Aims and hypotheses | AQA A-Level Psychology Revision

For 7182 specification, first teach in September 2025

AQA A-Level Psychology | Free Revision Notes

Estimated study time: 45 minutes

These Aims and hypotheses A-Level Psychology revision notes explain how psychologists turn a research question into a clear investigation. You will learn to distinguish a general aim from a precise, testable hypothesis and write directional and non-directional predictions. Strong hypotheses identify the variables being studied and explain exactly how they will be measured. This lesson prepares you for identifying and defining variables and planning a complete psychological study.

Learning Objectives 🎯

By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:

• Define a research aim.

• Define a research hypothesis.

• Distinguish an aim from a hypothesis.

• Write a clear aim for an experimental or correlational investigation.

• Write an operationalised directional hypothesis.

• Write an operationalised non-directional hypothesis.

• Select an appropriate type of hypothesis for a research scenario.

• Identify and improve unclear aims and hypotheses.

Revision Notes 📚

Aims and hypotheses A-Level Psychology revision overview

Psychological research normally begins with a question.

For example:

Does background music affect memory?

The researcher then turns this broad question into:

1. A research aim, stating what the study intends to investigate.

2. A hypothesis, predicting the expected outcome.

The distinction is:

Research aim	Research hypothesis
States the purpose of the investigation	Predicts the expected result
Usually broad	More precise
Does not have to state a direction	May be directional or non-directional
Identifies what will be investigated	Identifies the expected difference or relationship
Guides the design of the study	Can be tested using the collected data

A simple sequence is:

Research question → aim → variables and measurements → hypothesis → research procedure

Specification boundary

The AQA specification requires students to understand:

• How aims are stated.

• The difference between aims and hypotheses.

• Directional hypotheses.

• Non-directional hypotheses.

A hypothesis may concern:

• A difference between conditions or groups.

• A relationship between co-variables.

The form of the hypothesis depends on the research method being used.

Research aims

What is a research aim?

A research aim is a statement describing the purpose of an investigation.

It states what the researcher intends to study.

An aim might begin:

To investigate...

To examine...

To find out whether...

To compare...

A strong aim clearly identifies the variables or behaviour being investigated.

Example of a basic research aim

Research question:

Does sleep affect attention?

Suitable aim:

To investigate whether sleep duration affects performance on an attention task.

The aim identifies:

• Sleep duration.

• Attention performance.

• The intended investigation.

It does not yet predict exactly what the result will be.

Aims identify the focus of the investigation

A clear aim helps the researcher decide:

• Which method to use.

• Who should participate.

• Which variables need to be measured.

• What materials are required.

• Which data should be collected.

• What type of hypothesis is appropriate.

A vague aim can lead to a poorly focused investigation.

Broad and precise aims

An aim should be concise, but it must provide enough information to identify the investigation.

Vague aim:

To investigate memory.

This does not state:

• Which aspect of memory.

• Which possible influence.

• Which participants.

• What comparison will be made.

Improved aim:

To investigate whether learning words in silence or with instrumental music affects the number of words recalled by A-Level students.

The improved aim identifies:

• The conditions being compared.

• The outcome being measured.

• The participant group.

Aims and operationalisation

A research aim may be less detailed than a hypothesis, but important variables should still be clear.

For example:

To investigate whether stress affects performance.

Both variables are vague.

A clearer aim would be:

To investigate whether completing a timed task affects the number of problems participants solve correctly.

The researcher has replaced vague ideas with measurable features:

• Stress-related condition: completing a timed task.

• Performance: number of problems solved correctly.

The full process of creating measurable variables is covered in Variables and operationalisation.

Aims in experimental research

An experimental aim usually investigates whether an independent variable affects a dependent variable.

For example:

To investigate whether the presence of background speech affects the number of words participants recall from a list.

The variables are:

• Independent variable: background speech present or absent.

• Dependent variable: number of words recalled.

The defining features of this research method are reviewed in manipulating an independent variable and measuring an outcome.

Aims in correlational research

A correlational aim investigates whether two co-variables are related.

For example:

To investigate whether there is a relationship between the number of hours students sleep and their scores on an attention test.

The co-variables are:

• Hours of sleep.

• Attention-test score.

The aim should refer to a relationship, not an effect or difference between conditions.

Review the method through relationships between measured co-variables.

Aims in observational research

An observational aim states which behaviour will be recorded and in which context.

For example:

To investigate the frequency of cooperative behaviour shown by pupils during group work.

The aim identifies:

• The target behaviour.

• The participants.

• The context.

The researcher would still need to operationalise cooperative behaviour through clear behavioural categories.

Aims in questionnaire research

A questionnaire aim identifies the information the researcher wants participants to report.

For example:

To investigate A-Level students’ attitudes towards homework.

A more precise aim might be:

To investigate how useful A-Level students believe homework is for preparing for assessments.

The questions should then collect information directly relevant to this aim.

Aims in interview research

An interview aim may focus on detailed personal experiences.

For example:

To investigate students’ experiences of moving from GCSE to A-Level study.

This aim might be suitable for an unstructured interview because participants may have varied experiences requiring detailed explanation.

Aims in content analysis

A content-analysis aim identifies the communication and feature being examined.

For example:

To investigate how examination stress is represented in online articles aimed at students.

The researcher would then develop coding categories relevant to this purpose.

Aims in case studies

A case-study aim identifies the case and the aspect being investigated.

For example:

To investigate one student’s adjustment to returning to education after a five-year absence.

The researcher may use several techniques to address this aim.

Research hypotheses

What is a hypothesis?

A research hypothesis is a clear and testable prediction about the expected outcome of an investigation.

It predicts either:

• A difference between conditions or groups.

• A relationship between co-variables.

The researcher should be able to use the collected data to decide whether the prediction was supported.

A hypothesis must be testable

A hypothesis is testable when the variables can be measured using a defined procedure.

Untestable statement:

Music makes people psychologically better.

Problems include:

• “Psychologically better” is undefined.

• The type of music is unclear.

• No measurable outcome is identified.

• The statement does not specify a comparison.

Testable hypothesis:

Participants who listen to instrumental music while completing a 20-item mood questionnaire will receive higher mood scores than participants who complete it in silence.

The prediction identifies:

• The conditions.

• The measured outcome.

• The expected direction.

A hypothesis is not a question

A research question might ask:

Does sleep duration affect memory?

A hypothesis should make a prediction:

Participants who sleep for eight hours will recall more words than participants who sleep for four hours.

A hypothesis should not normally be written as:

Will participants who sleep for eight hours remember more?

This is still a question rather than a prediction.

A hypothesis is not the procedure

Procedure:

Participants will learn a list of 20 words and recall them after two minutes.

This explains what participants will do.

It does not predict the result.

Hypothesis:

Participants who learn the words in silence will recall more words from the 20-word list than participants who learn the words while instrumental music is played.

The hypothesis states the expected outcome.

Difference hypotheses

A difference hypothesis predicts that the results will differ between conditions or groups.

It is commonly used in experiments and quasi-experiments.

A suitable structure is:

There will be a difference in [operationalised dependent variable] between [condition or group 1] and [condition or group 2].

Directional version:

Participants in [condition 1] will obtain higher or lower scores than participants in [condition 2].

Relationship hypotheses

A relationship hypothesis predicts an association between two co-variables.

A suitable structure is:

There will be a relationship between [operationalised co-variable 1] and [operationalised co-variable 2].

Directional version:

There will be a positive or negative correlation between [co-variable 1] and [co-variable 2].

A correlational hypothesis should not refer to an independent or dependent variable because neither variable is manipulated.

Aims and hypotheses compared

The central distinction

An aim states what the researcher wants to investigate.

A hypothesis states what the researcher predicts will happen.

Consider this example.

Aim

To investigate whether the presence of a mobile phone affects concentration.

Hypothesis

Participants who complete a concentration task with a mobile phone visible on the desk will identify fewer targets correctly than participants who complete the task with the phone stored outside the room.

The aim identifies the topic.

The hypothesis predicts the result.

Direct comparison

Feature	Aim	Hypothesis
Main purpose	States what will be investigated	Predicts the outcome
Form	Statement of intention	Testable prediction
Direction required?	No	Directional or non-directional
Detail	May be relatively broad	Should be precise and operationalised
Use of results	Guides data collection	Tested against the findings
Example wording	“To investigate whether...”	“There will be...” or “Participants who...”

Worked comparison

Research topic:

Background noise and reading comprehension.

Aim:

To investigate whether background noise affects reading-comprehension scores.

Directional hypothesis:

Participants who read a passage in silence will answer more comprehension questions correctly than participants who read while recorded classroom noise is played.

Non-directional hypothesis:

There will be a difference in the number of comprehension questions answered correctly by participants who read in silence and participants who read while recorded classroom noise is played.

Directional hypotheses

What is a directional hypothesis?

A directional hypothesis predicts the specific direction of the result.

It states:

• Which condition will produce the higher or lower score.

• Which group will perform better or worse.

• Whether the correlation will be positive or negative.

It does more than predict that a difference or relationship will exist.

Directional experimental hypothesis

Example:

Participants who complete a memory task in silence will recall more words than participants who complete the task while background speech is played.

This is directional because it predicts:

• The silence condition will produce higher recall.

• The background-speech condition will produce lower recall.

Directional correlational hypothesis

Example:

There will be a positive correlation between the number of hours students spend revising psychology during a week and their percentage score on a psychology assessment.

This is directional because it predicts a positive relationship:

• As revision time increases, assessment scores tend to increase.

Directional negative-correlation hypothesis

There will be a negative correlation between the number of hours participants sleep and the number of errors they make on an attention test.

This predicts:

• As sleep duration increases, error scores tend to decrease.

Directional group-comparison hypothesis

A quasi-experiment might compare pre-existing groups.

Example:

Participants aged 18 to 25 will recall more words from a list of 30 than participants aged 65 to 75.

This is directional because it predicts which group will obtain the higher score.

Directional observational hypothesis

A researcher might compare observable behaviour across two situations.

Example:

Pupils working in groups of four will display more cooperative actions during a ten-minute task than pupils working individually.

This predicts the direction of the difference.

The researcher must define what counts as a cooperative action.

When is a directional hypothesis appropriate?

A directional hypothesis is appropriate when there is a justified reason to predict a particular result.

This reason might come from:

• An established psychological explanation.

• Previous research.

• A consistent pattern of earlier findings.

• A clearly reasoned prediction.

The hypothesis itself normally states the prediction rather than providing a lengthy justification.

Directional wording

Useful directional wording includes:

• Higher than.

• Lower than.

• More than.

• Fewer than.

• Faster than.

• Slower than.

• Greater than.

• Less than.

• Positive correlation.

• Negative correlation.

Directional wording for experiments

A useful structure is:

Participants who [condition 1] will score higher or lower on [operationalised DV] than participants who [condition 2].

Example:

Participants who receive praise after each correct answer will attempt more questions during a ten-minute task than participants who receive no praise.

Directional wording for correlations

A useful structure is:

There will be a positive or negative correlation between [co-variable 1] and [co-variable 2].

Example:

There will be a negative correlation between participants’ anxiety scores and the number of problems they solve correctly in five minutes.

“Affects” is not directional

Hypothesis:

Background music will affect memory.

This is not a clear directional hypothesis.

It does not state whether music will:

• Improve memory.

• Reduce memory.

• Have a different effect depending on the material.

Improved directional hypothesis:

Participants who learn a word list while background music is played will recall fewer words than participants who learn the list in silence.

Non-directional hypotheses

What is a non-directional hypothesis?

A non-directional hypothesis predicts that a difference or relationship will occur but does not predict its direction.

It states:

• That two conditions or groups will differ.

• That two co-variables will be related.

It does not state:

• Which condition will obtain the higher score.

• Whether the relationship will be positive or negative.

Non-directional experimental hypothesis

Example:

There will be a difference in the number of words recalled from a list of 20 between participants who learn the words in silence and participants who learn them while background speech is played.

This predicts a difference but does not state which condition will produce better recall.

Non-directional correlational hypothesis

Example:

There will be a correlation between the number of hours students spend revising psychology during a week and their percentage score on a psychology assessment.

This predicts a relationship but does not state whether it will be positive or negative.

Non-directional quasi-experimental hypothesis

Example:

There will be a difference in the number of words recalled from a list of 30 by participants aged 18 to 25 and participants aged 65 to 75.

The hypothesis predicts that the age groups will differ but does not predict which group will recall more.

When is a non-directional hypothesis appropriate?

A non-directional hypothesis may be appropriate when:

• Previous research is limited.

• Previous findings are inconsistent.

• There is no strong theoretical basis for predicting the direction.

• The researcher expects a difference but cannot justify which condition will score higher.

• The researcher expects a relationship but cannot justify whether it will be positive or negative.

Non-directional wording

Useful non-directional wording includes:

• There will be a difference.

• The groups will differ.

• There will be a relationship.

• There will be a correlation.

• Scores will differ between the conditions.

Avoid directional terms such as:

• More.

• Less.

• Higher.

• Lower.

• Positive.

• Negative.

“Different” is non-directional

Hypothesis:

Participants learning in silence will obtain different recall scores from participants learning with music.

This is non-directional because it does not state which condition will produce higher scores.

However, the wording can be improved:

There will be a difference in the number of words correctly recalled from a list of 20 between participants learning in silence and participants learning while instrumental music is played.

The improved version clearly identifies the DV and both conditions.

Directional and non-directional hypotheses compared

Feature	Directional hypothesis	Non-directional hypothesis
Predicts an outcome	Yes	Yes
Predicts a difference or relationship	Yes	Yes
States the exact direction	Yes	No
Experimental wording	Predicts which condition scores higher or lower	Predicts only that conditions differ
Correlational wording	Predicts positive or negative association	Predicts an association without its direction
Appropriate when	There is a justified directional expectation	Direction cannot be justified confidently

Experimental comparison

Directional:

Participants completing a problem-solving task under a five-minute time limit will solve fewer problems correctly than participants completing the task without a time limit.

Non-directional:

There will be a difference in the number of problems solved correctly by participants completing the task under a five-minute time limit and participants completing it without a time limit.

Correlational comparison

Directional:

There will be a positive correlation between hours of sleep and scores on a 20-item attention test.

Non-directional:

There will be a correlation between hours of sleep and scores on a 20-item attention test.

Operationalising hypotheses

Why operationalisation matters

A hypothesis should identify exactly how each variable will be manipulated or measured.

This allows the researcher to:

• Test the prediction.

• Collect relevant data.

• Repeat the study.

• Decide whether the result supports the hypothesis.

• Avoid different interpretations of vague terms.

Vague hypothesis

People who sleep more will concentrate better.

Problems include:

• “Sleep more” is not defined.

• “Concentrate better” is not measured.

• No exact conditions or scoring procedure are given.

• The participant group is unclear.

Operationalised experimental hypothesis

Participants who sleep for eight hours before testing will identify more target letters correctly during a five-minute attention task than participants who sleep for four hours.

This identifies:

• IV level 1: eight hours of sleep.

• IV level 2: four hours of sleep.

• DV: number of target letters correctly identified.

• Time period: five minutes.

• Predicted direction: eight-hour condition will score higher.

Operationalised correlational hypothesis

There will be a positive correlation between the number of hours participants report sleeping on the previous night and the number of target letters they identify correctly during a five-minute attention task.

This identifies:

• Co-variable 1: hours slept on the previous night.

• Co-variable 2: number of target letters identified correctly.

• Direction: positive.

Operationalisation and validity

A variable can be operationalised clearly without being measured validly.

For example:

Stress will be measured by the number of times a participant touches their face.

This is measurable, but face touching may also be influenced by:

• Habit.

• Itching.

• Tiredness.

• Environmental conditions.

Researchers must consider both:

• Whether the measure is clear.

• Whether it represents the intended concept.

Validity is explored fully in Validity.

Writing aims and hypotheses for experiments

Step 1: identify the independent variable

Ask:

What does the researcher manipulate?

Example:

• Instrumental music.

• Silence.

Step 2: identify the dependent variable

Ask:

What does the researcher measure?

Example:

• Number of words recalled correctly from a list of 20.

Step 3: write the aim

To investigate whether learning words in silence or with instrumental music affects the number of words recalled correctly.

Step 4: choose directional or non-directional

Directional:

Participants learning the words in silence will recall more words correctly than participants learning them while instrumental music is played.

Non-directional:

There will be a difference in the number of words recalled correctly by participants learning the words in silence and participants learning them while instrumental music is played.

Step 5: check operationalisation

The hypothesis should make clear:

• What differs between the conditions.

• What is measured.

• Which score is compared.

The exact allocation of participants to conditions is considered through Experimental designs.

Writing aims and hypotheses for correlations

Step 1: identify both co-variables

Example:

• Weekly revision time.

• Psychology-assessment score.

Step 2: operationalise each co-variable

• Revision time: number of hours recorded during the previous seven days.

• Assessment performance: percentage score on the next psychology assessment.

Step 3: write the aim

To investigate whether there is a relationship between students’ psychology revision time during the previous seven days and their percentage score on a psychology assessment.

Step 4: choose directional or non-directional

Directional:

There will be a positive correlation between the number of hours students spend revising psychology during the previous seven days and their percentage score on the psychology assessment.

Non-directional:

There will be a correlation between the number of hours students spend revising psychology during the previous seven days and their percentage score on the psychology assessment.

Step 5: check terminology

Use:

• Relationship.

• Correlation.

• Co-variables.

Do not use:

• Independent variable.

• Dependent variable.

• Experimental condition.

• Caused.

Writing aims and hypotheses for group comparisons

Pre-existing groups

Suppose a psychologist compares:

• Students who regularly use a revision timetable.

• Students who do not regularly use a revision timetable.

Aim:

To investigate whether psychology-assessment scores differ between students who report using a revision timetable on at least five days each week and students who report not using one.

Directional hypothesis:

Students who report using a revision timetable on at least five days each week will obtain higher percentage scores on a psychology assessment than students who report not using a revision timetable.

Non-directional hypothesis:

There will be a difference in psychology-assessment percentage scores between students who report using a revision timetable on at least five days each week and students who report not using one.

Because the groups already exist, the investigation may be quasi-experimental rather than a true experiment.

Selecting a directional or non-directional hypothesis

Ask whether the direction can be justified

Before choosing, ask:

Is there a sound reason to predict exactly which result will occur?

If yes, a directional hypothesis may be suitable.

If no, a non-directional hypothesis may be more appropriate.

Scenario with a directional basis

A researcher has a well-supported reason to expect that background speech will reduce word recall.

Suitable hypothesis:

Participants learning a word list while background speech is played will recall fewer words than participants learning the list in silence.

Scenario without a clear directional basis

A researcher investigates a newly designed classroom environment, but previous findings provide no clear indication of whether it will improve or reduce concentration.

Suitable hypothesis:

There will be a difference in concentration scores between pupils working in the newly designed classroom and pupils working in the standard classroom.

Conflicting previous evidence

Where previous findings suggest different possible directions, a non-directional hypothesis may be suitable.

The researcher predicts an effect but does not claim to know which result will occur.

Curiosity alone is not enough

A directional hypothesis should not be chosen simply because:

• It sounds more precise.

• The researcher prefers one outcome.

• One result would be more interesting.

• The researcher personally believes it.

The prediction should be scientifically justified.

Worked examples

Example 1: laboratory experiment

Scenario:

A psychologist investigates whether phone notifications affect proofreading. Participants complete the same passage either with notifications appearing on a screen or without notifications. The DV is the number of errors identified correctly.

Aim:

To investigate whether the presence of phone notifications affects the number of proofreading errors participants identify correctly.

Directional hypothesis:

Participants who complete the proofreading task without phone notifications will identify more errors correctly than participants who complete it while phone notifications appear.

Non-directional hypothesis:

There will be a difference in the number of proofreading errors identified correctly by participants completing the task with and without phone notifications.

Example 2: field experiment

Scenario:

A researcher places either a short or detailed message beside recycling bins and records the percentage of items placed in the correct bin.

Aim:

To investigate whether the wording of a recycling message affects the percentage of items placed in the correct bin.

Directional hypothesis:

A greater percentage of items will be placed in the correct bin when the detailed recycling message is displayed than when the short message is displayed.

Non-directional hypothesis:

There will be a difference in the percentage of items placed in the correct bin when the detailed and short recycling messages are displayed.

Example 3: natural experiment

Scenario:

A school changes its starting time from 8.30 am to 9.15 am. A psychologist records pupils’ scores on a 20-item attention task before and after the change.

Aim:

To investigate whether a change from an 8.30 am to a 9.15 am school start is associated with pupils’ attention-test scores.

Directional hypothesis:

Pupils will obtain higher scores on the 20-item attention test after the school start changes to 9.15 am than they obtained when school started at 8.30 am.

Non-directional hypothesis:

There will be a difference in pupils’ 20-item attention-test scores before and after the school start changes from 8.30 am to 9.15 am.

Example 4: quasi-experiment

Scenario:

A psychologist compares younger and older adults on the number of words recalled from a list of 30.

Aim:

To investigate whether the number of words recalled differs between adults aged 18 to 25 and adults aged 65 to 75.

Directional hypothesis:

Adults aged 18 to 25 will recall more words from the list of 30 than adults aged 65 to 75.

Non-directional hypothesis:

There will be a difference in the number of words recalled from the list of 30 by adults aged 18 to 25 and adults aged 65 to 75.

Example 5: correlation

Scenario:

A researcher records each participant’s average daily social-media use and score on a loneliness questionnaire.

Aim:

To investigate whether there is a relationship between average daily social-media use and loneliness-questionnaire scores.

Directional hypothesis:

There will be a positive correlation between participants’ average daily social-media use in minutes and their loneliness-questionnaire scores.

Non-directional hypothesis:

There will be a correlation between participants’ average daily social-media use in minutes and their loneliness-questionnaire scores.

Example 6: observation

Scenario:

A researcher compares the number of cooperative actions displayed during competitive and cooperative classroom tasks.

Aim:

To investigate whether the type of classroom task is associated with the number of cooperative actions displayed by pupils.

Directional hypothesis:

Pupils completing the cooperative task will display more cooperative actions during the ten-minute observation than pupils completing the competitive task.

Non-directional hypothesis:

There will be a difference in the number of cooperative actions displayed during the ten-minute competitive and cooperative classroom tasks.

Improving weak aims

Weak aim 1

To study students.

Problem:

• The behaviour or characteristic is not identified.

Improved aim:

To investigate the relationship between students’ weekly revision time and their psychology-assessment scores.

Weak aim 2

To investigate whether music is good.

Problems:

• “Good” is subjective.

• The outcome is not stated.

• The type of music is unclear.

Improved aim:

To investigate whether instrumental background music affects the number of words recalled from a list of 20.

Weak aim 3

To prove that sleep improves concentration.

Problems:

• The wording assumes the conclusion.

• Research should test rather than begin by claiming proof.

• Sleep and concentration are not operationalised.

Improved aim:

To investigate whether participants’ sleep duration is related to their score on a five-minute attention task.

Weak aim 4

To investigate the effect of revision.

Problems:

• The outcome is missing.

• Revision is not defined.

Improved aim:

To investigate whether completing practice questions affects students’ scores on a 20-item psychology test.

Improving weak hypotheses

Weak hypothesis 1

Music affects memory.

Problems:

• It does not state a direction.

• The type of music is unclear.

• Memory is not measured.

• No comparison is identified.

Improved directional hypothesis:

Participants learning a list of 20 words in silence will recall more words correctly than participants learning the list while instrumental music is played.

Weak hypothesis 2

There will be a significant result.

Problems:

• The variables are missing.

• The expected outcome is not identified.

• The statement cannot guide the investigation.

Improved non-directional hypothesis:

There will be a difference in the number of words recalled correctly by participants learning in silence and participants learning with instrumental music.

Weak hypothesis 3

The more sleep, the better.

Problems:

• Neither variable is defined.

• “Better” has no measurable meaning.

• The research method is unclear.

Improved directional correlational hypothesis:

There will be a positive correlation between the number of hours participants sleep on the night before testing and their scores on a 20-item attention test.

Weak hypothesis 4

Students who revise will do better because revision helps memory.

Problems:

• “Revise” is not operationalised.

• “Do better” is unclear.

• The final phrase is an explanation rather than part of the prediction.

Improved directional hypothesis:

Students who complete 30 minutes of psychology practice questions will answer more items correctly on a 20-item test than students who spend 30 minutes rereading their notes.

Weak hypothesis 5

There will be a difference between the groups.

Problems:

• The groups are not named.

• The measured outcome is missing.

• The statement cannot be tested without extra information.

Improved non-directional hypothesis:

There will be a difference in the number of target letters identified correctly by participants completing the attention task with and without background speech.

A checklist for writing a research aim

Before finalising an aim, check:

Does it state the purpose?

The reader should understand what the researcher intends to investigate.

Does it identify the variables or behaviour?

Avoid broad phrases such as:

• Learning.

• Memory.

• Stress.

• Performance.

State which aspect is being investigated.

Does it suit the method?

• Experiment: effect or difference.

• Correlation: relationship.

• Observation: behaviour and context.

• Content analysis: material and content.

• Case study: case and focus.

Is it neutral?

An aim should not assume that the expected result is true.

Is it concise?

Include necessary information without describing the entire procedure.

A checklist for writing a hypothesis

Is it a statement rather than a question?

Write a prediction.

Does it identify the variables?

Include:

• IV and DV for an experiment.

• Both co-variables for a correlation.

• Groups and measured outcome for a group comparison.

Are the variables operationalised?

State how they are manipulated or measured.

Is the predicted outcome clear?

For a directional hypothesis, identify:

• Higher or lower.

• More or fewer.

• Positive or negative.

For a non-directional hypothesis, state:

• A difference.

• A relationship.

Does it match the research method?

Do not write:

There will be a difference...

for a study analysing a correlation between paired scores.

Do not write:

There will be a correlation...

for an experiment comparing conditions.

Can the prediction be tested using the proposed data?

The DV or co-variables must produce data capable of supporting or failing to support the prediction.

Aims, hypotheses and scientific research

Hypothesis testing

A hypothesis allows psychologists to compare:

• What was predicted.

• What was observed.

The researcher collects empirical data and examines whether the findings support the prediction.

A hypothesis is not accepted simply because it appears reasonable.

It must be tested using evidence.

Falsifiability

A useful scientific hypothesis must be capable of being shown to be unsupported by evidence.

For example:

Participants learning in silence will recall more words than participants learning with background music.

This could be unsupported if:

• The music group recalls more.

• The groups obtain equal scores.

• No clear difference is found.

A claim designed so that every possible result supports it would not provide an effective scientific test.

These principles are developed in objectivity, empirical evidence, replicability and falsifiability.

A hypothesis is not proven permanently

One investigation may support a hypothesis.

However, the result may depend on:

• The sample.

• The method.

• The operational definitions.

• The setting.

• The materials.

• Measurement reliability and validity.

Further research may:

• Replicate the result.

• Challenge it.

• Identify conditions under which it applies.

• Suggest a more accurate hypothesis.

Relationship with theory

A psychological theory can produce a prediction.

The general sequence is:

Theory → research question → aim → hypothesis → investigation → findings → evaluation of the theory

The hypothesis connects a broad explanation with measurable evidence.

Applying aims and hypotheses to exam scenarios

Identify the method first

Before writing a hypothesis, determine whether the scenario describes:

• An experiment.

• A correlation.

• A quasi-experiment.

• An observation.

• Another method.

This prevents incorrect terminology.

Extract the variables

Underline or identify:

• The conditions.

• The measured outcome.

• The co-variables.

• The participant groups.

• The behavioural categories.

Use the exact scenario details

Suppose the scenario states:

• Participants learn 15 words.

• One condition uses instrumental music.

• One uses silence.

• Recall is tested after one minute.

A strong hypothesis should use these details.

Directional hypothesis:

Participants who learn the 15 words in silence will recall more words correctly after one minute than participants who learn them while instrumental music is played.

Generic hypothesis:

Music will reduce memory.

The first answer is more precise and clearly operationalised.

Do not add unsupported details

Use the information provided in the scenario.

Do not invent:

• A different participant group.

• An additional condition.

• A new measurement scale.

• A different time period.

Where the question asks you to design missing details, ensure they are practical and measurable.

Match the command word

State or write

Provide the aim or hypothesis directly.

Explain

Show why the statement is directional, non-directional or appropriate.

Distinguish

Explain both terms and give their defining difference.

Suggest

Provide an appropriate answer grounded in the scenario.

Writing an effective aim

Scenario:

A researcher investigates whether pupils complete more questions when praised after correct answers.

Effective aim:

To investigate whether receiving praise after each correct answer affects the number of questions pupils attempt during a ten-minute task.

This aim:

• States the purpose.

• Identifies the IV.

• Identifies the DV.

• Uses measurable wording.

• Remains neutral about the result.

Writing an effective directional hypothesis

Pupils who receive praise after each correct answer will attempt more questions during the ten-minute task than pupils who receive no praise.

This hypothesis:

• Identifies both conditions.

• Identifies the measured outcome.

• Predicts the direction.

• Can be tested using the collected data.

Writing an effective non-directional hypothesis

There will be a difference in the number of questions attempted during the ten-minute task by pupils who receive praise after each correct answer and pupils who receive no praise.

This hypothesis:

• Identifies both conditions.

• Identifies the measured outcome.

• Predicts a difference.

• Does not predict which condition will produce the higher score.

Overall summary

A research aim:

• States what the investigation intends to study.

• Identifies the main variables or behaviour.

• Guides the research design.

• Does not need to predict the outcome.

A research hypothesis:

• Makes a testable prediction.

• Identifies a difference or relationship.

• Should operationalise the relevant variables.

• Can be compared with the collected evidence.

A directional hypothesis:

• Predicts the exact direction.

• States which condition or group will score higher or lower.

• Predicts a positive or negative correlation.

A non-directional hypothesis:

• Predicts that a difference or relationship will occur.

• Does not state the direction.

The strongest aims and hypotheses are:

• Clear.

• Concise.

• Relevant to the research method.

• Neutral where appropriate.

• Operationalised.

• Testable using the proposed data.

Key Words 🔑

Key word	Student-friendly definition	How it may be used in an exam
Research aim	A statement describing what an investigation intends to study.	Write the purpose of a proposed investigation.
Research hypothesis	A clear and testable prediction about the expected result.	Predict a difference or relationship.
Directional hypothesis	A hypothesis that states the specific direction of the predicted result.	Predict which condition scores higher or whether a correlation is positive or negative.
Non-directional hypothesis	A hypothesis predicting a difference or relationship without stating its direction.	Predict an outcome where the direction cannot be justified.
Independent variable	The variable manipulated by the researcher in an experiment.	Identify the conditions that should appear in an experimental hypothesis.
Dependent variable	The outcome measured in an experiment.	State the measurable score predicted to differ.
Co-variable	One of the two measured variables in a correlation.	Write a correlational aim or hypothesis.
Operationalisation	Defining a variable in a specific and measurable way.	Improve vague aims and hypotheses.
Difference hypothesis	A prediction that conditions or groups will produce different results.	Write a hypothesis for an experiment or group comparison.
Relationship hypothesis	A prediction that two co-variables will be associated.	Write a hypothesis for a correlation.
Positive correlation	A relationship in which the co-variables tend to change in the same direction.	Write a directional correlational hypothesis.
Negative correlation	A relationship in which one co-variable tends to increase as the other decreases.	Write a directional correlational hypothesis.
Condition	One level of an independent variable.	Identify the groups being compared in an experiment.
Participant group	A group of people with a particular characteristic or experience.	Identify groups in a quasi-experimental hypothesis.
Testable	Capable of being investigated using measurable evidence.	Explain a defining feature of a scientific hypothesis.
Prediction	A statement of the result the researcher expects.	Distinguish a hypothesis from an aim.
Empirical evidence	Information obtained through observation or measurement.	Explain how a hypothesis is tested.
Falsifiability	The possibility that evidence could show a prediction to be unsupported.	Explain why hypotheses are part of scientific research.
Theory	An organised explanation from which predictions may be developed.	Link psychological explanations with hypothesis testing.
Validity	The extent to which a measure represents what it claims to measure.	Evaluate an operational definition.
Reliability	The consistency of a measurement or procedure.	Consider whether testing the hypothesis would produce stable evidence.

Common Mistakes ⚠️

Mistake: Writing an aim as though it were a prediction.

Why this is incorrect:An aim states what will be investigated, while a hypothesis predicts the expected outcome.

How to improve:Begin the aim with wording such as “To investigate whether...” and reserve the predicted result for the hypothesis.

Mistake: Writing a hypothesis as a question.

Why this is incorrect:A hypothesis is a testable statement, not a question.

How to improve:Write “There will be...” or state which condition is expected to produce the higher score.

Mistake: Writing a directional hypothesis that only says one variable will affect another.

Why this is incorrect:“Affect” does not state whether the result will increase or decrease.

How to improve:Use clear directional terms such as higher, lower, more or fewer.

Mistake: Describing a non-directional hypothesis as having no prediction.

Why this is incorrect:It predicts that a difference or relationship will occur, but does not predict its direction.

How to improve:State “There will be a difference...” or “There will be a correlation...”

Mistake: Failing to operationalise the dependent variable.

Why this is incorrect:Terms such as “memory”, “attention” or “performance” do not state how the outcome will be measured.

How to improve:Identify the precise score, frequency, time or rating that will be recorded.

Mistake: Failing to operationalise the independent variable.

Why this is incorrect:Terms such as “music” or “stress” may refer to many different procedures.

How to improve:State the exact conditions being compared.

Mistake: Using IV and DV terminology in a correlational hypothesis.

Why this is incorrect:Neither variable is manipulated in a correlation.

How to improve:Refer to the two co-variables and predict a relationship between them.

Mistake: Predicting a difference in a correlational study.

Why this is incorrect:Correlations analyse relationships between paired measurements rather than differences between conditions.

How to improve:Use “There will be a positive, negative or unspecified correlation between...”

Mistake: Predicting a correlation in an experiment.

Why this is incorrect:An experiment compares results across manipulated conditions.

How to improve:Predict a difference between the conditions in the operationalised DV.

Mistake: Naming only one experimental condition.

Why this is incorrect:The reader cannot identify the comparison being predicted.

How to improve:Include both levels of the IV.

Mistake: Writing “There will be a significant result.”

Why this is incorrect:The variables and expected outcome are not identified.

How to improve:State the precise difference or relationship being predicted.

Mistake: Adding an explanation to the hypothesis.

Why this is often unnecessary:A hypothesis should be a concise prediction rather than a paragraph explaining why the result is expected.

How to improve:State the prediction clearly and provide theoretical justification separately when asked.

Mistake: Writing a directional hypothesis without a justified direction.

Why this is incorrect:The direction should be based on theory, evidence or a clear reason rather than personal preference.

How to improve:Use a non-directional hypothesis when the direction cannot be justified.

Mistake: Writing an aim that claims the research will prove something.

Why this is incorrect:Research tests an idea and may produce findings that do not support the expected outcome.

How to improve:Use neutral wording such as “investigate” or “examine”.

Mistake: Including irrelevant procedural details.

Why this is incorrect:An aim or hypothesis should identify the investigation and prediction, not reproduce the entire method section.

How to improve:Include only details needed to make the variables clear and testable.

Mistake: Using vague participant descriptions when the group is important.

Why this is incorrect:The prediction may not identify the population to which it applies.

How to improve:Include the relevant participant group, such as A-Level students or adults within stated age ranges.

Exam-Style Questions ✍️

Question 1

Which one of the following best describes a research aim?

A. A prediction stating the expected result

B. A statement describing what the researcher intends to investigate

C. A numerical summary of the findings

D. A statement explaining why the result occurred

[1 mark]

Question 2

Explain one difference between a research aim and a research hypothesis.

[2 marks]

Question 3

A psychologist investigates whether background speech affects the number of words participants recall.

Write a suitable research aim.

[2 marks]

Question 4

Participants learn a list of 20 words either in silence or while instrumental music is played. The researcher expects participants in silence to recall more words.

Write a suitable directional hypothesis.

[3 marks]

Question 5

A researcher investigates whether completing a task with or without a five-minute time limit affects the number of problems solved correctly.

Write a suitable non-directional hypothesis.

[3 marks]

Question 6

A psychologist measures the number of hours students sleep and their scores on a 30-item attention test.

Write:

a) A suitable directional correlational hypothesis.

[3 marks]

b) A suitable non-directional correlational hypothesis.

[3 marks]

Question 7

The following hypothesis was written for an investigation:

Music will affect people’s memory.

Explain two weaknesses of this hypothesis and suggest an improved version.

[6 marks]

Question 8

A researcher predicts:

There will be a difference between the groups.

Explain why this is not a suitable hypothesis for a psychological investigation.

[4 marks]

Question 9

A psychologist compares the number of cooperative actions displayed by pupils completing a competitive task and pupils completing a cooperative task.

Write:

a) A clear research aim.

[2 marks]

b) A directional hypothesis.

[3 marks]

c) A non-directional hypothesis.

[3 marks]

Question 10

Distinguish between research aims, directional hypotheses and non-directional hypotheses.

Use appropriate psychological research examples in your answer.

[8 marks]