define directional hypothesis psychology

Directional Hypothesis: Definition and 10 Examples

A directional hypothesis refers to a type of hypothesis used in statistical testing that predicts a particular direction of the expected relationship between two variables.

In simpler terms, a directional hypothesis is an educated, specific guess about the direction of an outcome—whether an increase, decrease, or a proclaimed difference in variable sets.

For example, in a study investigating the effects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performance, a directional hypothesis might state that as sleep deprivation (Independent Variable) increases, cognitive performance (Dependent Variable) decreases (Killgore, 2010). Such a hypothesis offers a clear, directional relationship whereby a specific increase or decrease is anticipated.

Global warming provides another notable example of a directional hypothesis. A researcher might hypothesize that as carbon dioxide (CO2) levels increase, global temperatures also increase (Thompson, 2010). In this instance, the hypothesis clearly articulates an upward trend for both variables. 

In any given circumstance, it’s imperative that a directional hypothesis is grounded on solid evidence. For instance, the CO2 and global temperature relationship is based on substantial scientific evidence, and not on a random guess or mere speculation (Florides & Christodoulides, 2009).

Directional vs Non-Directional vs Null Hypotheses

A directional hypothesis is generally contrasted to a non-directional hypothesis. Here’s how they compare:

• Directional hypothesis: A directional hypothesis provides a perspective of the expected relationship between variables, predicting the direction of that relationship (either positive, negative, or a specific difference). 
• Non-directional hypothesis: A non-directional hypothesis denotes the possibility of a relationship between two variables ( the independent and dependent variables ), although this hypothesis does not venture a prediction as to the direction of this relationship (Ali & Bhaskar, 2016). For example, a non-directional hypothesis might state that there exists a relationship between a person’s diet (independent variable) and their mood (dependent variable), without indicating whether improvement in diet enhances mood positively or negatively. Overall, the choice between a directional or non-directional hypothesis depends on the known or anticipated link between the variables under consideration in research studies.

Another very important type of hypothesis that we need to know about is a null hypothesis :

• Null hypothesis : The null hypothesis stands as a universality—the hypothesis that there is no observed effect in the population under study, meaning there is no association between variables (or that the differences are down to chance). For instance, a null hypothesis could be constructed around the idea that changing diet (independent variable) has no discernible effect on a person’s mood (dependent variable) (Yan & Su, 2016). This proposition is the one that we aim to disprove in an experiment.

While directional and non-directional hypotheses involve some integrated expectations about the outcomes (either distinct direction or a vague relationship), a null hypothesis operates on the premise of negating such relationships or effects.

The null hypotheses is typically proposed to be negated or disproved by statistical tests, paving way for the acceptance of an alternate hypothesis (either directional or non-directional).

Directional Hypothesis Examples

1. exercise and heart health.

Research suggests that as regular physical exercise (independent variable) increases, the risk of heart disease (dependent variable) decreases (Jakicic, Davis, Rogers, King, Marcus, Helsel, Rickman, Wahed, Belle, 2016). In this example, a directional hypothesis anticipates that the more individuals maintain routine workouts, the lesser would be their odds of developing heart-related disorders. This assumption is based on the underlying fact that routine exercise can help reduce harmful cholesterol levels, regulate blood pressure, and bring about overall health benefits. Thus, a direction – a decrease in heart disease – is expected in relation with an increase in exercise. 

2. Screen Time and Sleep Quality

Another classic instance of a directional hypothesis can be seen in the relationship between the independent variable, screen time (especially before bed), and the dependent variable, sleep quality. This hypothesis predicts that as screen time before bed increases, sleep quality decreases (Chang, Aeschbach, Duffy, Czeisler, 2015). The reasoning behind this hypothesis is the disruptive effect of artificial light (especially blue light from screens) on melatonin production, a hormone needed to regulate sleep. As individuals spend more time exposed to screens before bed, it is predictably hypothesized that their sleep quality worsens. 

3. Job Satisfaction and Employee Turnover

A typical scenario in organizational behavior research posits that as job satisfaction (independent variable) increases, the rate of employee turnover (dependent variable) decreases (Cheng, Jiang, & Riley, 2017). This directional hypothesis emphasizes that an increased level of job satisfaction would lead to a reduced rate of employees leaving the company. The theoretical basis for this hypothesis is that satisfied employees often tend to be more committed to the organization and are less likely to seek employment elsewhere, thus reducing turnover rates.

4. Healthy Eating and Body Weight

Healthy eating, as the independent variable, is commonly thought to influence body weight, the dependent variable, in a positive way. For example, the hypothesis might state that as consumption of healthy foods increases, an individual’s body weight decreases (Framson, Kristal, Schenk, Littman, Zeliadt, & Benitez, 2009). This projection is based on the premise that healthier foods, such as fruits and vegetables, are generally lower in calories than junk food, assisting in weight management.

5. Sun Exposure and Skin Health

The association between sun exposure (independent variable) and skin health (dependent variable) allows for a definitive hypothesis declaring that as sun exposure increases, the risk of skin damage or skin cancer increases (Whiteman, Whiteman, & Green, 2001). The premise aligns with the understanding that overexposure to the sun’s ultraviolet rays can deteriorate skin health, leading to conditions like sunburn or, in extreme cases, skin cancer.

6. Study Hours and Academic Performance

A regularly assessed relationship in academia suggests that as the number of study hours (independent variable) rises, so too does academic performance (dependent variable) (Nonis, Hudson, Logan, Ford, 2013). The hypothesis proposes a positive correlation , with an increase in study time expected to contribute to enhanced academic outcomes.

7. Screen Time and Eye Strain

It’s commonly hypothesized that as screen time (independent variable) increases, the likelihood of experiencing eye strain (dependent variable) also increases (Sheppard & Wolffsohn, 2018). This is based on the idea that prolonged engagement with digital screens—computers, tablets, or mobile phones—can cause discomfort or fatigue in the eyes, attributing to symptoms of eye strain.

8. Physical Activity and Stress Levels

In the sphere of mental health, it’s often proposed that as physical activity (independent variable) increases, levels of stress (dependent variable) decrease (Stonerock, Hoffman, Smith, Blumenthal, 2015). Regular exercise is known to stimulate the production of endorphins, the body’s natural mood elevators, helping to alleviate stress.

9. Water Consumption and Kidney Health

A common health-related hypothesis might predict that as water consumption (independent variable) increases, the risk of kidney stones (dependent variable) decreases (Curhan, Willett, Knight, & Stampfer, 2004). Here, an increase in water intake is inferred to reduce the risk of kidney stones by diluting the substances that lead to stone formation.

10. Traffic Noise and Sleep Quality

In urban planning research, it’s often supposed that as traffic noise (independent variable) increases, sleep quality (dependent variable) decreases (Muzet, 2007). Increased noise levels, particularly during the night, can result in sleep disruptions, thus, leading to poor sleep quality.

11. Sugar Consumption and Dental Health

In the field of dental health, an example might be stating as one’s sugar consumption (independent variable) increases, dental health (dependent variable) decreases (Sheiham, & James, 2014). This stems from the fact that sugar is a major factor in tooth decay, and increased consumption of sugary foods or drinks leads to a decline in dental health due to the high likelihood of cavities.

See 15 More Examples of Hypotheses Here

A directional hypothesis plays a critical role in research, paving the way for specific predicted outcomes based on the relationship between two variables. These hypotheses clearly illuminate the expected direction—the increase or decrease—of an effect. From predicting the impacts of healthy eating on body weight to forecasting the influence of screen time on sleep quality, directional hypotheses allow for targeted and strategic examination of phenomena. In essence, directional hypotheses provide the crucial path for inquiry, shaping the trajectory of research studies and ultimately aiding in the generation of insightful, relevant findings.

Ali, S., & Bhaskar, S. (2016). Basic statistical tools in research and data analysis. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia, 60 (9), 662-669. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103%2F0019-5049.190623  

Chang, A. M., Aeschbach, D., Duffy, J. F., & Czeisler, C. A. (2015). Evening use of light-emitting eReaders negatively affects sleep, circadian timing, and next-morning alertness. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, 112 (4), 1232-1237. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418490112  

Cheng, G. H. L., Jiang, D., & Riley, J. H. (2017). Organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation of regular and contractual primary school teachers in China. New Psychology, 19 (3), 316-326. Doi: https://doi.org/10.4103%2F2249-4863.184631  

Curhan, G. C., Willett, W. C., Knight, E. L., & Stampfer, M. J. (2004). Dietary factors and the risk of incident kidney stones in younger women: Nurses’ Health Study II. Archives of Internal Medicine, 164 (8), 885–891.

Florides, G. A., & Christodoulides, P. (2009). Global warming and carbon dioxide through sciences. Environment international , 35 (2), 390-401. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2008.07.007

Framson, C., Kristal, A. R., Schenk, J. M., Littman, A. J., Zeliadt, S., & Benitez, D. (2009). Development and validation of the mindful eating questionnaire. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109 (8), 1439-1444. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2009.05.006  

Jakicic, J. M., Davis, K. K., Rogers, R. J., King, W. C., Marcus, M. D., Helsel, D., … & Belle, S. H. (2016). Effect of wearable technology combined with a lifestyle intervention on long-term weight loss: The IDEA randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 316 (11), 1161-1171.

Khan, S., & Iqbal, N. (2013). Study of the relationship between study habits and academic achievement of students: A case of SPSS model. Higher Education Studies, 3 (1), 14-26.

Killgore, W. D. (2010). Effects of sleep deprivation on cognition. Progress in brain research , 185 , 105-129. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53702-7.00007-5  

Marczinski, C. A., & Fillmore, M. T. (2014). Dissociative antagonistic effects of caffeine on alcohol-induced impairment of behavioral control. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 22 (4), 298–311. doi: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1064-1297.11.3.228  

Muzet, A. (2007). Environmental Noise, Sleep and Health. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 11 (2), 135-142. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2006.09.001  

Nonis, S. A., Hudson, G. I., Logan, L. B., & Ford, C. W. (2013). Influence of perceived control over time on college students’ stress and stress-related outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 54 (5), 536-552. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018753706925  

Sheiham, A., & James, W. P. (2014). A new understanding of the relationship between sugars, dental caries and fluoride use: implications for limits on sugars consumption. Public health nutrition, 17 (10), 2176-2184. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S136898001400113X  

Sheppard, A. L., & Wolffsohn, J. S. (2018). Digital eye strain: prevalence, measurement and amelioration. BMJ open ophthalmology , 3 (1), e000146. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjophth-2018-000146

Stonerock, G. L., Hoffman, B. M., Smith, P. J., & Blumenthal, J. A. (2015). Exercise as Treatment for Anxiety: Systematic Review and Analysis. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 49 (4), 542–556. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-014-9685-9  

Thompson, L. G. (2010). Climate change: The evidence and our options. The Behavior Analyst , 33 , 153-170. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392211  

Whiteman, D. C., Whiteman, C. A., & Green, A. C. (2001). Childhood sun exposure as a risk factor for melanoma: a systematic review of epidemiologic studies. Cancer Causes & Control, 12 (1), 69-82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008980919928

Yan, X., & Su, X. (2009). Linear regression analysis: theory and computing . New Jersey: World Scientific.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 50 Durable Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 100 Consumer Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 30 Globalization Pros and Cons

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

Statistics Made Easy

What is a Directional Hypothesis? (Definition & Examples)

A statistical hypothesis is an assumption about a population parameter . For example, we may assume that the mean height of a male in the U.S. is 70 inches.

The assumption about the height is the statistical hypothesis and the true mean height of a male in the U.S. is the population parameter .

To test whether a statistical hypothesis about a population parameter is true, we obtain a random sample from the population and perform a hypothesis test on the sample data.

Whenever we perform a hypothesis test, we always write down a null and alternative hypothesis:

• Null Hypothesis (H 0 ): The sample data occurs purely from chance.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H A ): The sample data is influenced by some non-random cause.

A hypothesis test can either contain a directional hypothesis or a non-directional hypothesis:

• Directional hypothesis: The alternative hypothesis contains the less than (“<“) or greater than (“>”) sign. This indicates that we’re testing whether or not there is a positive or negative effect.
• Non-directional hypothesis: The alternative hypothesis contains the not equal (“≠”) sign. This indicates that we’re testing whether or not there is some effect, without specifying the direction of the effect.

Note that directional hypothesis tests are also called “one-tailed” tests and non-directional hypothesis tests are also called “two-tailed” tests.

Check out the following examples to gain a better understanding of directional vs. non-directional hypothesis tests.

Example 1: Baseball Programs

A baseball coach believes a certain 4-week program will increase the mean hitting percentage of his players, which is currently 0.285.

To test this, he measures the hitting percentage of each of his players before and after participating in the program.

He then performs a hypothesis test using the following hypotheses:

• H 0 : μ = .285 (the program will have no effect on the mean hitting percentage)
• H A : μ > .285 (the program will cause mean hitting percentage to increase)

This is an example of a directional hypothesis because the alternative hypothesis contains the greater than “>” sign. The coach believes that the program will influence the mean hitting percentage of his players in a positive direction.

Example 2: Plant Growth

A biologist believes that a certain pesticide will cause plants to grow less during a one-month period than they normally do, which is currently 10 inches.

To test this, she applies the pesticide to each of the plants in her laboratory for one month.

She then performs a hypothesis test using the following hypotheses:

• H 0 : μ = 10 inches (the pesticide will have no effect on the mean plant growth)
• H A : μ < 10 inches (the pesticide will cause mean plant growth to decrease)

This is also an example of a directional hypothesis because the alternative hypothesis contains the less than “<” sign. The biologist believes that the pesticide will influence the mean plant growth in a negative direction.

Example 3: Studying Technique

A professor believes that a certain studying technique will influence the mean score that her students receive on a certain exam, but she’s unsure if it will increase or decrease the mean score, which is currently 82.

To test this, she lets each student use the studying technique for one month leading up to the exam and then administers the same exam to each of the students.

• H 0 : μ = 82 (the studying technique will have no effect on the mean exam score)
• H A : μ ≠ 82 (the studying technique will cause the mean exam score to be different than 82)

This is an example of a non-directional hypothesis because the alternative hypothesis contains the not equal “≠” sign. The professor believes that the studying technique will influence the mean exam score, but doesn’t specify whether it will cause the mean score to increase or decrease.

Additional Resources

Introduction to Hypothesis Testing Introduction to the One Sample t-test Introduction to the Two Sample t-test Introduction to the Paired Samples t-test

Featured Posts

Hey there. My name is Zach Bobbitt. I have a Masters of Science degree in Applied Statistics and I’ve worked on machine learning algorithms for professional businesses in both healthcare and retail. I’m passionate about statistics, machine learning, and data visualization and I created Statology to be a resource for both students and teachers alike.  My goal with this site is to help you learn statistics through using simple terms, plenty of real-world examples, and helpful illustrations.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Aims And Hypotheses, Directional And Non-Directional

March 7, 2021 - paper 2 psychology in context | research methods.

• Back to Paper 2 - Research Methods

In Psychology, hypotheses are predictions made by the researcher about the outcome of a study. The research can chose to make a specific prediction about what they feel will happen in their research (a directional hypothesis) or they can make a ‘general,’ ‘less specific’ prediction about the outcome of their research (a non-directional hypothesis). The type of prediction that a researcher makes is usually dependent on whether or not any previous research has also investigated their research aim.

Variables Recap:

The  independent variable  (IV)  is the variable that psychologists  manipulate/change  to see if changing this variable has an effect on the  depen dent variable  (DV).

The  dependent variable (DV)  is the variable that the psychologists  measures  (to see if the IV has had an effect).

It is important that the only variable that is changed in research is the  independent variable (IV),   all other variables have to be kept constant across the control condition and the experimental conditions. Only then will researchers be able to observe the true effects of  just  the independent variable (IV) on the dependent variable (DV).

Research/Experimental Aim(S):

An aim is a clear and precise statement of the purpose of the study. It is a statement of why a research study is taking place. This should include what is being studied and what the study is trying to achieve. (e.g. “This study aims to investigate the effects of alcohol on reaction times”.

It is important that aims created in research are realistic and ethical.

Hypotheses:

This is a testable statement that predicts what the researcher expects to happen in their research. The research study itself is therefore a means of testing whether or not the hypothesis is supported by the findings. If the findings do support the hypothesis then the hypothesis can be retained (i.e., accepted), but if not, then it must be rejected.

Three Different Hypotheses:

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Start typing and press Enter to search

Cookie Policy - Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy

psychologyrocks

Hypotheses; directional and non-directional, what is the difference between an experimental and an alternative hypothesis.

Nothing much! If the study is a laboratory experiment then we can call the hypothesis “an experimental hypothesis”, where we make a prediction about how the IV causes an effect on the DV. If we have a non-experimental design, i.e. we are not able to manipulate the IV as in a natural or quasi-experiment , or if some other research method has been used, then we call it an “alternativehypothesis”, alternative to the null.

Directional hypothesis: A directional (or one tailed hypothesis) states which way you think the results are going to go, for example in an experimental study we might say…”Participants who have been deprived of sleep for 24 hours will have more cold symptoms in the following week after exposure to a virus than participants who have not been sleep deprived”; the hypothesis compares the two groups/conditions and states which one will ….have more/less, be quicker/slower, etc.

If we had a correlational study, the directional hypothesis would state whether we expect a positive or a negative correlation, we are stating how the two variables will be related to each other, e.g. there will be a positive correlation between the number of stressful life events experienced in the last year and the number of coughs and colds suffered, whereby the more life events you have suffered the more coughs and cold you will have had”. The directional hypothesis can also state a negative correlation, e.g. the higher the number of face-book friends, the lower the life satisfaction score “

Non-directional hypothesis: A non-directional (or two tailed hypothesis) simply states that there will be a difference between the two groups/conditions but does not say which will be greater/smaller, quicker/slower etc. Using our example above we would say “There will be a difference between the number of cold symptoms experienced in the following week after exposure to a virus for those participants who have been sleep deprived for 24 hours compared with those who have not been sleep deprived for 24 hours.”

When the study is correlational, we simply state that variables will be correlated but do not state whether the relationship will be positive or negative, e.g. there will be a significant correlation between variable A and variable B.

Null hypothesis The null hypothesis states that the alternative or experimental hypothesis is NOT the case, if your experimental hypothesis was directional you would say…

Participants who have been deprived of sleep for 24 hours will NOT have more cold symptoms in the following week after exposure to a virus than participants who have not been sleep deprived and any difference that does arise will be due to chance alone.

or with a directional correlational hypothesis….

There will NOT be a positive correlation between the number of stress life events experienced in the last year and the number of coughs and colds suffered, whereby the more life events you have suffered the more coughs and cold you will have had”

With a non-directional or  two tailed hypothesis…

There will be NO difference between the number of cold symptoms experienced in the following week after exposure to a virus for those participants who have been sleep deprived for 24 hours compared with those who have not been sleep deprived for 24 hours.

or for a correlational …

there will be NO correlation between variable A and variable B.

When it comes to conducting an inferential stats test, if you have a directional hypothesis , you must do a one tailed test to find out whether your observed value is significant. If you have a non-directional hypothesis , you must do a two tailed test .

Exam Techniques/Advice

• Remember, a decent hypothesis will contain two variables, in the case of an experimental hypothesis there will be an IV and a DV; in a correlational hypothesis there will be two co-variables
• both variables need to be fully operationalised to score the marks, that is you need to be very clear and specific about what you mean by your IV and your DV; if someone wanted to repeat your study, they should be able to look at your hypothesis and know exactly what to change between the two groups/conditions and exactly what to measure (including any units/explanation of rating scales etc, e.g. “where 1 is low and 7 is high”)
• double check the question, did it ask for a directional or non-directional hypothesis?
• if you were asked for a null hypothesis, make sure you always include the phrase “and any difference/correlation (is your study experimental or correlational?) that does arise will be due to chance alone”

Practice Questions:

• Mr Faraz wants to compare the levels of attendance between his psychology group and those of Mr Simon, who teaches a different psychology group. Which of the following is a suitable directional (one tailed) hypothesis for Mr Faraz’s investigation?

A There will be a difference in the levels of attendance between the two psychology groups.

B Students’ level of attendance will be higher in Mr Faraz’s group than Mr Simon’s group.

C Any difference in the levels of attendance between the two psychology groups is due to chance.

D The level of attendance of the students will depend upon who is teaching the groups.

2. Tracy works for the local council. The council is thinking about reducing the number of people it employs to pick up litter from the street. Tracy has been asked to carry out a study to see if having the streets cleaned at less regular intervals will affect the amount of litter the public will drop. She studies a street to compare how much litter is dropped at two different times, once when it has just been cleaned and once after it has not been cleaned for a month.

Write a fully operationalised non-directional (two-tailed) hypothesis for Tracy’s study. (2)

3. Jamila is conducting a practical investigation to look at gender differences in carrying out visuo-spatial tasks. She decides to give males and females a jigsaw puzzle and will time them to see who completes it the fastest. She uses a random sample of pupils from a local school to get her participants.

(a) Write a fully operationalised directional (one tailed) hypothesis for Jamila’s study. (2) (b) Outline one strength and one weakness of the random sampling method. You may refer to Jamila’s use of this type of sampling in your answer. (4)

4. Which of the following is a non-directional (two tailed) hypothesis?

A There is a difference in driving ability with men being better drivers than women

B Women are better at concentrating on more than one thing at a time than men

C Women spend more time doing the cooking and cleaning than men

D There is a difference in the number of men and women who participate in sports

Revision Activity

writing-hypotheses-revision-sheet

Quizizz link for teachers: https://quizizz.com/admin/quiz/5bf03f51add785001bc5a09e

Share this:

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Directional and non-directional hypothesis: A Comprehensive Guide

Karolina Konopka

Customer support manager

In the world of research and statistical analysis, hypotheses play a crucial role in formulating and testing scientific claims. Understanding the differences between directional and non-directional hypothesis is essential for designing sound experiments and drawing accurate conclusions. Whether you’re a student, researcher, or simply curious about the foundations of hypothesis testing, this guide will equip you with the knowledge and tools to navigate this fundamental aspect of scientific inquiry.

Understanding Directional Hypothesis

Understanding directional hypotheses is crucial for conducting hypothesis-driven research, as they guide the selection of appropriate statistical tests and aid in the interpretation of results. By incorporating directional hypotheses, researchers can make more precise predictions, contribute to scientific knowledge, and advance their fields of study.

Definition of directional hypothesis

Directional hypotheses, also known as one-tailed hypotheses, are statements in research that make specific predictions about the direction of a relationship or difference between variables. Unlike non-directional hypotheses, which simply state that there is a relationship or difference without specifying its direction, directional hypotheses provide a focused and precise expectation.

A directional hypothesis predicts either a positive or negative relationship between variables or predicts that one group will perform better than another. It asserts a specific direction of effect or outcome. For example, a directional hypothesis could state that “increased exposure to sunlight will lead to an improvement in mood” or “participants who receive the experimental treatment will exhibit higher levels of cognitive performance compared to the control group.”

Directional hypotheses are formulated based on existing theory, prior research, or logical reasoning, and they guide the researcher’s expectations and analysis. They allow for more targeted predictions and enable researchers to test specific hypotheses using appropriate statistical tests.

The role of directional hypothesis in research

Directional hypotheses also play a significant role in research surveys. Let’s explore their role specifically in the context of survey research:

• Objective-driven surveys : Directional hypotheses help align survey research with specific objectives. By formulating directional hypotheses, researchers can focus on gathering data that directly addresses the predicted relationship or difference between variables of interest.
• Question design and measurement : Directional hypotheses guide the design of survey question types and the selection of appropriate measurement scales. They ensure that the questions are tailored to capture the specific aspects related to the predicted direction, enabling researchers to obtain more targeted and relevant data from survey respondents.
• Data analysis and interpretation : Directional hypotheses assist in data analysis by directing researchers towards appropriate statistical tests and methods. Researchers can analyze the survey data to specifically test the predicted relationship or difference, enhancing the accuracy and reliability of their findings. The results can then be interpreted within the context of the directional hypothesis, providing more meaningful insights.
• Practical implications and decision-making : Directional hypotheses in surveys often have practical implications. When the predicted relationship or difference is confirmed, it informs decision-making processes, program development, or interventions. The survey findings based on directional hypotheses can guide organizations, policymakers, or practitioners in making informed choices to achieve desired outcomes.
• Replication and further research : Directional hypotheses in survey research contribute to the replication and extension of studies. Researchers can replicate the survey with different populations or contexts to assess the generalizability of the predicted relationships. Furthermore, if the directional hypothesis is supported, it encourages further research to explore underlying mechanisms or boundary conditions.

By incorporating directional hypotheses in survey research, researchers can align their objectives, design effective surveys, conduct focused data analysis, and derive practical insights. They provide a framework for organizing survey research and contribute to the accumulation of knowledge in the field.

Examples of research questions for directional hypothesis

Here are some examples of research questions that lend themselves to directional hypotheses:

• Does increased daily exercise lead to a decrease in body weight among sedentary adults?
• Is there a positive relationship between study hours and academic performance among college students?
• Does exposure to violent video games result in an increase in aggressive behavior among adolescents?
• Does the implementation of a mindfulness-based intervention lead to a reduction in stress levels among working professionals?
• Is there a difference in customer satisfaction between Product A and Product B, with Product A expected to have higher satisfaction ratings?
• Does the use of social media influence self-esteem levels, with higher social media usage associated with lower self-esteem?
• Is there a negative relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover, indicating that lower job satisfaction leads to higher turnover rates?
• Does the administration of a specific medication result in a decrease in symptoms among individuals with a particular medical condition?
• Does increased access to early childhood education lead to improved cognitive development in preschool-aged children?
• Is there a difference in purchase intention between advertisements with celebrity endorsements and advertisements without, with celebrity endorsements expected to have a higher impact?

These research questions generate specific predictions about the direction of the relationship or difference between variables and can be tested using appropriate research methods and statistical analyses.

Definition of non-directional hypothesis

Non-directional hypotheses, also known as two-tailed hypotheses, are statements in research that indicate the presence of a relationship or difference between variables without specifying the direction of the effect. Instead of making predictions about the specific direction of the relationship or difference, non-directional hypotheses simply state that there is an association or distinction between the variables of interest.

Non-directional hypotheses are often used when there is no prior theoretical basis or clear expectation about the direction of the relationship. They leave the possibility open for either a positive or negative relationship, or for both groups to differ in some way without specifying which group will perform better or worse.

Advantages and utility of non-directional hypothesis

Non-directional hypotheses in survey s offer several advantages and utilities, providing flexibility and comprehensive analysis of survey data. Here are some of the key advantages and utilities of using non-directional hypotheses in surveys:

• Exploration of Relationships : Non-directional hypotheses allow researchers to explore and examine relationships between variables without assuming a specific direction. This is particularly useful in surveys where the relationship between variables may not be well-known or there may be conflicting evidence regarding the direction of the effect.
• Flexibility in Question Design : With non-directional hypotheses, survey questions can be designed to measure the relationship between variables without being biased towards a particular outcome. This flexibility allows researchers to collect data and analyze the results more objectively.
• Open to Unexpected Findings : Non-directional hypotheses enable researchers to be open to unexpected or surprising findings in survey data. By not committing to a specific direction of the effect, researchers can identify and explore relationships that may not have been initially anticipated, leading to new insights and discoveries.
• Comprehensive Analysis : Non-directional hypotheses promote comprehensive analysis of survey data by considering the possibility of an effect in either direction. Researchers can assess the magnitude and significance of relationships without limiting their analysis to only one possible outcome.
• S tatistical Validity : Non-directional hypotheses in surveys allow for the use of two-tailed statistical tests, which provide a more conservative and robust assessment of significance. Two-tailed tests consider both positive and negative deviations from the null hypothesis, ensuring accurate and reliable statistical analysis of survey data.
• Exploratory Research : Non-directional hypotheses are particularly useful in exploratory research, where the goal is to gather initial insights and generate hypotheses. Surveys with non-directional hypotheses can help researchers explore various relationships and identify patterns that can guide further research or hypothesis development.

It is worth noting that the choice between directional and non-directional hypotheses in surveys depends on the research objectives, existing knowledge, and the specific variables being investigated. Researchers should carefully consider the advantages and limitations of each approach and select the one that aligns best with their research goals and survey design.

• Share with others
• Twitter Twitter Icon
• LinkedIn LinkedIn Icon

Related posts

How to implement nps surveys: a step-by-step guide, 15 best website survey questions to ask your visitors, how to write a good survey introduction, 7 best ai survey generators, multiple choice questions: types, examples & samples, how to make a gdpr compliant survey, get answers today.

• No credit card required
• No time limit on Free plan

You can modify this template in every possible way.

All templates work great on every device.

Research Methods In Psychology

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.

Research methods in psychology are systematic procedures used to observe, describe, predict, and explain behavior and mental processes. They include experiments, surveys, case studies, and naturalistic observations, ensuring data collection is objective and reliable to understand and explain psychological phenomena.

Hypotheses are statements about the prediction of the results, that can be verified or disproved by some investigation.

There are four types of hypotheses :

• Null Hypotheses (H0 ) – these predict that no difference will be found in the results between the conditions. Typically these are written ‘There will be no difference…’
• Alternative Hypotheses (Ha or H1) – these predict that there will be a significant difference in the results between the two conditions. This is also known as the experimental hypothesis.
• One-tailed (directional) hypotheses – these state the specific direction the researcher expects the results to move in, e.g. higher, lower, more, less. In a correlation study, the predicted direction of the correlation can be either positive or negative.
• Two-tailed (non-directional) hypotheses – these state that a difference will be found between the conditions of the independent variable but does not state the direction of a difference or relationship. Typically these are always written ‘There will be a difference ….’

All research has an alternative hypothesis (either a one-tailed or two-tailed) and a corresponding null hypothesis.

Once the research is conducted and results are found, psychologists must accept one hypothesis and reject the other. 

So, if a difference is found, the Psychologist would accept the alternative hypothesis and reject the null.  The opposite applies if no difference is found.

Sampling techniques

Sampling is the process of selecting a representative group from the population under study.

A sample is the participants you select from a target population (the group you are interested in) to make generalizations about.

Representative means the extent to which a sample mirrors a researcher’s target population and reflects its characteristics.

Generalisability means the extent to which their findings can be applied to the larger population of which their sample was a part.

• Volunteer sample : where participants pick themselves through newspaper adverts, noticeboards or online.
• Opportunity sampling : also known as convenience sampling , uses people who are available at the time the study is carried out and willing to take part. It is based on convenience.
• Random sampling : when every person in the target population has an equal chance of being selected. An example of random sampling would be picking names out of a hat.
• Systematic sampling : when a system is used to select participants. Picking every Nth person from all possible participants. N = the number of people in the research population / the number of people needed for the sample.
• Stratified sampling : when you identify the subgroups and select participants in proportion to their occurrences.
• Snowball sampling : when researchers find a few participants, and then ask them to find participants themselves and so on.
• Quota sampling : when researchers will be told to ensure the sample fits certain quotas, for example they might be told to find 90 participants, with 30 of them being unemployed.

Experiments always have an independent and dependent variable .

• The independent variable is the one the experimenter manipulates (the thing that changes between the conditions the participants are placed into). It is assumed to have a direct effect on the dependent variable.
• The dependent variable is the thing being measured, or the results of the experiment.

Operationalization of variables means making them measurable/quantifiable. We must use operationalization to ensure that variables are in a form that can be easily tested.

For instance, we can’t really measure ‘happiness’, but we can measure how many times a person smiles within a two-hour period. 

By operationalizing variables, we make it easy for someone else to replicate our research. Remember, this is important because we can check if our findings are reliable.

Extraneous variables are all variables which are not independent variable but could affect the results of the experiment.

It can be a natural characteristic of the participant, such as intelligence levels, gender, or age for example, or it could be a situational feature of the environment such as lighting or noise.

Demand characteristics are a type of extraneous variable that occurs if the participants work out the aims of the research study, they may begin to behave in a certain way.

For example, in Milgram’s research , critics argued that participants worked out that the shocks were not real and they administered them as they thought this was what was required of them. 

Extraneous variables must be controlled so that they do not affect (confound) the results.

Randomly allocating participants to their conditions or using a matched pairs experimental design can help to reduce participant variables. 

Situational variables are controlled by using standardized procedures, ensuring every participant in a given condition is treated in the same way

Experimental Design

Experimental design refers to how participants are allocated to each condition of the independent variable, such as a control or experimental group.

• Independent design ( between-groups design ): each participant is selected for only one group. With the independent design, the most common way of deciding which participants go into which group is by means of randomization. 
• Matched participants design : each participant is selected for only one group, but the participants in the two groups are matched for some relevant factor or factors (e.g. ability; sex; age).
• Repeated measures design ( within groups) : each participant appears in both groups, so that there are exactly the same participants in each group.
• The main problem with the repeated measures design is that there may well be order effects. Their experiences during the experiment may change the participants in various ways.
• They may perform better when they appear in the second group because they have gained useful information about the experiment or about the task. On the other hand, they may perform less well on the second occasion because of tiredness or boredom.
• Counterbalancing is the best way of preventing order effects from disrupting the findings of an experiment, and involves ensuring that each condition is equally likely to be used first and second by the participants.

If we wish to compare two groups with respect to a given independent variable, it is essential to make sure that the two groups do not differ in any other important way. 

Experimental Methods

All experimental methods involve an iv (independent variable) and dv (dependent variable)..

• Field experiments are conducted in the everyday (natural) environment of the participants. The experimenter still manipulates the IV, but in a real-life setting. It may be possible to control extraneous variables, though such control is more difficult than in a lab experiment.
• Natural experiments are when a naturally occurring IV is investigated that isn’t deliberately manipulated, it exists anyway. Participants are not randomly allocated, and the natural event may only occur rarely.

Case studies are in-depth investigations of a person, group, event, or community. It uses information from a range of sources, such as from the person concerned and also from their family and friends.

Many techniques may be used such as interviews, psychological tests, observations and experiments. Case studies are generally longitudinal: in other words, they follow the individual or group over an extended period of time. 

Case studies are widely used in psychology and among the best-known ones carried out were by Sigmund Freud . He conducted very detailed investigations into the private lives of his patients in an attempt to both understand and help them overcome their illnesses.

Case studies provide rich qualitative data and have high levels of ecological validity. However, it is difficult to generalize from individual cases as each one has unique characteristics.

Correlational Studies

Correlation means association; it is a measure of the extent to which two variables are related. One of the variables can be regarded as the predictor variable with the other one as the outcome variable.

Correlational studies typically involve obtaining two different measures from a group of participants, and then assessing the degree of association between the measures. 

The predictor variable can be seen as occurring before the outcome variable in some sense. It is called the predictor variable, because it forms the basis for predicting the value of the outcome variable.

Relationships between variables can be displayed on a graph or as a numerical score called a correlation coefficient.

• If an increase in one variable tends to be associated with an increase in the other, then this is known as a positive correlation .
• If an increase in one variable tends to be associated with a decrease in the other, then this is known as a negative correlation .
• A zero correlation occurs when there is no relationship between variables.

After looking at the scattergraph, if we want to be sure that a significant relationship does exist between the two variables, a statistical test of correlation can be conducted, such as Spearman’s rho.

The test will give us a score, called a correlation coefficient . This is a value between 0 and 1, and the closer to 1 the score is, the stronger the relationship between the variables. This value can be both positive e.g. 0.63, or negative -0.63.

A correlation between variables, however, does not automatically mean that the change in one variable is the cause of the change in the values of the other variable. A correlation only shows if there is a relationship between variables.

Correlation does not always prove causation, as a third variable may be involved. 

Interview Methods

Interviews are commonly divided into two types: structured and unstructured.

A fixed, predetermined set of questions is put to every participant in the same order and in the same way. 

Responses are recorded on a questionnaire, and the researcher presets the order and wording of questions, and sometimes the range of alternative answers.

The interviewer stays within their role and maintains social distance from the interviewee.

There are no set questions, and the participant can raise whatever topics he/she feels are relevant and ask them in their own way. Questions are posed about participants’ answers to the subject

Unstructured interviews are most useful in qualitative research to analyze attitudes and values.

Though they rarely provide a valid basis for generalization, their main advantage is that they enable the researcher to probe social actors’ subjective point of view. 

Questionnaire Method

Questionnaires can be thought of as a kind of written interview. They can be carried out face to face, by telephone, or post.

The choice of questions is important because of the need to avoid bias or ambiguity in the questions, ‘leading’ the respondent or causing offense.

• Open questions are designed to encourage a full, meaningful answer using the subject’s own knowledge and feelings. They provide insights into feelings, opinions, and understanding. Example: “How do you feel about that situation?”
• Closed questions can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no” or specific information, limiting the depth of response. They are useful for gathering specific facts or confirming details. Example: “Do you feel anxious in crowds?”

Its other practical advantages are that it is cheaper than face-to-face interviews and can be used to contact many respondents scattered over a wide area relatively quickly.

Observations

There are different types of observation methods :

• Covert observation is where the researcher doesn’t tell the participants they are being observed until after the study is complete. There could be ethical problems or deception and consent with this particular observation method.
• Overt observation is where a researcher tells the participants they are being observed and what they are being observed for.
• Controlled : behavior is observed under controlled laboratory conditions (e.g., Bandura’s Bobo doll study).
• Natural : Here, spontaneous behavior is recorded in a natural setting.
• Participant : Here, the observer has direct contact with the group of people they are observing. The researcher becomes a member of the group they are researching.  
• Non-participant (aka “fly on the wall): The researcher does not have direct contact with the people being observed. The observation of participants’ behavior is from a distance

Pilot Study

A pilot  study is a small scale preliminary study conducted in order to evaluate the feasibility of the key s teps in a future, full-scale project.

A pilot study is an initial run-through of the procedures to be used in an investigation; it involves selecting a few people and trying out the study on them. It is possible to save time, and in some cases, money, by identifying any flaws in the procedures designed by the researcher.

A pilot study can help the researcher spot any ambiguities (i.e. unusual things) or confusion in the information given to participants or problems with the task devised.

Sometimes the task is too hard, and the researcher may get a floor effect, because none of the participants can score at all or can complete the task – all performances are low.

The opposite effect is a ceiling effect, when the task is so easy that all achieve virtually full marks or top performances and are “hitting the ceiling”.

Research Design

In cross-sectional research , a researcher compares multiple segments of the population at the same time

Sometimes, we want to see how people change over time, as in studies of human development and lifespan. Longitudinal research is a research design in which data-gathering is administered repeatedly over an extended period of time.

In cohort studies , the participants must share a common factor or characteristic such as age, demographic, or occupation. A cohort study is a type of longitudinal study in which researchers monitor and observe a chosen population over an extended period.

Triangulation means using more than one research method to improve the study’s validity.

Reliability

Reliability is a measure of consistency, if a particular measurement is repeated and the same result is obtained then it is described as being reliable.

• Test-retest reliability :  assessing the same person on two different occasions which shows the extent to which the test produces the same answers.
• Inter-observer reliability : the extent to which there is an agreement between two or more observers.

Meta-Analysis

A meta-analysis is a systematic review that involves identifying an aim and then searching for research studies that have addressed similar aims/hypotheses.

This is done by looking through various databases, and then decisions are made about what studies are to be included/excluded.

Strengths: Increases the conclusions’ validity as they’re based on a wider range.

Weaknesses: Research designs in studies can vary, so they are not truly comparable.

Peer Review

A researcher submits an article to a journal. The choice of the journal may be determined by the journal’s audience or prestige.

The journal selects two or more appropriate experts (psychologists working in a similar field) to peer review the article without payment. The peer reviewers assess: the methods and designs used, originality of the findings, the validity of the original research findings and its content, structure and language.

Feedback from the reviewer determines whether the article is accepted. The article may be: Accepted as it is, accepted with revisions, sent back to the author to revise and re-submit or rejected without the possibility of submission.

The editor makes the final decision whether to accept or reject the research report based on the reviewers comments/ recommendations.

Peer review is important because it prevent faulty data from entering the public domain, it provides a way of checking the validity of findings and the quality of the methodology and is used to assess the research rating of university departments.

Peer reviews may be an ideal, whereas in practice there are lots of problems. For example, it slows publication down and may prevent unusual, new work being published. Some reviewers might use it as an opportunity to prevent competing researchers from publishing work.

Some people doubt whether peer review can really prevent the publication of fraudulent research.

The advent of the internet means that a lot of research and academic comment is being published without official peer reviews than before, though systems are evolving on the internet where everyone really has a chance to offer their opinions and police the quality of research.

Types of Data

• Quantitative data is numerical data e.g. reaction time or number of mistakes. It represents how much or how long, how many there are of something. A tally of behavioral categories and closed questions in a questionnaire collect quantitative data.
• Qualitative data is virtually any type of information that can be observed and recorded that is not numerical in nature and can be in the form of written or verbal communication. Open questions in questionnaires and accounts from observational studies collect qualitative data.
• Primary data is first-hand data collected for the purpose of the investigation.
• Secondary data is information that has been collected by someone other than the person who is conducting the research e.g. taken from journals, books or articles.

Validity means how well a piece of research actually measures what it sets out to, or how well it reflects the reality it claims to represent.

Validity is whether the observed effect is genuine and represents what is actually out there in the world.

• Concurrent validity is the extent to which a psychological measure relates to an existing similar measure and obtains close results. For example, a new intelligence test compared to an established test.
• Face validity : does the test measure what it’s supposed to measure ‘on the face of it’. This is done by ‘eyeballing’ the measuring or by passing it to an expert to check.
• Ecological validit y is the extent to which findings from a research study can be generalized to other settings / real life.
• Temporal validity is the extent to which findings from a research study can be generalized to other historical times.

Features of Science

• Paradigm – A set of shared assumptions and agreed methods within a scientific discipline.
• Paradigm shift – The result of the scientific revolution: a significant change in the dominant unifying theory within a scientific discipline.
• Objectivity – When all sources of personal bias are minimised so not to distort or influence the research process.
• Empirical method – Scientific approaches that are based on the gathering of evidence through direct observation and experience.
• Replicability – The extent to which scientific procedures and findings can be repeated by other researchers.
• Falsifiability – The principle that a theory cannot be considered scientific unless it admits the possibility of being proved untrue.

Statistical Testing

A significant result is one where there is a low probability that chance factors were responsible for any observed difference, correlation, or association in the variables tested.

If our test is significant, we can reject our null hypothesis and accept our alternative hypothesis.

If our test is not significant, we can accept our null hypothesis and reject our alternative hypothesis. A null hypothesis is a statement of no effect.

In Psychology, we use p < 0.05 (as it strikes a balance between making a type I and II error) but p < 0.01 is used in tests that could cause harm like introducing a new drug.

A type I error is when the null hypothesis is rejected when it should have been accepted (happens when a lenient significance level is used, an error of optimism).

A type II error is when the null hypothesis is accepted when it should have been rejected (happens when a stringent significance level is used, an error of pessimism).

Ethical Issues

• Informed consent is when participants are able to make an informed judgment about whether to take part. It causes them to guess the aims of the study and change their behavior.
• To deal with it, we can gain presumptive consent or ask them to formally indicate their agreement to participate but it may invalidate the purpose of the study and it is not guaranteed that the participants would understand.
• Deception should only be used when it is approved by an ethics committee, as it involves deliberately misleading or withholding information. Participants should be fully debriefed after the study but debriefing can’t turn the clock back.
• All participants should be informed at the beginning that they have the right to withdraw if they ever feel distressed or uncomfortable.
• It causes bias as the ones that stayed are obedient and some may not withdraw as they may have been given incentives or feel like they’re spoiling the study. Researchers can offer the right to withdraw data after participation.
• Participants should all have protection from harm . The researcher should avoid risks greater than those experienced in everyday life and they should stop the study if any harm is suspected. However, the harm may not be apparent at the time of the study.
• Confidentiality concerns the communication of personal information. The researchers should not record any names but use numbers or false names though it may not be possible as it is sometimes possible to work out who the researchers were.

DIRECTIONAL HYPOTHESIS

Prediction relating to the direction of experimental scores from one group will differ to another group.

Leave a Reply

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

Latest Posts

Stop Guessing: Here Are 3 Steps to Data-Driven Psychological Decisions

Getting Help with Grief: Understanding Therapy & How It Can Help

Exploring the Psychology of Risk and Reward

Understanding ADHD in Women: Symptoms, Treatment & Support

Meeting the Milestones: A Guide to Piaget's Child Developmental Stages

Counseling, Therapy, and Psychology: What Is The Difference?

The Psychology of Metaphysical Belief Systems

4 Key Considerations When Supporting a Loved One Through a Legal Battle for Justice 

Finding Balance: The Psychological Benefits of Staying Active

The Psychology of Winning: Case Studies and Analysis from the World of Sports

Transitioning to Digital Therapy: Navigating the Pros and Cons

From Loss to Liberation: The Psychological Journey Of Seniors Receiving All-On-4 Dental Implants

Popular psychology terms, medical model, hypermnesia, affirmation, brainwashing, backup reinforcer, message-learning approach, affiliative behavior, social pressure, behavioral modeling, approach motivation.

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

What is a Directional Hypothesis? (Definition & Examples)

Table of Contents

A directional hypothesis is a type of hypothesis that predicts the direction of the relationship between two variables. It states that there will be a specific and expected change in one variable based on the change in the other variable. This type of hypothesis is often used in experiments and research studies to make a clear prediction and guide the direction of the study. For example, “Increasing the amount of exercise will lead to a decrease in cholesterol levels” is a directional hypothesis as it predicts a specific direction of change in cholesterol levels based on the change in exercise. In contrast, a non-directional hypothesis would simply state that there is a relationship between exercise and cholesterol levels without specifying the direction of the relationship. Overall, a directional hypothesis helps researchers to make informed and focused conclusions about the relationship between variables.

A statistical hypothesis is an assumption about a . For example, we may assume that the mean height of a male in the U.S. is 70 inches.

The assumption about the height is the statistical hypothesis and the true mean height of a male in the U.S. is the population parameter .

To test whether a statistical hypothesis about a population parameter is true, we obtain a random sample from the population and perform a hypothesis test on the sample data.

Whenever we perform a hypothesis test, we always write down a null and alternative hypothesis:

• Null Hypothesis (H 0 ): The sample data occurs purely from chance.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H A ): The sample data is influenced by some non-random cause.

A hypothesis test can either contain a directional hypothesis or a non-directional hypothesis:

• Directional hypothesis: The alternative hypothesis contains the less than (“<“) or greater than (“>”) sign. This indicates that we’re testing whether or not there is a positive or negative effect.
• Non-directional hypothesis: The alternative hypothesis contains the not equal (“≠”) sign. This indicates that we’re testing whether or not there is some effect, without specifying the direction of the effect.

Note that directional hypothesis tests are also called “one-tailed” tests and non-directional hypothesis tests are also called “two-tailed” tests.

Check out the following examples to gain a better understanding of directional vs. non-directional hypothesis tests.

Example 1: Baseball Programs

A baseball coach believes a certain 4-week program will increase the mean hitting percentage of his players, which is currently 0.285.

To test this, he measures the hitting percentage of each of his players before and after participating in the program.

He then performs a hypothesis test using the following hypotheses:

• H 0 : μ = .285 (the program will have no effect on the mean hitting percentage)
• H A : μ > .285 (the program will cause mean hitting percentage to increase)

This is an example of a directional hypothesis because the alternative hypothesis contains the greater than “>” sign. The coach believes that the program will influence the mean hitting percentage of his players in a positive direction.

Example 2: Plant Growth

A biologist believes that a certain pesticide will cause plants to grow less during a one-month period than they normally do, which is currently 10 inches.

She then performs a hypothesis test using the following hypotheses:

• H 0 : μ = 10 inches (the pesticide will have no effect on the mean plant growth)
• H A : μ < 10 inches (the pesticide will cause mean plant growth to decrease)

This is also an example of a directional hypothesis because the alternative hypothesis contains the less than “<” sign. The biologist believes that the pesticide will influence the mean plant growth in a negative direction.

Example 3: Studying Technique

A professor believes that a certain studying technique will influence the mean score that her students receive on a certain exam, but she’s unsure if it will increase or decrease the mean score, which is currently 82.

To test this, she lets each student use the studying technique for one month leading up to the exam and then administers the same exam to each of the students.

• H 0 : μ = 82 (the studying technique will have no effect on the mean exam score)
• H A : μ ≠ 82 (the studying technique will cause the mean exam score to be different than 82)

This is an example of a non-directional hypothesis because the alternative hypothesis contains the not equal “≠” sign. The professor believes that the studying technique will influence the mean exam score, but doesn’t specify whether it will cause the mean score to increase or decrease.

Additional Resources

Related terms:.

• Directional Hypothesis
• What is a directional hypothesis?
• What are five examples of a null hypothesis?
• How to Perform Hypothesis Testing in Python (With Examples)
• How to Write Hypothesis Test Conclusions (With Examples)
• 4 Examples of Hypothesis Testing in Real Life?
• What is the definition of the Central Limit Theorem and can you provide some examples of its application?
• What is the definition of concomitant variable and what are some examples?
• What is the definition of omitted variable bias and what are some examples of it?
• What is Curvilinear Regression? (Definition & Examples)

• 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

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Culture
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business History
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Methodology
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Theory
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

7 The Predictive Processing Hypothesis

Jakob Hohwy Cognition & Philosophy Lab, Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

• Published: 09 October 2018
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Prediction may be a central concept for understanding perceptual and cognitive processing. Contemporary theoretical neuroscience formalizes the role of prediction in terms of probabilistic inference. Perception, action, attention, and learning may then be unified as aspects of predictive processing in the brain. This chapter first explains the sense in which predictive processing is inferential and representational. Then follows an exploration of how the predictive processing framework relates to a series of considerations in favor of enactive, embedded, embodied, and extended cognition (4E cognition). The initial impression may be that predictive processing is too representational and inferential to fit well to 4E cognition. But, in fact, predictive processing encompasses many phenomena prevalent in 4E approaches, while remaining both inferential and representational.

Introduction

A millennium ago the great polymath Ibn al Haytham (Alhazen) (ca. 1030; 1989) developed the view that “many visible properties are perceived by judgment and inference” (II.3.16). He knew that there are optical distortions and omissions of the image hitting the eye, which without inference would make perception as we know it impossible ( Lindberg 1976 ; Hatfield 2002 ). Al Haytham was aware it is counterintuitive to say perception depends on typically intellectual activities of judgment and inference and so remarks that “the shape and size of a body . . . and such like properties of visible objects are in most cases perceived extremely quickly, and because of this speed one is not aware of having perceived them by inference and judgment” (II.3.26).

Since al Haytham, many in optics, psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy have advocated the role of inference in perception, and have insisted too that this inference is somehow unconscious (for review, see Hatfield 2002 ). With characteristic clarity, Hermann von Helmholtz coined the phrase unconscious perceptual inference and said that the “psychical activities” leading to perception:

are in general not conscious, but rather unconscious. In their outcomes they are like inferences insofar as we from the observed effect on our senses arrive at an idea of the cause of this effect. This is so even though we always in fact only have direct access to the events at the nerves, that is, we sense the effects, never the external objects. ( Helmholtz 1867 , p. 430)

The starting point for this inferential view is the conviction that perception can be explained only if a particular, fundamental problem of perception is solved, namely, how the brain can construct our familiar perceptual experience on the basis only of the imperfect data delivered to the senses, and without ever having unfettered access to the true hidden causes of that input. This type of problem is also at the heart of massive scientific endeavors in contemporary artificial intelligence and machine learning.

Recently, the notion of unconscious perceptual inference has been embedded in a vast probabilistic theoretical framework covering cognitive science, theoretical neurobiology, and machine learning. The basic idea is that unconscious perceptual inference is a matter of Bayesian inference, such that the brain in some manner follows Bayes’s rule and thereby can overcome the problem of perception. The most comprehensive, ambitious, and fascinating of these probabilistic theories build on the notion of prediction error minimization (PEM) (this notion arose in machine learning research, with versions of it going back to 1950s; for recent philosophical overviews, see Clark 2013 ; Hohwy 2013 ).

Several aspects of unconscious perceptual inference are anathema to many versions of enactive, embedded, embodied, and extended (4E) cognition. If perception is a matter of Bayesian inference, then perception seems a very passive, intellectualist, neurocentric phenomenon of receiving sensory input and performing inferential operations on them in order to build internal representations. This process is divorced from action and active interaction with the environment; it appears insensitive to the situation in which the system is embedded; it leaves no foundational role for the body in cognitive and perceptual processes; and it makes perceptual processes a matter of what happens behind the sensory veil with no possibility of extension to mental states beyond the brain, let alone the body (4E cognition is now a vast and varied area of research; the types of approaches that stress anti-representational and anti-inferential elements are, for example, Varela et al. 1991 ; Clark 1997 ; Noë 2004; Gallagher 2005 ; Thompson 2007 ; Clark 2008 ; Hutto and Myin 2013 ).

The tension between perceptual inference and 4E cognition matters because both are influential attempts at explaining the same range of phenomena. Having noticed the initial tension between them, there are three main options: (1) perceptual inference and 4E cognition are incompatible as foundational accounts of perception and cognition, which means one must be false ( Anderson and Chemero 2013 ; Barrett 2015 ); this option appears unattractive because key aspects of both seem believable and important. The next two options are more discursive: (2) perceptual inference and 4E cognition should be considered compatible, but only because perceptual inference, rightly understood, is not a matter of neurocentric, representationalist inference but yields just the kinds of processes necessary for 4E cognition (Clark 2013 , 2015 , 2016 ). (3) Perceptual inference and 4E cognition should be considered compatible, but only because 4E cognition, rightly understood, is nothing but representation and inference ( Hohwy 2016b ). Options 2 and 3 deflate perceptual inference and 4E cognition, respectively, that is, they achieve reconciliation by recasting one of the sides of the debate in terms of the other.

This chapter aims to show that Option 3 is reasonable. Perceptual inference, in the shape of PEM, is tremendously resourceful and can therefore encompass phenomena highlighted in debates on 4E cognition. Reconciliation with somewhat deflated 4E notions is achieved without compromising PEM’s representationalist and inferentialist essence. This advances the debate about 4E cognition because, in the context of PEM, inference and representation are both shown to have several surprising aspects, such that, perhaps, 4E cognition need not abhor these notions altogether.

The chapter first explains PEM and lays out its specific notion of inference. Then action is subsumed under PEM’s inferential scheme, and the role of representation in perception and action is explained. Finally, select aspects of 4E cognition are incorporated into the PEM fold.

Predictive Processing and Inference

In many approaches to unconscious perceptual inference, the notion of inference is left unspecified; as Helmholtz says, our psychical activities are “like” inference. Here, the notion of inference captures the idea that the perceptual and cognitive systems need to draw conclusions about the true hidden causes of sensory input vicariously, working only from the incomplete information given in the sensory input.

On modern approaches, this is given shape in terms of Bayesian inference. This yields a concrete sense of “inference” where Bayes’s rule is used to update internal models of the causes of the input in the light of new evidence. A Bayesian system will arrive at new probabilistically optimal “conclusions” about the hidden causes by weighting its prior expectations about the causes against the likelihood that the current evidence was caused by those causes (there are useful textbook sources on machine learning such as Bishop 2007 ; philosophical reviews such as Rescorla 2015 ; see also recent treatments of hierarchical Bayes and volatility such as Payzan-LeNestour and Bossaerts 2011 ; Mathys et al. 2014 ).

Consider a series of sensory samples, for example, auditory inputs drawn from a sound source. The question for the perceiver is where the sound source is located (somewhere on a 180° space in front of the perceiver). Assume the samples are normally distributed and that the true source is 80°. Before any samples come in, the perceiver expects—predicts—samples to be distributed around 90°. The first sample comes in indicating 77°, and thereby suggests a prediction error of 13°. Which probabilistic inference should the perceiver make? Inferring that the source is at 77° would disregard prior knowledge and lead to a model overfitted to noise. Ignoring the prediction error would prevent perceptual learning altogether. So the right weight to assign to the prediction error in updating the prior belief of 90° ought to reflect an optimal, rational balance between the prior and the likelihood, and this is indeed what Bayes’s rule delivers. So probabilistic inference should be determined by Bayes’s rule. In other words, the learning rate in Bayesian inference is determined by how much is already known and how much is being learned by the current evidence, reflected in the likelihood. (In this toy example, I set aside the question how the perceiver knows not to add the weighted prediction error to 90°, moving toward 103° and away from 80°; notice that if the system does this, then prediction error will tend to grow over time).

The correct weights to give to the prior and the prediction error can be considered transparently through the variance of their probability distributions. The more the variance, the less the weight. A strong prior will have little variance and should be weighted highly, and a precise input, which fits well the expected values of the model in question, should be weighted highly. The inverse of the variance is called the precision , and it is a mathematically expedient convention to operate with precisions in discussions of inference: the learning rate in Bayesian inference therefore depends on the precisions of the priors and prediction errors. As will become apparent later, precisions are important to PEM and its ability to engage 4E-type issues.

So far, only one inferential step is described. For subsequent samples, Bayes’s rule should also be applied, but for the old inferred posterior as the new prior. Since there is an optimal mix of prior and likelihood, the model will converge on the true mean (80°) in the long run. Critically, in this process, the average prediction error is minimized over the long run. Even for quite noisy samples (imprecise distributions, or probability density functions), a Bayesian inference system will eventually settle on an expectation for the mean that keeps prediction error low. This can be turned around such that, subject to a number of assumptions about the shape of the probability distributions and the context in which they are considered, a system that minimizes prediction error in the long run will approximate Bayesian inference.

The heart of PEM is then the idea that a system need not explicitly know or calculate Bayes’s rule to approximate Bayesian inference. All the system needs is the ability to minimize prediction error in the long run. This is the sense in which unconscious perceptual inference is inference: internal models are refined through prediction error minimization such that Bayesian inference is approximated. The notion of inference is therefore nothing to do with propositional logic or deduction, nor with overly intellectual application of theorems of probability theory.

It would be misguided to withdraw the label “inference” from unconscious perceptual inference, or from PEM, just because it is an approximation to Bayes, or because the process is not an explicit application of a mathematical formalism by the brain. If the inferential aspect is not kept in focus, then it would appear to be a coincidence, or somehow an optional aspect of perceptual and cognitive processes that conform to what Bayes’s rule dictate. Put differently, anyone who subscribes to the notion of predictive processing must also accept the inferential aspect. If it is thrown out, then the “prediction error minimization” part becomes a meaningless, unconstrained notion.

PEM thus says that perceivers harbor internal models that give rise to precision-weighted predictions of what the sensory input should be, and that these predictions can be compared to the actual sensory input. The ensuing prediction error guides the updates of the internal model such that prediction error in the long run is minimized and Bayesian inference approximated.

However, this description of PEM is still too sparse. In any given situation, a PEM system will not know how much or how little to weight prediction error even if it can assess the precisions of the prior and of the current prediction error. In essence, a system that operates with only those precisions will be assuming the world is more simple and persistent than it really is. For example, different sensory modalities have different precisions in different contexts, and without prior knowledge of these precisions, the system can make no informed decisions about how to weight prediction error. For example, similarly sized prediction errors in the auditory and visual modalities should not be weighted the same, since the precisions of each should be expected to be different. Therefore a PEM system would need to have and shape expectations about the precisions as well as the means of probability distributions. The need for such expected precisions is also driven by the occurrence of multiple interacting causes of sensory input within and across sensory modalities. In the example of the location of the auditory source, variability in the sensory sampling might be due to a new cause interfering with the original sound source (e.g., a moving screen intermittently obscures the location of the sound). If the system does not have robust expectations for the precision of the sound source, then it will be unable to make the right inferences about the input (i.e., is it one cause with varying precisions or is it two interacting causes that gives rise to the nonlinear evolution in the auditory sensory input?).

A PEM system must model expectations of precisions, and this part of the PEM system itself needs to be Bayes-optimal. Models will harbor priors for precisions; they will predict precisions and generate precision prediction errors. Moreover, they will need to do this across all the hidden causes modeled such that their interactions can be taken into account. This calls for a hierarchical structure where the occurrence of various causes over many different time scales can impact on the predictions of the sensory input received at any given time. For example, the interaction of relatively slow time scale regularities (e.g., the trains driving past your house two or three times an hour) need to influence the predictions of faster time scale regularities (e.g., the words heard in a conversation in your lounge room), and vice versa.

A PEM system that operates in a complex environment, with levels of uncertainty that depend on the current state of the world and many interacting causes at many different time scales, will thus build up a vast internal model with many interacting, hierarchically ordered levels, which all pass messages to each other in an attempt to minimize average prediction error over the long term.

Consider finally what happens over time to the models harbored in the brain, on the basis of which predictions are made and prediction errors minimized. The parameters of these models will be shaped by the Bayesian inferential process to mirror the causes of the sensory input. In the example earlier, by minimizing prediction error over time for the location of the cause of auditory input, the model will revise its initial false belief that the location is at 90°, and come to expect it to be at its true position of 80°. Further, by minimizing precision prediction error, the model may be able to anticipate interacting causes, such as a moving screen intermittently blocking the sound. This means that, by approximating Bayesian inference, the models of a PEM system must represent its world.

Here, the notion of representation is not just a matter of receptor covariance, where the states of neural populations covary with the occurrence of certain environmental causes. The hierarchical model is highly structured, and performs operations over the parameters. For example, there will be model selection. In our example, the system might ask whether there is another cause interacting with the sound source, or if the signal itself is becoming noisier. In addition, there are convolutions of separate expected signals generated on the basis of the models; for example, when a cat and a fence are detected, the expected sensory signals from both hidden causes are convolved into one stream by the brain to take the occlusion of the cat by the fence into account. As will become clear, the representational aspects of PEM are critical when it comes to incorporating action, too.

The representational nature of a PEM system is not optional. The ability to minimize prediction error over time depends on building better and better representations of the causes of its sensory input. This is encapsulated in the very notion of model revision in Bayesian inference. (There is extensive discussion of what it takes for perception to be representational; for examples of relevance to Bayesian inference, see Ramsey 2007 ; Orlandi 2013 , 2014 ; Gładziejewski 2015; Ramsey 2015 .)

So far, it appears that predictive processing is inferential and representational in a specific Bayesian sense. Traditionally, 4E approaches have rejected both notions. Next, PEM will be shown to have explanatory reach into 4E cognition too.

PEM and Action

A representationalist and inferentialist account of cognition and perception may appear divorced from the concerns and activities of a real, embodied agent operating in its environment. Thus enactive and embodied accounts have de-emphasized classic representationalist understandings of cognition and perception and with it much semblance to inference (there are many versions and much discussion of embodiment; see, e.g., Brooks 1991 ; Noë 2004; Gallagher 2005 ; Alsmith and Vignemont 2012 ; Hutto and Myin 2013 ; Orlandi 2014 ).

Perhaps the basic sentiment could be summed up in the strong intuition that embodied action is not inference, and yet the body and its actions are crucial to gain any kind of understanding of perception and cognition. PEM can, however, easily cast action as a kind of inference—as active inference (Friston, Samothrakis, et al. 2012).

Recall that any system that minimizes prediction error over time will approximate Bayesian inference; that is, such a system will be inferential in the Bayesian sense that it increases the evidence for its internal model. Using the example from earlier again, by minimizing prediction error the system could accumulate evidence for the model that represents the sound source as located at 80°. In that case, the internal model is revised from the initial 90° to the new estimate of 80°.

It is trivial to observe that the perceiver could also have minimized prediction error by turning the head 10° to the left and thereby have accumulated evidence for the prediction that the sound source is located at 90°. Prediction error can be minimized both through passive updating of the internal model and through active changes to the sensory input. Action, such as turning one’s head, can therefore minimize prediction error. Since, as argued earlier, minimizing prediction error is inference, and action is inference. There is then no hindrance to incorporating action into an inferentialist framework.

In active inference, representations are central to guiding action. This is because action only occurs when a hypothesis—in this case a representation of a state that is yet to occur—has accumulated sufficient evidence relative to other hypotheses to become the target of PEM. This yields two aspects that are sometimes seen as hallmarks of representations: they are action-guiding and they are somehow detached from what they stand for (for discussion and review, see Orlandi 2014 ). Active inference therefore has a good claim to be both inferential and representational.

For perceptual inference, precisions were shown to be critical. Without precisions, the PEM system would not be able to minimize error in a world with state-dependent uncertainty and interacting causes. The same holds for active inference. Without any notion of how levels of prediction error tend to shift over many interacting time scales, the system would pick the action that minimizes most error here and now—for example, by entering and remaining in a dark room (for discussion, see Friston, Thornton, et al. 2012). This would be analogous to overfitting, and would come at the cost of increasing prediction error over the longer term. For example, even though the perceiver might minimize prediction error by forcing the sound to come at the 90° midline, this might make it difficult to ascertain the true source of a potentially moving cause such as the trajectory of a mosquito buzzing about (since direction detection is harder over the midline due to minimal interaural time difference). This calls for even more hierarchical model-building, namely, in terms of the precisions expected in the evolution of the prediction error landscape as a result of the agent’s active intervention in the world. These self-involving, modeled regularities are, however, not fundamentally different from the regularities involved in perceptual inference. They simply concern the sensory input the agent should expect to result from the interaction of one particular cause in the world—the agent itself—with all the other causes of sensory input (for discussion of self-models, see, e.g., Synofzik et al. 2008 ; Metzinger 2009 ).

There is thus room for a notion of action within PEM. But this possibility alone does not imply that a PEM system is likely to actually be an agent. If the system is endowed with a body such that it could act, then the imperative for minimization of prediction error will make actual action highly likely.

If the system has accumulated strong evidence for, say, an association between two sounds, it may still be unable to distinguish several hypotheses, for example, whether the sounds are related as cause and effect or if they are effects of some common cause. It is standard in the causal inference literature that intervention is required to acquire evidence for or against these hypotheses ( Pearl 2000 ; Woodward 2003 ). For example, if variation in one sound persists even if the other sound is actively switched off, then that is evidence the latter sound is not the cause of the first. The necessity of action is generalized in the observation from earlier that the system needs to learn differences in precisions and patterns of interactions among causes, such as occlusions and other causal relations that change the sensory input in nonlinear ways. Such learning thus requires action. The price of not engaging the body plant to intervene in the environment is that prediction error will tend to increase since predictions will be unable to distinguish between several different hypotheses. A PEM system that can act will therefore be best served to actually act.

This simple account of agency has profound consequences. It will be a learnable pattern in nature that inaction will tend to increase prediction error in the longer term (due to the inaccuracy of the hypotheses the system can accumulate evidence for by using only passive inference). Conversely, the system can learn that action tends to allow minimization of prediction error at reasonable time scales. Overall, this teaches the system that, on balance, its model will accumulate more precise evidence through action than through inaction. This will bias it to minimize prediction error through active inference. Of course, a system that only ever acts on the basis of unchanging models will never be able to learn new patterns, which is detrimental in a changing world. Therefore action must be interspersed with perceptual inference where models are updated, before new action takes place.

The mechanism by which this switching between perception and action takes place is best conceived in terms of precision optimization. Recall that the PEM system will build up expectations for precisions, which are crucial for dealing with state-dependent noise in a world with interacting causes. The role of expected precisions in inference is to optimally adjust weights for expected sensory input: input that is expected to be precise is favored in Bayesian inference whereas input that is expected to be imprecise is not favored. Mechanistically, this calls for a neuronal gating mechanism that inhibits or excites sensory inputs according to their expected precisions. This gating mechanism serves as a kind of probabilistic searchlight and thus plays the functional role of attention ( Feldman and Friston 2010 ; Brown et al. 2011 ; Hohwy 2012 , 2016a ).

As the system gates its sensory input according to where it expects the most precise sensory input will occur, across several time scales, it may switch between perception and action. For example, if more precision is expected by the agent having its hand at the position of the coffee cup rather than at the current position at the laptop, then it will begin gating the current sensory input, which suggests the hand is at the laptop. This in turn allows the coffee hypothesis to gain relative weight over the laptop hypothesis, and the prediction error generated by that hypothesis can easily by minimized by moving the hand. Since the gain is high on this prediction error, the new hypothesis quickly accumulates evidence for its truth, and the hand will find itself at the coffee cup (for more on the dynamics of action and perception in relation to temporal phenomenology, see Hohwy et al. 2015 ; for the formal background, see Friston, Trujillo-Barreto et al. 2008).

Embodied, Embedded, and Inferential and Representational

When all the elements described in the last section are combined, a wholly inferential conception of agency begins to take shape. If action and agency are moments of PEM, then desires are just beliefs (or priors) about states that happen to be future, with a focus on their anticipated levels of prediction error, and where reward is the absence of prediction error. This suggests a neat continuity with perceptual inference, which also relies on priors and the imperative to minimize prediction error.

The idea that action is driven by PEM relative to a model does raise a question about the content of the model relative to which error is minimized. This model is what defines what we would normally describe as the agent’s desires. In the wider PEM framework—which, as shall be described later, relies on notions of free energy minimization —the expected states that anchor active inference relate to set points in terms of the organism’s homeostasis. This immediately evokes an evolutionary perspective, where expected bodily states are central to behavior. Apart from the specific evolutionary aspects, this suggests an embodiment perspective, because all aspects of perception and cognition then have a foundation in bodily states, and movement and purposeful behavior have a foundation in the environment. This element of embodiment makes it more likely that contact can be made between probabilistic theories of perception and action and embodied cognition approaches (such as, e.g., Varela et al. 1991 ; Gallagher 2005 ; Thompson 2007 ; for recent treatments that relate to PEM, see Bruineberg and Rietveld 2014 ; Fazelpour and Thompson 2015 ).

However, even this foundational embodiment is conceived probabilistically in PEM. A set of expectations for bodily states (relating to homeostasis) is essentially a model. In probabilistic terms, this model gives the probability of finding the organism in some subset of the overall set of states it could be in. The model is specified in terms of internal states, as signaled in interoception, but is tied to the overall setting of the organism in a subset of environmental states. The expected states defined in interoceptive terms would, in real organisms traversing actual environments, be mirrored in the expected states described in environmental terms, or in terms of their sensory input or exteroception. For example, fish are most likely to find their sensory organs impinged upon from watery states and this is associated strongly with the homeostatic needs specified in their model. In general, within this probabilistic reading of the foundational embodiment of a PEM organism, there is thus a tight coupling between the interoceptive and exteroceptive prediction error landscapes for any PEM system.

Not only does PEM provide a notion of embodiment, it also speaks to elements of embedded or situated cognition (see van Gelder 1995 ; Clark 1997 ; Aydede and Robbins 2009 ). With the tight coupling of the organism’s expected states in terms of interoception and exteroception, perception and cognition cannot be separated from bodily or environmental aspects of the PEM system.

Crucially, this reading of embodiment and embedding leads directly to inferential processing and PEM. The model specifies the probability of finding the organism in any one of all the possible states. To know this model directly would require the agent averaging over all possible states and ascertaining the occurrence of itself in them. This is not possible for a finite organism to learn directly. Instead, the organism must essentially guess what its expected states are and minimize the ensuing error through perceptual and active inference. In slightly more formal terms, the organism needs to minimize surprise; that is, it needs to avoid finding itself in states that are surprising given its model. The sum of prediction error is always equal to or larger than the surprise, so minimizing prediction error will implicitly minimize surprise. This bound on surprise is also known in probabilistic terms as the free energy, and so this challenging idea is enshrined in the so-called free energy principle ( Friston 2010 ).

When viewed in this larger context of the free energy principle, promising notions of embodied and embedded cognition present themselves. More research is needed on the extent to which they capture facets of the wide-ranging and heterogeneous 4E body of research. However, for the conception of embodiment and embedding mooted here, an inferential conception is inescapable.

Hierarchical Inference for a Changing World

In much 4E research there is a focus on fluid interactions with the world, characterized by non-inferential, nonrepresentational, “quick and dirty” processing. This picture is set up to contrast with inferential, representational, “slow and clean” processing (Clark 1997 , 2013 , 2015 ). Often, this kind of quick and dirty, situated cognition is discussed in terms of affordances : salient elements of the environment that are in some sense perceived directly and are immediately action-guiding. Affordances in quick and dirty processing are thought to evade the computational bottleneck that a traditional representational system would have trying to passively encode the entire sensory input presented at any given time. For some types of action and at some stages of learning, performance is rather plodding and sluggish, but there is an important insight in how the notion of situated cognition highlights the fluid swiftness with which organisms can perform some complex actions in their environment.

In a PEM system there is no bottleneck problem in the first place, however. There is never an issue of starting from scratch and encoding an entire natural scene in order to be able to perceive it. Hierarchical Bayesian inference is based on prior learning, which over time has shaped priors at many levels. Given priors, the sensory input is no longer something that needs to be encoded here and now. Instead the sensory input is, functionally speaking, the feedback to the forward predictive signal generated by the brain’s internal model ( Friston 2005 ). The model predicts what will happen and gets confirmation or disconfirmation on these predictions from the sensory input. There is thus no encoding of the entire sensory input in each perceptual instance. This means the PEM system has no need to resort to quick and dirty processing tricks to overcome a computational bottleneck. Instead, the system relies on slow and clean learning in order to facilitate swift and fluid perception of and interaction with the world. This learning is “slow” because is relies on meticulous accumulation of evidence for hypotheses at multiple time scales. It is “clean” because the learning slots into a hierarchy with clearly defined, general functional roles for time scales, for predictions of values, and for predictions of precisions.

The difference between swift and fluid processing and plodding and sluggish processing can easily be accommodated within a PEM system. Affordances are just causes of sensory input that, on the basis of prior learning, are strongly expected to give rise to high precision prediction error. To maintain Bayes optimality, the system gates sensory input accordingly, and strongly focuses both perceptual and active inference on these affordances. In this setting, PEM happens quickly, since highly precise distributions are easier to deal with computationally than imprecise ones. This means that the agent in question will obtain its expected states swiftly and fluidly.

Typically, the 4E preference for quick and dirty processing and affordances comes with a rejection of rich representational states (Clark 2008 , 2015 ). The point is that such representations cannot come about due to the bottleneck problem. Moreover, the appeal to affordance-based quick and dirty processing is thought to obviate the need for rich internal representations altogether as the world’s affordances in some sense are its own representation ( Brooks 1991 ).

On the PEM-based account of swift and fluid processing, internal representations are, however, necessary. Over time, multilayered representations are constructed and shaped, and Bayesian model selection picks the model with the best evidence as the representation of the world relative to which prediction error is minimized in active inference (this kind of approach is developed in more detail for PEM in Seth 2014 , 2015 ). Again, we get the result that PEM has the resources to speak to typical 4E discussions, but that it happens on the basis of representation and inference.

It could be that the brain builds rich representations as it learns about the world, and then gradually substitutes these much sparser and representation-poor, purpose-made representations that more directly tie in with and engage the environment. One argument here derives from Occam’s razor, in the sense that there are simplicity gains from opting for a simple over a complex, rich model ( Clark 2015 ). However, simplicity is not something additional to inference. Complex models are to be avoided because they are overfitted and thereby incur a prediction error cost in the longer run. How rich or simple a model should be is thus fully given by PEM in the first place.

In fact, there is reason to think the PEM account is preferable to the affordance-based account. It is true that swift and fluid processing is a salient and impressive aspect of human cognition. But so is the flexible way we shift between contexts, projects, beliefs, and actions. We might engage in attentive, fluid, and swift interaction for a period of time, but other beliefs and concerns always creep in and make it imperative to shift to another behavior. On the affordance-based account, it is not readily explained how the agent might disengage from a given set of affordances; the focus is at best on how representation-rich learning is needed before swift and fluid processing is possible, rather than the role of rich representation during swift and fluid processing. The agent seems tightly knitted to its environment, and it is not clear how the agent can step back and reconsider its current course of action.

In contrast, flexible cognition is a central motivation for adopting PEM’s hierarchical Bayesian inference in the first place. Active inference is driven by the most probable hypothesis at any given time. The system will have built up expectations not just for what the most likely causes of sensory input might be but also for the typical evolution of prediction error precision. In particular, there will be accumulated evidence that any given hypothesis under which prediction error is minimized at a certain time will have a limited life span—in essence, the system will know that it lives in a changing world where precise evidence for any given hypothesis will soon begin to be hard to find. For example, as the agent fluidly and swiftly catches baseballs, it will know that the sun will soon set and make the visual input imprecise. It will therefore begin accumulating evidence for the next hypothesis (e.g., “I am eating dinner”) under which evidence will soon begin to be accumulated and prediction error minimized.

This speaks to a crucial balance, which a PEM system must obtain. As prediction error is minimized in active inference, the hypothesis relative to which error is minimized is held stable. This means that, as prediction error is minimized, the world can in fact change “behind the scenes” to such an extent that it would eventually be better to abandon the current hypothesis and adopt a new one. Anticipating such change in the environment matters greatly to the agent because it should never engage in any behavior, no matter how swift and fluid, for so long that when it ceases the behavior, the world has changed in other respects and predictive error will be very large. A PEM agent therefore will be inclined to believe that the current state of affairs will change, and therefore the agent will intersperse active inference with perceptual inference, where the internal model is checked and the size of the overall prediction error is adjusted and tightened up before a new hypothesis is selected for active inference (see Hohwy 2013 ; Hohwy et al. 2015 ).

A hierarchical system operating with slow and clean processing can thus economically explain both swift and fluid, affordance-based cognition as well as flexible cognition. This is an important point to make in the context of PEM’s affinity to 4E cognition. The motivation for PEM is, in the end, the simple observation that we live in a changing world. Our world presents many different causes of our sensory input, and these causes interact with each other to create nonlinearities in the input; moreover, these interactions happen concurrently at many different time scales (e.g., “The setting sun makes the balls hard to see, but this time of the year the janitor often turns on the floodlights at the far pitch”). This complexity is what creates the need for hierarchical Bayesian inference in the first place: a rich internal model that keeps track of all these contingencies and can mix the various causes in the right way to anticipate the sensory input. This has a 4E-type ring to it: the cognitive system is the way it is because the agent’s world and body are the way they are. In particular, PEM is not the best solution for non-ecological, lab-style model environments where typically context and interactions between hidden causes are kept to a minimum. In other words, a machine learning researcher who never tests their system against the real world will have little impetus to build a PEM system. On 4E approaches, there is also a strong focus on real-world settings, but the response is typically to tie the agent very closely to its environment. This, however, makes it harder to see how the real world, and also that fact that the real world is a changing place, can be taken into consideration. PEM, in contrast, makes room for the changing world by retracting farther away from the world, into a vast internal model that seeks to represent the full richness of the world and the way it changes over many time scales. On the PEM conception of the agent’s place in the world, cognition is not a matter of being closely in tune with and driven by the sensory input. Rather, cognition is a matter of having richly represented expectations for the world and the body and seeking confirming feedback on those expectations through the senses.

The Mind and Things Without It

Both perception and action are inferential and representational. The PEM system’s process of minimizing prediction error implies that the sensory input is explained away on the basis of the evolving hypotheses of an internal model. The more the system can minimize its prediction error, the more it will accumulate evidence for its own model. This is a trivial observation: if I can minimize prediction error for my theory that my hamster has escaped, the more evidence I have for that theory. If we consider the PEM system an agent, then it acquires evidence for its own existence through its activities ( Friston 2010 ). Borrowing a term from philosophy of science, the PEM system can thus be said to be self-evidencing ( Hempel 1965 ; Hohwy 2016b ).

A self-evidencing system creates a sensory boundary between itself (i.e., the model) and the causes of its sensory input. This again is a trivial consequence of self-evidencing: there is something that garners evidence and then there is what the evidence is evidence of. Or again, in both perceptual and active inference there is something doing the inference and something being inferred. This boundary can also be described in terms of causal nets, where a set of inner states (i.e., brain states) can be said to have a “Markov blanket” ( Pearl 1988 ) consisting of the inner states’ parents (i.e., the sensory states) and their children and other parents of the children (i.e., the active states driving active inference) ( Friston 2013 ; Hohwy 2015 , 2017 ; causal Bayes nets must be acyclic, but brains have recurrent (cyclic) states; there are technical ways, such as dynamical Bayes nets, to deal with such problems). The activity of the states within a Markov blanket is wholly determined by the states of the blanket. In principle, nothing about the environmental states beyond the blanket need be known to know what the system is doing. By extension, in principle, only the states of the sensory organs need be known to know everything the mind does.

PEM then comes with a principled way of drawing a boundary between the mind and the outside world. If a particular state is part of what is doing the inference, then it must be within the sensory boundary, as a part of what approximates inference about outside causes of sensory input. This may relate to the vigorous debate about extended cognition ( Clark and Chalmers 1998 ; Clark 2008 ), which is the last member of 4E cognition to discuss.

Extended cognition is the idea that some objects, such as notebooks and smartphones, play such an integrated, memory-like function in the mental economy of some agents that, by parity of reasoning, they should be considered part of the agent’s mental states even though they reside outside the central nervous system. There is much discussion of this idea (see, e.g., Menary 2007 ; Adams and Aizawa 2008 ; Anderson et al. 2012 ; Spaulding 2012 ). PEM brings with it a new way of thinking about the role of such external objects. On the one hand, these objects are inferred (e.g., on the basis of the sensory input from the notebook) and as such they are outside the mental states of the system. On the other hand, if the extended cognition hypothesis is correct, they are within the sensory boundary, forming part of the inner states behind a Markov blanket inferring the hidden causes beyond it.

Interpreting purported cases of extended cognition according to PEM thus leaves two main options. There might be contradiction, since something cannot be both within and beyond the same boundary at the same time. Or, there might be multiple coexisting sensory boundaries. The second option is very interesting and very likely to be true, since Markov blankets occur easily. There is an associated cost, however: we have identified the inner states (or the model) with the agent, and if there are multiple Markov blankets then there are multiple agents coexisting at the same time. Though this may be true in a weak sense of agent, it is explanatorily messy. When asking which agent is acting, there would then be a multitude of correct answers, depending on how many nested Markov blankets are involved in the same action. This speaks in favor of using inference to the best explanation to identify the agent whose relatively invariant involvement accounts for most of observed behavior over time. It seems likely this more pragmatically identified agent would be the agent as specified by the model harbored just in the nervous system. This is the agent relative to which prediction error is minimized over the longer time scale, which as we saw is central to understanding predictive processing accounts in the first place (for discussion, see Hohwy 2016b ). Bringing this discussion back to extended cognition, the pragmatic method of identifying the agent suggests that there is no extended cognition, since the special objects in question are beyond the one Markov blanket. The more lax way of identifying agents suggests that extended cognition ambiguous, since the special objects are beyond some blankets and within others.

The existence of the sensory boundary or Markov blanket implies that perception and agency are confined to the inner states of the PEM system (wherever the boundary or boundaries of the system are located). Those inner states will mirror the states outside the boundary: the inner states will, through PEM, come to represent the worldly causes of the sensory input impinging at the system’s periphery. Conversely, through active inference, the outside states will come to conform to the expectations harbored in the internal states.

There is then an intriguing duality to this sensory boundary between mind and world. On the one hand, the boundary is epistemic (cf. self-evidencing): the worldly causes can only be known vicariously, through inference on sensory input. On the other hand, the boundary is characterized in causal terms (cf. Markov blanket): there is a dynamic coupling between mind and world, enabled through both perception and action.

This duality summarizes well why PEM is a good fit for many of the issues in 4E debates: PEM is able to throw light on embodied agents dynamically interacting with the environment in which they are embedded. This good fit with 4E cognition is, however, made possible precisely because PEM is inferential and representational.

Adams, F. and Aizawa, K. ( 2008 ). The bounds of cognition . Oxford: Blackwell.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Alsmith, A.J.T. and Vignemont, F. ( 2012 ). Embodying the mind and representing the body.   Review of Philosophy and Psychology , 3(1), 1–13.

Anderson, M. and Chemero, A. ( 2013 ). The problem with brain GUTs: conflation of different senses of “prediction” threatens metaphysical disaster.   Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 36, 204–5.

Anderson, M.L. , Richardson, M.J. , and Chemero, A. ( 2012 ). Eroding the boundaries of cognition: implications of embodiment.   Topics in Cognitive Science , 4(4), 717–30.

Aydede, M. and Robbins, P. ( 2009 ). The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition . New York: Cambridge University Press

Barrett, L. ( 2015 ). A better kind of continuity.   The Southern Journal of Philosophy , 53, 28–49.

Bishop, C.M. ( 2007 ). Pattern recognition and machine learning . Dordrecht: Springer.

Brooks, R.A. ( 1991 ). Intelligence without representation.   Artificial Intelligence , 47(1–3), 139–59.

Brown, H. , Friston, K.J. , and Bestmann, S. ( 2011 ). Active inference, attention and motor preparation.   Frontiers in Psychology , 2, 218.

Bruineberg, J. and Rietveld, E. ( 2014 ). Self-organization, free energy minimization, and optimal grip on a field of affordances.   Frontiers in Human Neuroscience , 8, 599.

Clark, A. ( 1997 ). Being there. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Clark, A. ( 2008 ). Supersizing the mind: embodiment, action, and cognitive extension . New York: Oxford University Press.

Clark, A. ( 2013 ). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science.   Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 36(3), 181–204.

Clark, A. ( 2015 ). Radical predictive processing.   The Southern Journal of Philosophy , 53, 3–27.

Clark, A. ( 2016 ). Surfing uncertainty . New York: Oxford University Press.

Clark, A. and Chalmers, D. ( 1998 ). The extended mind.   Analysis 58(1), 7–19.

Fazelpour, S. and Thompson, E. ( 2015 ). The Kantian brain: brain dynamics from a neurophenomenological perspective.   Current Opinion in Neurobiology , 31, 223–9.

Feldman, H. and Friston, K. ( 2010 ). Attention, uncertainty and free-energy.   Frontiers in Human Neuroscience , 4, 215.

Friston, K. ( 2010 ). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory?   Nature Reviews Neuroscience , 11(2), 127–38.

Friston, K. ( 2013 ). Life as we know it.   Journal of The Royal Society Interface , 10, 20130475.

Friston, K. , Samothrakis, S. , and Montague, R. ( 2012 ). Active inference and agency: optimal control without cost functions.   Biological Cybernetics , 106(8), 523–41.

Friston, K. , Thornton, C. , and Clark, A. ( 2012 ). Free-energy minimization and the dark room problem.   Frontiers in Psychology , 3, 130.

Friston, K.J. ( 2005 ). A theory of cortical responses.   Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences , 369(1456), 815–36.

Friston, K.J. , Trujillo-Barreto, N. , and Daunizeau, J. ( 2008 ). DEM: a variational treatment of dynamic systems.   NeuroImage , 41(3), 849–85.

Gallagher, S. ( 2005 ). How the body shapes the mind . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gładziejewski, P. ( 2015 ). Predictive coding and representationalism.   Synthese , 193(2), 559–82.

Hatfield, G. ( 2002 ). Perception as unconscious inference. In: D. Heyer and R. Mausfeld (eds.), Perception and the physical world . Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 113–43.

Helmholtz, H.v. ( 1867 ). Handbuch der Physiologishen Optik . Leipzig: Leopold Voss.

Hempel, C.G. ( 1965 ). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science . New York: Free Press.

Hohwy, J. ( 2012 ). Attention and conscious perception in the hypothesis testing brain.   Frontiers in Psychology , 3, 96.

Hohwy, J. ( 2013 ). The predictive mind . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hohwy, J. ( 2015 ). The neural organ explains the mind. In: T. Metzinger and J.M. Windt (eds.), Open MIND . Frankfurt am Main: MIND Group, pp. 1–23.

Hohwy, J. ( 2016 a). Prediction, agency, and body ownership. In: A.K. Engel , K.J. Friston , and D. Kragic (eds.), The pragmatic turn: toward action-oriented view in cognitive science . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hohwy, J. ( 2016 b). The self-evidencing brain.   Noûs , 50(2), 259–85.

Hohwy, J. ( 2017 ). How to entrain your evil demon. In: T.K. Metzinger and W. Wiese (eds.), Philosophy and predictive processing . Frankfurt am Main: MIND Group. doi:10.15502/9783958573048

Hohwy, J. , Paton, B. , and Palmer, C. ( 2015 ). Distrusting the present.   Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences , 15(3), 315–35.

Hutto, D. and Myin, E. ( 2013 ). Radicalizing enactivism: basic minds without content . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lindberg, D.C. ( 1976 ). Theories of vision: from Al Kindi to Kepler . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mathys, C.D. , Lomakina, E.I. , Daunizeau, J. , Iglesias, S. , Brodersen, K.H. , Friston, K.J. et al. ( 2014 ). Uncertainty in perception and the hierarchical Gaussian filter.   Frontiers in Human Neuroscience , 8, 825.

Menary, R. ( 2007 ). Cognitive integration: mind and cognition unbounded . Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Metzinger, T. ( 2009 ). The ego tunnel . New York: Basic Books.

Noë, A. ( 2004 ). Action in perception . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Orlandi, N. ( 2013 ). Embedded seeing: vision in the natural world.   Noûs , 47(4), 727–47.

Orlandi, N. ( 2014 ). The innocent eye: why vision is not a cognitive process . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Payzan-LeNestour, E. and Bossaerts, P. ( 2011 ). Risk, unexpected uncertainty, and estimation uncertainty: Bayesian learning in unstable settings.   PLoS Comput Biol , 7(1), e1001048.

Pearl, J. ( 1988 ). Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference . San Fransisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

Pearl, J. ( 2000 ). Causality . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ramsey, W. ( 2007 ). Representation reconsidered . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ramsey, W. ( 2015 ). Must cognition be representational?   Synthese , 1–18.

Rescorla, M. ( 2015 ). Bayesian perceptual psychology. In: M. Matthen (ed.), The Oxford handbook of the philosophy of perception . Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 694–716.

Seth, A.K. ( 2014 ). A predictive processing theory of sensorimotor contingencies: explaining the puzzle of perceptual presence and its absence in synesthesia.   Cognitive Neuroscience , 5(2), 97–118.

Seth, A.K. ( 2015 ). The cybernetic Bayesian brain. In: T.K. Metzinger and J.M. Windt (eds.), Open MIND . Frankfurt am Main: MIND Group, pp. 1–24.

Spaulding, S. ( 2012 ). Overextended cognition.   Philosophical Psychology , 25(4), 469–90.

Synofzik, M. , Vosgerau, G. , and Newen, A. ( 2008 ). I move, therefore I am: a new theoretical framework to investigate agency and ownership.   Consciousness and Cognition , 17(2), 411–24.

Thompson, E. ( 2007 ). Mind in life: biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind . Harvard: Harvard University Press.

van Gelder, T. ( 1995 ). What might cognition be, if not computation?   Journal of Philosophy , 91, 345–81.

Varela, F. , Thompson, E. , and Rosch, E. ( 1991 ). The embodied mind . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Woodward, J. ( 2003 ). Making things happen . New York: Oxford University Press.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Operational Hypothesis

An Operational Hypothesis is a testable statement or prediction made in research that not only proposes a relationship between two or more variables but also clearly defines those variables in operational terms, meaning how they will be measured or manipulated within the study. It forms the basis of an experiment that seeks to prove or disprove the assumed relationship, thus helping to drive scientific research.

The Core Components of an Operational Hypothesis

Understanding an operational hypothesis involves identifying its key components and how they interact.

The Variables

An operational hypothesis must contain two or more variables — factors that can be manipulated, controlled, or measured in an experiment.

The Proposed Relationship

Beyond identifying the variables, an operational hypothesis specifies the type of relationship expected between them. This could be a correlation, a cause-and-effect relationship, or another type of association.

The Importance of Operationalizing Variables

Operationalizing variables — defining them in measurable terms — is a critical step in forming an operational hypothesis. This process ensures the variables are quantifiable, enhancing the reliability and validity of the research.

Constructing an Operational Hypothesis

Creating an operational hypothesis is a fundamental step in the scientific method and research process. It involves generating a precise, testable statement that predicts the outcome of a study based on the research question. An operational hypothesis must clearly identify and define the variables under study and describe the expected relationship between them. The process of creating an operational hypothesis involves several key steps:

Steps to Construct an Operational Hypothesis

• Define the Research Question : Start by clearly identifying the research question. This question should highlight the key aspect or phenomenon that the study aims to investigate.
• Identify the Variables : Next, identify the key variables in your study. Variables are elements that you will measure, control, or manipulate in your research. There are typically two types of variables in a hypothesis: the independent variable (the cause) and the dependent variable (the effect).
• Operationalize the Variables : Once you’ve identified the variables, you must operationalize them. This involves defining your variables in such a way that they can be easily measured, manipulated, or controlled during the experiment.
• Predict the Relationship : The final step involves predicting the relationship between the variables. This could be an increase, decrease, or any other type of correlation between the independent and dependent variables.

By following these steps, you will create an operational hypothesis that provides a clear direction for your research, ensuring that your study is grounded in a testable prediction.

Evaluating the Strength of an Operational Hypothesis

Not all operational hypotheses are created equal. The strength of an operational hypothesis can significantly influence the validity of a study. There are several key factors that contribute to the strength of an operational hypothesis:

• Clarity : A strong operational hypothesis is clear and unambiguous. It precisely defines all variables and the expected relationship between them.
• Testability : A key feature of an operational hypothesis is that it must be testable. That is, it should predict an outcome that can be observed and measured.
• Operationalization of Variables : The operationalization of variables contributes to the strength of an operational hypothesis. When variables are clearly defined in measurable terms, it enhances the reliability of the study.
• Alignment with Research : Finally, a strong operational hypothesis aligns closely with the research question and the overall goals of the study.

By carefully crafting and evaluating an operational hypothesis, researchers can ensure that their work provides valuable, valid, and actionable insights.

Examples of Operational Hypotheses

To illustrate the concept further, this section will provide examples of well-constructed operational hypotheses in various research fields.

The operational hypothesis is a fundamental component of scientific inquiry, guiding the research design and providing a clear framework for testing assumptions. By understanding how to construct and evaluate an operational hypothesis, we can ensure our research is both rigorous and meaningful.

Examples of Operational Hypothesis:

• In Education : An operational hypothesis in an educational study might be: “Students who receive tutoring (Independent Variable) will show a 20% improvement in standardized test scores (Dependent Variable) compared to students who did not receive tutoring.”
• In Psychology : In a psychological study, an operational hypothesis could be: “Individuals who meditate for 20 minutes each day (Independent Variable) will report a 15% decrease in self-reported stress levels (Dependent Variable) after eight weeks compared to those who do not meditate.”
• In Health Science : An operational hypothesis in a health science study might be: “Participants who drink eight glasses of water daily (Independent Variable) will show a 10% decrease in reported fatigue levels (Dependent Variable) after three weeks compared to those who drink four glasses of water daily.”
• In Environmental Science : In an environmental study, an operational hypothesis could be: “Cities that implement recycling programs (Independent Variable) will see a 25% reduction in landfill waste (Dependent Variable) after one year compared to cities without recycling programs.”

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

Non-Directional Hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis is a two-tailed hypothesis that does not predict the direction of the difference or relationship (e.g. girls and boys are different in terms of helpfulness).

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

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

Topic Videos

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

Exam Support

Example Answer for Question 14 Paper 2: AS Psychology, June 2017 (AQA)

Model answer for question 11 paper 2: as psychology, june 2016 (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.