical, cognitive, and even social abilities [ 24 ].

Although empirical evidence supports the positive associations between participant involvement in physical activities and need satisfaction [ 26 , 27 ], previous studies have typically incorporated a narrow definition of physical activity engagement, without considering other forms of involvement (e.g., as a spectator). Based on the BPNT [ 3 , 14 ], we adopted a broader definition of physical activity involvement and hypothesized that spectator involvement (e.g., in the World Cup) would be positively correlated with relatedness satisfaction (Hypothesis 4), while participant involvement would be positively correlated with the satisfaction of all three types of psychological needs (Hypothesis 5).

The BPNT posits that when these basic psychological needs are satisfied, for example through involvement in physical activities as spectators or participants, beneficial effects emerge, resulting in enhanced psychological wellbeing [ 25 , 28 ]. Thus, we hypothesized that relatedness satisfaction would act as a bridge between spectator (World Cup) involvement and flourishing (Hypothesis 6), while the satisfaction of all three psychological needs would mediate the associations between participant involvement and flourishing (Hypothesis 7). The conceptual model encompassing all hypothesized paths of this study is depicted in Fig.  1 .

The hypothesized path model

Participants and procedure

A stratified sample of Hong Kong-based Chinese adults, balanced by age and gender, was recruited to participate in an online survey through Kantar, an international crowdsourcing platform. Data collection occurred between the 9th and 22nd of December 2022, covering the quarter-final, semi-final, and final stages of the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022. All participants provided informed consent prior to completing a self-administered questionnaire and were made aware of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without repercussions. Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Department of Psychology at the corresponding author’s affiliated university (reference number: DPSY2022-30). A total of 1201 valid participants ( M age = 42.90, SD  = 11.40; 54% female) who met the inclusion criteria (i.e., aged 18 to 64, Chinese, living in Hong Kong, and correctly answered four directed attention-check questions) were included in the present study. The age and gender distributions of the final sample had no significant deviations from the 2021 Hong Kong Population Census (age: χ 2 (2) = 0.01, p  = .10; gender: χ 2 (1) = 1.95, p  = .16) [ 29 ].

Spectator (World Cup) involvement

In accordance with a previous study [ 30 ], three items were adapted to measure spectator (World Cup) involvement: “You are very interested in the World Cup,” “Your involvement in watching the World Cup is high,” and “It is very important for you to search and read information about the World Cup.” These items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ( not at all) to 7 ( extremely) . A higher total score indicated a higher level of spectator (World Cup) involvement. In this study, the internal consistency of the scale was high, with a Cronbach’s α of 0.96.

Participant involvement

The 3-item Physical Activity Rating Scale [ 31 ] was used to measure participant involvement in physical activities. In accordance with previous studies [ 32 , 33 ], participants were asked to rate items on a 5-point scale regarding the intensity (i.e., 1 =  light-intensity physical activity , 2 =  light-to moderate-intensity physical activities , 3 =  moderate-to vigorous-intensity physical activities , 4 =  vigorous but not lasting physical activities with sweating a lot , 5 =  vigorous and lasting physical activities with sweating a lot ), duration (i.e., 1 =  less than 10 min , 2 =  10–20 min , 3 =  21–30 min , 4 =  31–59 min , 5 =  60 min or above ), and frequency of their physical activities (i.e., 1 =  less than 1 time/month , 2 =  2 to 3 times/month , 3 =  1 to 2 times/week , 4 =  3 to 5 times/week , 5 =  every day ). The overall score for physical activities was calculated using the following equation: score of physical activity intensity * (score of physical activity duration – 1) * score of physical activity frequency. A higher score represented a higher level of participant involvement. In the present study, these 3 items were significantly correlated ( r  = 0.09 to 0.47, p  < .01).

• Psychological need satisfaction

Three subscales of the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale [ 34 ] have been validated across China and three other countries to assess participants’ relatedness satisfaction (4 items; e.g., “I experience a warm feeling with the people I spent time with”), autonomy satisfaction (4 items; e.g., “I feel I have been doing what really interests me”), and competence satisfaction (4 items; e.g., “I feel I can successfully complete difficult tasks”). Participants rated items on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree) to 5 ( strongly agree) . A higher total score indicated a higher level of psychological need satisfaction. In this study, the Cronbach’s α of both relatedness satisfaction and autonomy satisfaction were 0.80, and that of competence satisfaction was 0.84, indicating adequate reliability.

• Flourishing

The Chinese version [ 35 ] of the 8-item short form of the Flourishing Scale [ 4 ] was used to measure flourishing. The participants responded to each item (e.g., “I lead a purposeful and meaningful life”) on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree) to 7 ( strongly agree) . A higher total score indicated a higher level of flourishing. The Cronbach’s α of this scale was 0.93 in the present study.

Demographics

Participants reported their gender (1 =  male , 2 =  female , 3 =  other ) and age (years). Only one participant chose 3 =  other , which was too small to be considered as a category; thus, we treated this participant’s gender as a missing value in the present study. Therefore, gender was a dichotomous variable in the data analysis.

Data analysis

Descriptive and correlation analyses were performed using SPSS 26.0. Subsequently, the path model was tested using the lavaan package in R, employing the full information maximum likelihood estimation method with robust standard errors to address missing and nonnormal data [ 36 , 37 ]. To evaluate the goodness of fit of the hypothesized path model, we followed the recommendation of Schreiber et al. [ 38 ], considering the chi-square test (χ 2 ; p  > .05), comparative fit index (CFI; ≥ 0.95), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; < 0.06), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; ≤ 0.08), and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI; ≥ 0.95). For mediation testing, the total and indirect effects of variables were estimated with 95% confidential intervals based on the bias-corrected percentile method with 5,000 bootstrap samples. Statistical significance was set at p  < .05 for all analyses.

Bivariate correlations

Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients of the psychological and demographic variables in this study are presented in Table  1 . In line with Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2, spectator (World Cup) involvement and participant involvement were significantly and positively correlated with flourishing ( r  = 0.23 and 0.18, respectively, p  < .001). Hypothesis 3 was also substantiated by the strong positive associations between flourishing and psychological need satisfaction ( r  = 0.61 to 0.69, p  < .001). Hypothesis 4 was supported by the positive correlation between spectator (World Cup) involvement and relatedness satisfaction ( r  = 0.17, p  < .001). Interestingly, spectator (World Cup) involvement was also positively correlated with autonomy satisfaction and competence satisfaction ( r  = 0.19 and 0.16, respectively, p  < .001). Lastly, Hypothesis 5 was confirmed with participant involvement demonstrating significant and positive correlations with the satisfaction of all three types of psychological needs ( r  = 0.14 to 0.16, p  < .001).

Path analysis

Controlling for the effects of age and gender on their correlated variables, the conceptual path model was tested with path analysis. Its model fit was poor, χ 2 (8) = 649.17, p  < .001, CFI = 0.57, RMSEA = 0.26, 90% CI [0.25, 0.27], SRMR = 0.16, TLI = –0.50. In accordance with modification indices, residual covariances between the three dimensions of psychological need satisfaction (i.e., relatedness satisfaction, autonomy satisfaction, competence satisfaction) were allowed to improve the model fit. The modified path model showed a good fit with the data, χ 2 (5) = 8.85, p  = .36, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.03, 90% CI [0.00, 0.05], SRMR = 0.02, TLI = 0.99. As shown in Fig.  2 , the standardized coefficients of all hypothesized paths were statistically significant.

The final path model with standardized estimates. Note: ** p  < .01, *** p  < .001. This model has controlled for the effects of age and gender on the correlated variables. Moreover, the covariances of spectator (World Cup) and participant involvement as well as the error covariances of autonomy satisfaction, relatedness satisfaction, and competence satisfaction were allowed and statistically significant ( p  < .001)

As shown in Table  2 , the total effect of involvement in physical activities (i.e., spectator [World Cup] involvement and participant involvement) on flourishing was found to be significant, with a value of 0.39 (95% CI [0.32, 0.45]). In addition to the mediating effect of relatedness satisfaction ( β  = 0.04, 95% CI [0.02, 0.06]) as proposed by Hypothesis 6, the indirect effects from spectator (World Cup) involvement to flourishing via autonomy satisfaction ( β  = 0.04, 95% CI [0.03, 0.06]) and competence satisfaction ( β  = 0.06, 95% CI [0.04, 0.09]) were also significant. Furthermore, the association between participant involvement and flourishing was significantly mediated by autonomy satisfaction ( β  = 0.03, 95% CI [0.02, 0.04]), relatedness satisfaction ( β  = 0.03, 95% CI [0.02, 0.05]), and competence satisfaction ( β  = 0.05, 95% CI [0.03, 0.07]), which was in line with Hypothesis 7.

In light of the crucial role of mental health in individual and societal development [ 1 ], this study aimed to expand the application of the BPNT [ 3 ] to understand the relationship between flourishing and the involvement in physical activities as spectators and participants. Our pioneering attempt was successful in revealing their positive correlations, which were partially mediated by the satisfaction of all three psychological needs.

This study addressed the research gap regarding the connection between flourishing and the involvement in physical activities in its broader definition. It found significant and positive total and direct effects of involvement as spectators or participants, which were positively correlated, on individuals’ flourishing. Previous studies [ 9 , 10 ] have already revealed the positive role of participant involvement. However, the role of spectator involvement has only been examined and reported in one previous study, where World Cup spectators reported a higher score on a single-item measure of subjective wellbeing than non-spectators [ 8 ]. Hence, the current findings not only corroborate the positive role of spectator involvement but also show that such association remains significant even after controlling for participant involvement in sports and physical activities.

Furthermore, the study illustrated that the BPNT was effective in explaining the associations between physical activities and flourishing, as the satisfaction of all three psychological needs played a partial mediating role in this relationship. Our findings on the positive associations between participant involvement and relatedness satisfaction were consistent with a previous study, which found that participant involvement in physical activities was correlated with relatedness satisfaction among Chinese older adults [ 26 ]. In addition, our study provided empirical evidence for the positive associations of participant involvement with autonomy and competence satisfaction.

Coinciding with our hypothesis, spectator involvement during the World Cup was positively correlated with relatedness satisfaction. Besides, it had a positive association with autonomy and competence satisfaction. This suggested that spectator involvement is a self-driven behavior similar to participant involvement, and individuals can decide whether to engage based on their own volition and self-endorsed interests. Making decisions on which games to watch, which teams to support, and how to support them may help to develop a sense of autonomy [ 39 ]. Additionally, spectators’ identification [ 40 ] and shared success with their teams give rise to a sense of competence. In particular, when their teams win, they may perceive it as an affirmation of their ability to pick the capable teams. Thus, self-driven behaviors and team identification contribute to the satisfaction of autonomy and competence, respectively.

Our findings suggest that both spectator (World Cup) involvement and participant involvement contributed to the satisfaction of needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence, all of which were associated with high levels of flourishing. Similar associations have been demonstrated among Chinese young gamers and adult gamblers in previous studies [ 19 , 20 ]. These findings align with the BPNT, which posits that psychological need-related factors (e.g., physical activities in our study) fulfill humans’ basic and innate needs [ 3 , 14 ]. When these needs are satisfied, individuals will have more resources for optimal functioning and self-actualization [ 3 , 17 , 18 ]. The theory emphasizes that humans have fundamental and positive psychological propensities [ 41 ] that can be revealed not only through internal fulfillment but also under supportive physical conditions. Such conditions may include a favorable context for people to participate in sports and physical activities (whether personal games or global events like the World Cup) across various means and platforms (i.e., offline vs. online).

Within the theoretical framework of the BPNT, our findings demonstrated that involvement in physical activities, as both spectators and participants, explained individual differences in flourishing, which is a crucial indicator of mental health [ 5 ]. Our study suggested that effort and resources for mental health promotion should be allocated to encourage both spectator and participant involvements in physical activities. In terms of spectator involvement, parents can watch global sports events (e.g., the World Cup) live or on television with their children as family activities. This can promote family interactions and cohesion, leading to better wellbeing among youths [ 42 , 43 ]. Other stakeholders can make contributions as well [ 44 ]. For example, more sports events or friendly matches can be organized and held by schools, so that students can watch the competitions and support professional athletes or their peers. Policymakers should also ensure adequate funding for communities to offer more accessible spaces for spectators to enjoy these activities, including listening/viewing media for sport and physical activity events [ 6 ]. Thus, new media and technology (e.g., podcasts and social media platforms) should be invested in and advocated to facilitate the interactions between event organizers, athletes, and spectators. For individuals unable to participate in physical activities due to physical limitations (e.g., injuries or illness), engaging as spectators in events where others are physically active may improve their flourishing in less physically demanding ways. Notably, an increase in sports events presents potential risks, such as the rise of sports gambling [ 45 ]. Thus, policymakers must carefully put forward harm-reduction strategies, such as tighter regulations for gambling advertising during sports games and events to discourage irresponsible gambling [ 46 ].

On the other hand, participant involvement in physical activities should also be promoted, given its salient role in mental health [ 2 ]. Compared to previous studies on Chinese individuals [ 32 , 47 ], the present study reported a relatively low score for participant involvement in physical activities (i.e., M  = 14.87 versus 22.08 and 28.66 using the same measure). Excluding the impact of anti-pandemic policies, the current data suggest that effective measures are needed to promote participant involvement in physical activities among Hong Kong residents. Taking into account the positive relation between parental support and participant involvement in physical activities among teenagers [ 48 ], parents are suggested to enroll their children in sports clubs of their interests, co-participate in physical activities, and encourage their children to use school/community resources. In addition to incorporating more physical activities into the daily curriculum, schools can consider partnering with non-profit organizations to offer after-school/summer camps packed with physical activities (e.g., outdoor adventures). For policymakers, they should emphasize the importance of participant involvement while allocating more funding to design and build a supportive environment. In particular, they can set up more sports facilities (e.g., free bicycle parking sites and sports courts) to enhance public participation in physical activities [ 49 ].

Based on the BPNT [ 3 , 14 ], we proposed and tested a conceptual model with directional paths, in which mental health (i.e., flourishing) was the outcome variable, physical activity involvements as spectators and/or participants were the potential antecedents, and the three psychological needs were the mediating variables. This model is theoretically driven but other alternative models do exist. For example, it is plausible that people with higher levels of flourishing tend to engage in more physical activities. However, the cross-sectional design of the present study did not allow the empirical examination of causal or even temporal relationships among physical activities, psychological need satisfaction, and flourishing. Therefore, the replicability of our findings should be tested with longitudinal and experimental designs for further evaluation of the current and alternative conceptual models of the variables.

Furthermore, our findings should be interpreted with caution due to other limitations. First, the study only recruited Chinese adults living in Hong Kong through online means, which may impact its generalizability to other ethnic or age groups. Hence, further research is needed to test the applicability of our findings to different populations. Second, data regarding physical activities were self-reported, making them susceptible to inaccuracies owing to memory lapses. Future studies should consider incorporating objective measurement data of physical activities, such as electronic data records of participant involvement in physical activities and engagement tracking of sports events. Finally, our findings revealed that psychological need satisfaction partially mediated the link between involvement in various types of physical activities and flourishing. Future studies should explore other possible psychological mechanisms (e.g., mitigating negative emotions) [ 50 ] to further understand these relationships.

The present study established the positive associations between physical activities and individuals’ flourishing from the perspective of both spectators and participants. Our research is the first to apply the BPNT to understand the prominent roles of physical activity involvement in flourishing, revealing that the satisfaction of all three basic psychological needs mediates this relationship. The findings not only address the limitations of previous studies, which have mainly focused on individuals’ own involvement in physical activities, but also offer empirical evidence for a theory-based, psychological mechanism underlying positive associations between the involvement in physical activities and mental health promotion. Furthermore, our study explains what parents, schools, and policymakers can do to facilitate and encourage spectator and participant involvements in physical activities, which may serve as an effective approach to improving mental health.

Data availability

The dataset generated and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

World Health Organization. World mental health report: transforming mental health for all. 2022. https://www.who.int/teams/mental-health-and-substance-use/world-mental-health-report . Accessed 28 Feb 2023.

Mahindru A, Patil P, Agrawal V. Role of physical activity on mental health and well-being: a review. Cureus. 2023. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.33475 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory: basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Press; 2017.

Book   Google Scholar  

Diener E, Wirtz D, Tov W, Kim-Prieto C, Choi D, Oishi S, et al. New well-being measures: short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Soc Indic Res. 2010;97:143–56.

Article   Google Scholar  

Burns RA, Crisp DA, Chng J, Murray K. Community members prioritise indicators of both mental health and wellbeing to define flourishing and quality of life: towards the total psychological health framework. Appl Res Qual Life. 2022;17:3475–502.

Humphreys BR, Ruseski JE. Estimates of the dimensions of the sports market in the US. Int J Sport Finance. 2009;4:94–113.

Google Scholar  

Oh T, Kang J-H, Kwon K. Is there a relationship between spectator sports consumption and life satisfaction? Manag Sport Leis. 2022;27:254–66.

Stieger S, Götz FM, Gehrig F. Soccer results affect subjective well-being, but only briefly: a smartphone study during the 2014 FIFA World Cup. Front Psychol. 2015;6.

McCoy SM, Rupp K. Physical activity participation, flourishing and academic engagement in adolescents with obesity. Pediatr Obes. 2021;16.

O’Rourke RH, Doré I, Sylvester BD, Sabiston CM. Flourishing or physical activity? Identifying temporal precedence in supporting the transition to university. J Am Coll Health. 2023;71:124–9.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Abdulrasool MD, Joda E, Alawady AA. The effect of psycho-physiological sports proposed in terms of the hormone endorphins serotonin and their relative results on mental fitness in the aged. Ann Trop Med Public Health. 2020;23.

Kamei T, Toriumi Y, Kimura H, Kumano H, Ohno S, Kimura K. Decrease in serum cortisol during yoga exercise is correlated with alpha wave activation. Percept Mot Skills. 2000;90:1027–32.

Ryan RM. Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. J Pers. 1995;63:397–427.

Vansteenkiste M, Ryan RM, Soenens B. Basic psychological need theory: advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motiv Emot. 2020;44:1–31.

Ryan RM, Patrick H, Deci EL, Williams GC. Facilitating health behaviour change and its maintenance: interventions based on self-determination theory. Eur Health Psychol. 2008;10:2–5.

Deci EL, Ryan RM. Self-determination theory: a macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can Psychol Can. 2008;49:182–5.

Ryan RM, Curren RR, Deci EL. What humans need: flourishing in aristotelian philosophy and self-determination theory. In: Waterman AS, editor. The best within us: positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonia. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; 2013. pp. 57–75.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Mesurado B, Salanga MGC, Mateo NJ. Basic Psychological needs and flourishing in Filipino University students. In: King RB, Bernardo ABI, editors. The psychology of Asian learners: a festschrift in honor of David Watkins. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2016. pp. 459–69.

Hui BPH, Wu AMS, Siu NYF, Chung M-L, Pun N. The effects of need satisfaction and dissatisfaction on flourishing among young Chinese gamers: the mediating role of internet gaming disorder. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:4367.

Tong KK, Wu AMS, Chen JH. Satisfaction of basic psychological needs and adherence to responsible gambling practices: the mediating role of flourishing. J Gambl Stud. 2022;38:1431–46.

Deci EL, Ryan RM. Handbook of self-determination research. New York; 2002.

Wann DL. Understanding the positive social psychological benefits of sport team identification: the team identification-social psychological health model. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract. 2006;10:272–96.

Reysen S, Branscombe NR. Fanship and fandom: comparisons between sport and non-sport fans. J Sport Behav. 2010;33:176–93.

Kim J, James JD. Sport and happiness: understanding the relations among sport consumption activities, long- and short-term subjective well-being, and psychological need fulfillment. J Sport Manag. 2019;33:119–32.

Diener E, Lucas RE, Oishi S. Subjective well-being. In: Snyder CR, Lopez SJ, editors. Handbook of positive psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University; 2002. pp. 63–73.

Poon CYM, Fung HH. Physical activity and Psychological Well-Being among Hong Kong Chinese older adults: exploring the moderating role of self-construal. Int J Aging Hum Dev. 2008;66:1–19.

Zhang T, Solmon MA, Kosma M, Carson RL, Gu X. Need support, need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and physical activity participation among Middle School Students. J Teach Phys Educ. 2011;30:51–68.

Rodríguez A, Látková P, Sun Y-Y. The relationship between leisure and life satisfaction: application of activity and need theory. Soc Indic Res. 2007;86:163–75.

Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. 2021 population census: main results. 2022. https://www.census2021.gov.hk/doc/pub/21c-main-results.pdf .

Kim K, Cheong Y, Kim H. The influences of sports viewing conditions on enjoyment from watching televised sports: an analysis of the FIFA world cup audiences in theater vs. home. J Broadcast Electron Media. 2016;60:389–409.

Liang D. Stress level and its relation with physical activity in higher education. Chin Ment Healthy J. 1994;8:5–6.

Ren K, Liu X, Feng Y, Li C, Sun D, Qiu K. The relationship between physical activity and academic procrastination in Chinese college students: the mediating role of self-efficacy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:11468.

Yang G, Li Y, Liu S, Liu C, Jia C, Wang S. Physical activity influences the mobile phone addiction among Chinese undergraduates: the moderating effect of exercise type. J Behav Addict. 2021;10:799–810.

Chen B, Vansteenkiste M, Beyers W, Boone L, Deci EL, Van der Kaap-Deeder J, et al. Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motiv Emot. 2015;39:216–36.

Tong KK, Wang YY. Validation of the flourishing scale and scale of positive and negative experience in a Chinese community sample. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0181616.

Enders C, Bandalos D. The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2001;8:430–57.

Lai K. Estimating standardized SEM parameters given nonnormal data and incorrect model: methods and comparison. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2018;25:600–20.

Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review. J Educ Res. 2006;99:323–38.

Funk DC, Beaton A, Alexandris K. Sport consumer motivation: autonomy and control orientations that regulate fan behaviours. Sport Manag Rev. 2012;15:355–67.

Wann DL, Melnick MJ, Russell GW, Pease DG. Sport fans: the psychology and social impact of spectators. NY: Routledge; 2001.

Ryan RM, Ryan WS, Di Domenic SI, Deci EL. The nature and the conditions of human autonomy and flourishing: self-determination theory and basic psychological needs. In: Ryan RM, editor. The Oxford handbook of human motivation. Oxford University Press; 2019. pp. 89–110.

Beveridge RM, Berg CA. Parent–adolescent collaboration: an interpersonal model for understanding optimal interactions. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2007;10:25–52.

Kitzman-Ulrich H, Wilson DK, St. George SM, Lawman H, Segal M, Fairchild A. The integration of a Family systems Approach for understanding youth obesity, physical activity, and Dietary Programs. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2010;13:231–53.

Pechmann C, Catlin JR, Zheng Y. Facilitating Adolescent Well-Being: a review of the challenges and opportunities and the Beneficial roles of parents, schools, neighborhoods, and policymakers. J Consum Psychol. 2020;30:149–77.

McGee D. On the normalisation of online sports gambling among young adult men in the UK: a public health perspective. Public Health. 2020;184:89–94.

Hanss D, Mentzoni RA, Griffiths MD, Pallesen S. The impact of gambling advertising: Problem gamblers report stronger impacts on involvement, knowledge, and awareness than recreational gamblers. Psychol Addict Behav. 2015;29:483–91.

Li C, Hu Y, Ren K. Physical activity and academic procrastination among Chinese university students: a parallel mediation model of self-control and self-efficacy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19:6017.

Yao CA, Rhodes RE. Parental correlates in child and adolescent physical activity: a meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12:10.

Sallis JF, Bowles HR, Bauman A, Ainsworth BE, Bull FC, Craig CL, et al. Neighborhood environments and physical activity among adults in 11 countries. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36:484–90.

López-Bueno R, Calatayud J, Ezzatvar Y, Casajús JA, Smith L, Andersen LL, et al. Association between current physical mood in the initial phase of COVID-19 confinement. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:729.

Download references

The research was supported by the research grants of the University of Macau [grant numbers: MYRG2022-00130-FSS, CRG2020-00001-ICI, and MYRG-CRG2022-00003-FSS-ICI]. The funding source had no role in the study design, collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, writing the manuscript, or the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Macau, Macao, China

Hui Zhou, Hong Mian Yang & Anise M. S. Wu

Centre for Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Institute of Collaborative Innovation, University of Macau, Macao, China

Department of Applied Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

Bryant Pui Hung Hui

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

HZ participated in the conceptualization, formal analysis, and writing-original draft. HZ and HMY were in charge of the methodology. HZ, BPHH, and AMSW were responsible for writing-reviewing and editing. The supervision and funding acquisition were carried out by AMSW. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anise M. S. Wu .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

The procedures of this study were carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study has acquired ethics approval from the Department of Psychology of the University of Macau (reference number: DPSY2022-30).

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zhou, H., Hui, B.P.H., Yang, H.M. et al. Can watching the World Cup make you mentally healthier? Positive associations between involvement in physical activities and flourishing were mediated by psychological need satisfaction. BMC Psychol 12 , 366 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01861-z

Download citation

Received : 23 October 2023

Accepted : 18 June 2024

Published : 26 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01861-z

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Physical activity
• Mental health promotion

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

• General enquiries: [email protected]