Null Hypothesis
Null Hypothesis
Null hypothesis (H₀): The null hypothesis is a foundational concept in statistical hypothesis testing. It represents the assumption of no effect, no difference, or no relationship between variables. It serves as a starting point or baseline for statistical comparison. Research is conducted with the aim of either refuting (rejecting) or failing to refute the null hypothesis, based on whether the observed data significantly differ from what would be expected if H₀ were true.
Clarification: The null hypothesis is not the same as an opposing position or alternative theory. It is specifically the assumption that any observed effect is due to random variation or chance. It is the "no effect" hypothesis, not "the opposite effect" hypothesis.
Purpose and Function: The null hypothesis provides a statistical anchor. It provides the default assumption (no relationship) that can be tested with data. For example, in a study comparing two treatments, the null hypothesis would state that there is no difference in their effects.
Once data is collected, statistical tests determine the probability of observing the study's findings assuming the null hypothesis is true. If this probability (p-value) is sufficiently small (e.g., p < 0.05), the null hypothesis is rejected. The null hypothesis is rejected because the difference in the data was so "extreme" that it would be highly unlikely to occur by chance if the intervention had actually had no effect.
Why not test the hypothesis directly?: We actually do not prove anything with hypothesis testing. When we test againt the null hypothesis all we are doing is either failing to reject the null, implying there is no relatioinship between the tested variables that could not be explained by chance. Or, we reject the null hypothesis, suggesting it is likely a relationship exists. We cannot prove one hypothesis, or determine the relationship between two variables, or whether our hypothesis is true. Supporting a hypothesis is the result of accumulating evidence, by demonstrating relationships that exist and don't exist.
Introductory statistics classes teach us that we can never prove the null hypothesis; all we can do is reject or fail to reject it.
How to Write a Null Hypothesis
To write a null hypothesis, first start by asking a question. Rephrase that question in a form that assumes no relationship between the variables. In other words, assume a treatment has no effect. Write your hypothesis in a way that reflects
Related Terms
- Systematic Review
- Evidence-based practice
- Levels of evidence
- Meta-analysis
- P-value
- Null Hypothesis
- Vote-Counting
- Regression to the Mean
Related Articles
- Is There a Single Best Approach to Physical Rehabilitation?
- NCCA-accredited Certified Personal Trainer (CPT) Exams: Meta-analysis of Topics (Domains)
What does it mean to reject the null hypothesis.
Rejecting the null hypothesis in statistics means that the evidence from your sample data is strong enough to suggest that the null hypothesis is likely false. It indicates a statistically significant result, meaning the observed effect or relationship in your data is unlikely to be due to random chance alone
Brookbush Institute Perspective
Why We Use the Null Hypothesis:
Using a null hypothesis provides a neutral benchmark against which the influence of an intervention, variable, or treatment can be measured. It reduces bias by demanding that effects be demonstrated rather than assumed.
Common Misconceptions and Fallacies:
- Misuse #1: Failing to reject the null ≠ proof of the opposite.
For example, a study that finds no correlation between posture and pain does not prove that pain is caused by the CNS. It simply means the tested postural variable did not explain the pain in the population studied. - Misuse #2: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
A non-significant result often reflects a lack of data or statistical power — not a confirmed absence of effect. - Misuse #3: "Bait and switch" arguments.
Too often, gurus and professionals incorrectly treat a failure to refute the null as evidence that their preferred alternative is correct. This is a fallacy. Unless that alternative has been tested directly and the null has been rejected in its context, it is just speculation.
In Applied Science:
While the null hypothesis is crucial in research, adopting “no effect” as a professional stance in clinical or training settings is unproductive. If nothing works, what do we recommend instead? Applied professionals need to support their interventions with specific evidence that demonstrates effectiveness — by rejecting the null in a relevant study.
Why Not Test the Experimental Hypothesis Directly?
In statistics, we don’t test the experimental (or alternative) hypothesis directly because doing so risks introducing confirmation bias — the tendency to seek, interpret, and remember evidence that supports a preferred belief. Instead, we test the null hypothesis, which asserts that there is no effect, no difference, or no relationship.
This approach is more rigorous for a few key reasons:
- It Forces Objectivity
The null hypothesis starts from a position of skepticism. The burden of proof is on the data to show that the observed results are unlikely to be due to chance. - Probability Models Require Assumptions
Statistical tests (like t-tests, ANOVA, etc.) are mathematically built on the assumption that the null hypothesis is true. This allows for the calculation of a p-value — the probability of observing the results if there were no real effect. - It Helps Avoid Overinterpretation
By focusing on rejecting the null, researchers avoid jumping to conclusions about their own favored hypothesis. Evidence against the null is a cautious, controlled way to infer that something is likely happening — but it doesn’t automatically validate any specific alternative. - You Can’t Prove a Hypothesis — Only Disprove One
In science, we don’t “prove” anything with certainty. We build confidence by ruling out alternatives. The null hypothesis gives us a clear starting point for falsification — a cornerstone of the scientific method.
Analogy
Imagine a court trial. The defendant (like the null hypothesis) is presumed innocent. You don’t prove guilt directly — instead, you must produce enough evidence to reject the assumption of innocence. Similarly, in research, we reject the assumption of no effect if the evidence is strong enough.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Can a hypothesis be proven?
So it is entirely possible that observed results match predictions yet the hypothesis is nonetheless false. Scientific hypotheses cannot be proven because for any set of results, there are always alternate hypotheses that generate the same predictions, and scientists cannot test all possible hypotheses.
What does the null hypothesis actually say?
It says that there is no effect, no difference, or no association between the variables being studied.
If a study fails to reject the null, does that mean the intervention doesn’t work?
Not necessarily. It may mean the study lacked power, the effect was too small to detect, or that the intervention has no effect under the tested conditions. It does not prove the intervention is ineffective in all scenarios.
Does rejecting the null prove my hypothesis is true?
No. It simply provides evidence against the null. You may support your hypothesis by ruling out the null, but only if your hypothesis is the only reasonable alternative. Multiple competing explanations require additional testing.
Why not just test the hypothesis we believe in?
Testing a hypothesis by trying to disprove the null minimizes confirmation bias and improves objectivity. It forces us to ask: “Are these results strong enough to reject randomness?”
Is the null always the “wrong” hypothesis?
No. Sometimes the null hypothesis accurately reflects reality. Many studies fail to reject the null — and this is a valid finding when properly interpreted.
Quote
“The null hypothesis is the referee in science — it doesn’t take sides, it just asks, ‘Can you prove your case?’”
— Brookbush Institute