one tailed hypothesis in psychology

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

• Study Notes

Aims and Hypotheses

Last updated 22 Mar 2021

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

Observations of events or behaviour in our surroundings provoke questions as to why they occur. In turn, one or multiple theories might attempt to explain a phenomenon, and investigations are consequently conducted to test them. One observation could be that athletes tend to perform better when they have a training partner, and a theory might propose that this is because athletes are more motivated with peers around them.

The aim of an investigation, driven by a theory to explain a given observation, states the intent of the study in general terms. Continuing the above example, the consequent aim might be “to investigate the effect of having a training partner on athletes’ motivation levels”.

The theory attempting to explain an observation will help to inform hypotheses - predictions of an investigation’s outcome that make specific reference to the independent variables (IVs) manipulated and dependent variables (DVs) measured by the researchers.

There are two types of hypothesis:

• - H 1 – Research hypothesis
• - H 0 – Null hypothesis

H 1 – The Research Hypothesis

This predicts a statistically significant effect of an IV on a DV (i.e. an experiment), or a significant relationship between variables (i.e. a correlation study), e.g.

• In an experiment: “Athletes who have a training partner are likely to score higher on a questionnaire measuring motivation levels than athletes who train alone.”
• In a correlation study: ‘There will be a significant positive correlation between athletes’ motivation questionnaire scores and the number of partners athletes train with.”

The research hypothesis will be directional (one-tailed) if theory or existing evidence argues a particular ‘direction’ of the predicted results, as demonstrated in the two hypothesis examples above.

Non-directional (two-tailed) research hypotheses do not predict a direction, so here would simply predict “a significant difference” between questionnaire scores in athletes who train alone and with a training partner (in an experiment), or “a significant relationship” between questionnaire scores and number of training partners (in a correlation study).

H 0 – The Null Hypothesis

This predicts that a statistically significant effect or relationship will not be found, e.g.

• In an experiment: “There will be no significant difference in motivation questionnaire scores between athletes who train with and without a training partner.”
• In a correlation study: “There will be no significant relationship between motivation questionnaire scores and the number of partners athletes train with.”

When the investigation concludes, analysis of results will suggest that either the research hypothesis or null hypothesis can be retained, with the other rejected. Ultimately this will either provide evidence to support of refute the theory driving a hypothesis, and may lead to further research in the field.

You might also like

A level psychology topic quiz - research methods.

Quizzes & Activities

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

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.

• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Statistics By Jim

Making statistics intuitive

One-Tailed and Two-Tailed Hypothesis Tests Explained

By Jim Frost 61 Comments

Choosing whether to perform a one-tailed or a two-tailed hypothesis test is one of the methodology decisions you might need to make for your statistical analysis. This choice can have critical implications for the types of effects it can detect, the statistical power of the test, and potential errors.

In this post, you’ll learn about the differences between one-tailed and two-tailed hypothesis tests and their advantages and disadvantages. I include examples of both types of statistical tests. In my next post, I cover the decision between one and two-tailed tests in more detail.

What Are Tails in a Hypothesis Test?

First, we need to cover some background material to understand the tails in a test. Typically, hypothesis tests take all of the sample data and convert it to a single value, which is known as a test statistic. You’re probably already familiar with some test statistics. For example, t-tests calculate t-values . F-tests, such as ANOVA, generate F-values . The chi-square test of independence and some distribution tests produce chi-square values. All of these values are test statistics. For more information, read my post about Test Statistics .

These test statistics follow a sampling distribution. Probability distribution plots display the probabilities of obtaining test statistic values when the null hypothesis is correct. On a probability distribution plot, the portion of the shaded area under the curve represents the probability that a value will fall within that range.

The graph below displays a sampling distribution for t-values. The two shaded regions cover the two-tails of the distribution.

Keep in mind that this t-distribution assumes that the null hypothesis is correct for the population. Consequently, the peak (most likely value) of the distribution occurs at t=0, which represents the null hypothesis in a t-test. Typically, the null hypothesis states that there is no effect. As t-values move further away from zero, it represents larger effect sizes. When the null hypothesis is true for the population, obtaining samples that exhibit a large apparent effect becomes less likely, which is why the probabilities taper off for t-values further from zero.

Related posts : How t-Tests Work and Understanding Probability Distributions

Critical Regions in a Hypothesis Test

In hypothesis tests, critical regions are ranges of the distributions where the values represent statistically significant results. Analysts define the size and location of the critical regions by specifying both the significance level (alpha) and whether the test is one-tailed or two-tailed.

Consider the following two facts:

• The significance level is the probability of rejecting a null hypothesis that is correct.
• The sampling distribution for a test statistic assumes that the null hypothesis is correct.

Consequently, to represent the critical regions on the distribution for a test statistic, you merely shade the appropriate percentage of the distribution. For the common significance level of 0.05, you shade 5% of the distribution.

Related posts : Significance Levels and P-values and T-Distribution Table of Critical Values

Two-Tailed Hypothesis Tests

Two-tailed hypothesis tests are also known as nondirectional and two-sided tests because you can test for effects in both directions. When you perform a two-tailed test, you split the significance level percentage between both tails of the distribution. In the example below, I use an alpha of 5% and the distribution has two shaded regions of 2.5% (2 * 2.5% = 5%).

When a test statistic falls in either critical region, your sample data are sufficiently incompatible with the null hypothesis that you can reject it for the population.

In a two-tailed test, the generic null and alternative hypotheses are the following:

• Null : The effect equals zero.
• Alternative :  The effect does not equal zero.

The specifics of the hypotheses depend on the type of test you perform because you might be assessing means, proportions, or rates.

Example of a two-tailed 1-sample t-test

Suppose we perform a two-sided 1-sample t-test where we compare the mean strength (4.1) of parts from a supplier to a target value (5). We use a two-tailed test because we care whether the mean is greater than or less than the target value.

To interpret the results, simply compare the p-value to your significance level. If the p-value is less than the significance level, you know that the test statistic fell into one of the critical regions, but which one? Just look at the estimated effect. In the output below, the t-value is negative, so we know that the test statistic fell in the critical region in the left tail of the distribution, indicating the mean is less than the target value. Now we know this difference is statistically significant.

We can conclude that the population mean for part strength is less than the target value. However, the test had the capacity to detect a positive difference as well. You can also assess the confidence interval. With a two-tailed hypothesis test, you’ll obtain a two-sided confidence interval. The confidence interval tells us that the population mean is likely to fall between 3.372 and 4.828. This range excludes the target value (5), which is another indicator of significance.

Advantages of two-tailed hypothesis tests

You can detect both positive and negative effects. Two-tailed tests are standard in scientific research where discovering any type of effect is usually of interest to researchers.

One-Tailed Hypothesis Tests

One-tailed hypothesis tests are also known as directional and one-sided tests because you can test for effects in only one direction. When you perform a one-tailed test, the entire significance level percentage goes into the extreme end of one tail of the distribution.

In the examples below, I use an alpha of 5%. Each distribution has one shaded region of 5%. When you perform a one-tailed test, you must determine whether the critical region is in the left tail or the right tail. The test can detect an effect only in the direction that has the critical region. It has absolutely no capacity to detect an effect in the other direction.

In a one-tailed test, you have two options for the null and alternative hypotheses, which corresponds to where you place the critical region.

You can choose either of the following sets of generic hypotheses:

• Null : The effect is less than or equal to zero.
• Alternative : The effect is greater than zero.

• Null : The effect is greater than or equal to zero.
• Alternative : The effect is less than zero.

Again, the specifics of the hypotheses depend on the type of test you perform.

Notice how for both possible null hypotheses the tests can’t distinguish between zero and an effect in a particular direction. For example, in the example directly above, the null combines “the effect is greater than or equal to zero” into a single category. That test can’t differentiate between zero and greater than zero.

Example of a one-tailed 1-sample t-test

Suppose we perform a one-tailed 1-sample t-test. We’ll use a similar scenario as before where we compare the mean strength of parts from a supplier (102) to a target value (100). Imagine that we are considering a new parts supplier. We will use them only if the mean strength of their parts is greater than our target value. There is no need for us to differentiate between whether their parts are equally strong or less strong than the target value—either way we’d just stick with our current supplier.

Consequently, we’ll choose the alternative hypothesis that states the mean difference is greater than zero (Population mean – Target value > 0). The null hypothesis states that the difference between the population mean and target value is less than or equal to zero.

To interpret the results, compare the p-value to your significance level. If the p-value is less than the significance level, you know that the test statistic fell into the critical region. For this study, the statistically significant result supports the notion that the population mean is greater than the target value of 100.

Confidence intervals for a one-tailed test are similarly one-sided. You’ll obtain either an upper bound or a lower bound. In this case, we get a lower bound, which indicates that the population mean is likely to be greater than or equal to 100.631. There is no upper limit to this range.

A lower-bound matches our goal of determining whether the new parts are stronger than our target value. The fact that the lower bound (100.631) is higher than the target value (100) indicates that these results are statistically significant.

This test is unable to detect a negative difference even when the sample mean represents a very negative effect.

Advantages and disadvantages of one-tailed hypothesis tests

One-tailed tests have more statistical power to detect an effect in one direction than a two-tailed test with the same design and significance level. One-tailed tests occur most frequently for studies where one of the following is true:

• Effects can exist in only one direction.
• Effects can exist in both directions but the researchers only care about an effect in one direction. There is no drawback to failing to detect an effect in the other direction. (Not recommended.)

The disadvantage of one-tailed tests is that they have no statistical power to detect an effect in the other direction.

As part of your pre-study planning process, determine whether you’ll use the one- or two-tailed version of a hypothesis test. To learn more about this planning process, read 5 Steps for Conducting Scientific Studies with Statistical Analyses .

This post explains the differences between one-tailed and two-tailed statistical hypothesis tests. How these forms of hypothesis tests function is clear and based on mathematics. However, there is some debate about when you can use one-tailed tests. My next post explores this decision in much more depth and explains the different schools of thought and my opinion on the matter— When Can I Use One-Tailed Hypothesis Tests .

If you’re learning about hypothesis testing and like the approach I use in my blog, check out my Hypothesis Testing book! You can find it at Amazon and other retailers.

Share this:

Reader Interactions

August 23, 2024 at 1:28 pm

Thank so much. This is very helpfull

June 26, 2022 at 12:14 pm

Hi, Can help me with figuring out the null and alternative hypothesis of the following statement? Some claimed that the real average expenditure on beverage by general people is at least $10.

February 19, 2022 at 6:02 am

thank you for the thoroughly explanation, I’m still strugling to wrap my mind around the t-table and the relation between the alpha values for one or two tail probability and the confidence levels on the bottom (I’m understanding it so wrongly that for me it should be the oposite, like one tail 0,05 should correspond 95% CI and two tailed 0,025 should correspond to 95% because then you got the 2,5% on each side). In my mind if I picture the one tail diagram with an alpha of 0,05 I see the rest 95% inside the diagram, but for a one tail I only see 90% CI paired with a 5% alpha… where did the other 5% go? I tried to understand when you said we should just double the alpha for a one tail probability in order to find the CI but I still cant picture it. I have been trying to understand this. Like if you only have one tail and there is 0,05, shouldn’t the rest be on the other side? why is it then 90%… I know I’m missing a point and I can’t figure it out and it’s so frustrating…

February 23, 2022 at 10:01 pm

The alpha is the total shaded area. So, if the alpha = 0.05, you know that 5% of the distribution is shaded. The number of tails tells you how to divide the shaded areas. Is it all in one region (1-tailed) or do you split the shaded regions in two (2-tailed)?

So, for a one-tailed test with an alpha of 0.05, the 5% shading is all in one tail. If alpha = 0.10, then it’s 10% on one side. If it’s two-tailed, then you need to split that 10% into two–5% in both tails. Hence, the 5% in a one-tailed test is the same as a two-tailed test with an alpha of 0.10 because that test has the same 5% on one side (but there’s another 5% in the other tail).

It’s similar for CIs. However, for CIs, you shade the middle rather than the extremities. I write about that in one my articles about hypothesis testing and confidence intervals .

I’m not sure if I’m answering your question or not.

February 17, 2022 at 1:46 pm

I ran a post hoc Dunnett’s test alpha=0.05 after a significant Anova test in Proc Mixed using SAS. I want to determine if the means for treatment (t1, t2, t3) is significantly less than the means for control (p=pathogen). The code for the dunnett’s test is – LSmeans trt / diff=controll (‘P’) adjust=dunnett CL plot=control; I think the lower bound one tailed test is the correct test to run but I’m not 100% sure. I’m finding conflicting information online. In the output table for the dunnett’s test the mean difference between the control and the treatments is t1=9.8, t2=64.2, and t3=56.5. The control mean estimate is 90.5. The adjusted p-value by treatment is t1(p=0.5734), t2 (p=.0154) and t3(p=.0245). The adjusted lower bound confidence limit in order from t1-t3 is -38.8, 13.4, and 7.9. The adjusted upper bound for all test is infinity. The graphical output for the dunnett’s test in SAS is difficult to understand for those of us who are beginner SAS users. All treatments appear as a vertical line below the the horizontal line for control at 90.5 with t2 and t3 in the shaded area. For treatment 1 the shaded area is above the line for control. Looking at just the output table I would say that t2 and t3 are significantly lower than the control. I guess I would like to know if my interpretation of the outputs is correct that treatments 2 and 3 are statistically significantly lower than the control? Should I have used an upper bound one tailed test instead?

November 10, 2021 at 1:00 am

Thanks Jim. Please help me understand how a two tailed testing can be used to minimize errors in research

July 1, 2021 at 9:19 am

Hi Jim, Thanks for posting such a thorough and well-written explanation. It was extremely useful to clear up some doubts.

May 7, 2021 at 4:27 pm

Hi Jim, I followed your instructions for the Excel add-in. Thank you. I am very new to statistics and sort of enjoy it as I enter week number two in my class. I am to select if three scenarios call for a one or two-tailed test is required and why. The problem is stated:

30% of mole biopsies are unnecessary. Last month at his clinic, 210 out of 634 had benign biopsy results. Is there enough evidence to reject the dermatologist’s claim?

Part two, the wording changes to “more than of 30% of biopsies,” and part three, the wording changes to “less than 30% of biopsies…”

I am not asking for the problem to be solved for me, but I cannot seem to find direction needed. I know the elements i am dealing with are =30%, greater than 30%, and less than 30%. 210 and 634. I just don’t know what to with the information. I can’t seem to find an example of a similar problem to work with.

May 9, 2021 at 9:22 pm

As I detail in this post, a two-tailed test tells you whether an effect exists in either direction. Or, is it different from the null value in either direction. For the first example, the wording suggests you’d need a two-tailed test to determine whether the population proportion is ≠ 30%. Whenever you just need to know ≠, it suggests a two-tailed test because you’re covering both directions.

For part two, because it’s in one direction (greater than), you need a one-tailed test. Same for part three but it’s less than. Look in this blog post to see how you’d construct the null and alternative hypotheses for these cases. Note that you’re working with a proportion rather than the mean, but the principles are the same! Just plug your scenario and the concept of proportion into the wording I use for the hypotheses.

I hope that helps!

April 11, 2021 at 9:30 am

Hello Jim, great website! I am using a statistics program (SPSS) that does NOT compute one-tailed t-tests. I am trying to compare two independent groups and have justifiable reasons why I only care about one direction. Can I do the following? Use SPSS for two-tailed tests to calculate the t & p values. Then report the p-value as p/2 when it is in the predicted direction (e.g , SPSS says p = .04, so I report p = .02), and report the p-value as 1 – (p/2) when it is in the opposite direction (e.g., SPSS says p = .04, so I report p = .98)? If that is incorrect, what do you suggest (hopefully besides changing statistics programs)? Also, if I want to report confidence intervals, I realize that I would only have an upper or lower bound, but can I use the CI’s from SPSS to compute that? Thank you very much!

April 11, 2021 at 5:42 pm

Yes, for p-values, that’s absolutely correct for both cases.

For confidence intervals, if you take one endpoint of a two-side CI, it becomes a one-side bound with half the confidence level.

Consequently, to obtain a one-sided bound with your desired confidence level, you need to take your desired significance level (e.g., 0.05) and double it. Then subtract it from 1. So, if you’re using a significance level of 0.05, double that to 0.10 and then subtract from 1 (1 – 0.10 = 0.90). 90% is the confidence level you want to use for a two-sided test. After obtaining the two-sided CI, use one of the endpoints depending on the direction of your hypothesis (i.e., upper or lower bound). That’s produces the one-sided the bound with the confidence level that you want. For our example, we calculated a 95% one-sided bound.

March 3, 2021 at 8:27 am

Hi Jim. I used the one-tailed(right) statistical test to determine an anomaly in the below problem statement: On a daily basis, I calculate the (mapped_%) in a common field between two tables.

The way I used the t-test is: On any particular day, I calculate the sample_mean, S.D and sample_count (n=30) for the last 30 days including the current day. My null hypothesis, H0 (pop. mean)=95 and H1>95 (alternate hypothesis). So, I calculate the t-stat based on the sample_mean, pop.mean, sample S.D and n. I then choose the t-crit value for 0.05 from my t-ditribution table for dof(n-1). On the current day if my abs.(t-stat)>t-crit, then I reject the null hypothesis and I say the mapped_pct on that day has passed the t-test.

I get some weird results here, where if my mapped_pct is as low as 6%-8% in all the past 30 days, the t-test still gets a “pass” result. Could you help on this? If my hypothesis needs to be changed.

I would basically look for the mapped_pct >95, if it worked on a static trigger. How can I use the t-test effectively in this problem statement?

December 18, 2020 at 8:23 pm

Hello Dr. Jim, I am wondering if there is evidence in one of your books or other source you could provide, which supports that it is OK not to divide alpha level by 2 in one-tailed hypotheses. I need the source for supporting evidence in a Portfolio exercise and couldn’t find one.

I am grateful for your reply and for your statistics knowledge sharing!

November 27, 2020 at 10:31 pm

If I did a one directional F test ANOVA(one tail ) and wanted to calculate a confidence interval for each individual groups (3) mean . Would I use a one tailed or two tailed t , within my confidence interval .

November 29, 2020 at 2:36 am

Hi Bashiru,

F-tests for ANOVA will always be one-tailed for the reasons I discuss in this post. To learn more about, read my post about F-tests in ANOVA .

For the differences between my groups, I would not use t-tests because the family-wise error rate quickly grows out of hand. To learn more about how to compare group means while controlling the familywise error rate, read my post about using post hoc tests with ANOVA . Typically, these are two-side intervals but you’d be able to use one-sided.

November 26, 2020 at 10:51 am

Hi Jim, I had a question about the formulation of the hypotheses. When you want to test if a beta = 1 or a beta = 0. What will be the null hypotheses? I’m having trouble with finding out. Because in most cases beta = 0 is the null hypotheses but in this case you want to test if beta = 0. so i’m having my doubts can it in this case be the alternative hypotheses or is it still the null hypotheses?

Kind regards, Noa

November 27, 2020 at 1:21 am

Typically, the null hypothesis represents no effect or no relationship. As an analyst, you’re hoping that your data have enough evidence to reject the null and favor the alternative.

Assuming you’re referring to beta as in regression coefficients, zero represents no relationship. Consequently, beta = 0 is the null hypothesis.

You might hope that beta = 1, but you don’t usually include that in your alternative hypotheses. The alternative hypothesis usually states that it does not equal no effect. In other words, there is an effect but it doesn’t state what it is.

There are some exceptions to the above but I’m writing about the standard case.

November 22, 2020 at 8:46 am

Your articles are a help to intro to econometrics students. Keep up the good work! More power to you!

November 6, 2020 at 11:25 pm

Hello Jim. Can you help me with these please?

Write the null and alternative hypothesis using a 1-tailed and 2-tailed test for each problem. (In paragraph and symbols)

A teacher wants to know if there is a significant difference in the performance in MAT C313 between her morning and afternoon classes.

It is known that in our university canteen, the average waiting time for a customer to receive and pay for his/her order is 20 minutes. Additional personnel has been added and now the management wants to know if the average waiting time had been reduced.

November 8, 2020 at 12:29 am

I cover how to write the hypotheses for the different types of tests in this post. So, you just need to figure which type of test you need to use. In your case, you want to determine whether the mean waiting time is less than the target value of 20 minutes. That’s a 1-sample t-test because you’re comparing a mean to a target value (20 minutes). You specifically want to determine whether the mean is less than the target value. So, that’s a one-tailed test. And, you’re looking for a mean that is “less than” the target.

So, go to the one-tailed section in the post and look for the hypotheses for the effect being less than. That’s the one with the critical region on the left side of the curve.

Now, you need include your own information. In your case, you’re comparing the sample estimate to a population mean of 20. The 20 minutes is your null hypothesis value. Use the symbol mu μ to represent the population mean.

You put all that together and you get the following:

Null: μ ≥ 20 Alternative: μ 0 to denote the null hypothesis and H 1 or H A to denote the alternative hypothesis if that’s what you been using in class.

October 17, 2020 at 12:11 pm

I was just wondering if you could please help with clarifying what the hypothesises would be for say income for gamblers and, age of gamblers. I am struggling to find which means would be compared.

October 17, 2020 at 7:05 pm

Those are both continuous variables, so you’d use either correlation or regression for them. For both of those analyses, the hypotheses are the following:

Null : The correlation or regression coefficient equals zero (i.e., there is no relationship between the variables) Alternative : The coefficient does not equal zero (i.e., there is a relationship between the variables.)

When the p-value is less than your significance level, you reject the null and conclude that a relationship exists.

October 17, 2020 at 3:05 am

I was ask to choose and justify the reason between a one tailed and two tailed test for dummy variables, how do I do that and what does it mean?

October 17, 2020 at 7:11 pm

I don’t have enough information to answer your question. A dummy variable is also known as an indicator variable, which is a binary variable that indicates the presence or absence of a condition or characteristic. If you’re using this variable in a hypothesis test, I’d presume that you’re using a proportions test, which is based on the binomial distribution for binary data.

Choosing between a one-tailed or two-tailed test depends on subject area issues and, possibly, your research objectives. Typically, use a two-tailed test unless you have a very good reason to use a one-tailed test. To understand when you might use a one-tailed test, read my post about when to use a one-tailed hypothesis test .

October 16, 2020 at 2:07 pm

In your one-tailed example, Minitab describes the hypotheses as “Test of mu = 100 vs > 100”. Any idea why Minitab says the null is “=” rather than “= or less than”? No ASCII character for it?

October 16, 2020 at 4:20 pm

I’m not entirely sure even though I used to work there! I know we had some discussions about how to represent that hypothesis but I don’t recall the exact reasoning. I suspect that it has to do with the conclusions that you can draw. Let’s focus on the failing to reject the null hypothesis. If the test statistic falls in that region (i.e., it is not significant), you fail to reject the null. In this case, all you know is that you have insufficient evidence to say it is different than 100. I’m pretty sure that’s why they use the equal sign because it might as well be one.

Mathematically, I think using ≤ is more accurate, which you can really see when you look at the distribution plots. That’s why I phrase the hypotheses using ≤ or ≥ as needed. However, in terms of the interpretation, the “less than” portion doesn’t really add anything of importance. You can conclude that its equal to 100 or greater than 100, but not less than 100.

October 15, 2020 at 5:46 am

Thank you so much for your timely feedback. It helps a lot

October 14, 2020 at 10:47 am

How can i use one tailed test at 5% alpha on this problem?

A manufacturer of cellular phone batteries claims that when fully charged, the mean life of his product lasts for 26 hours with a standard deviation of 5 hours. Mr X, a regular distributor, randomly picked and tested 35 of the batteries. His test showed that the average life of his sample is 25.5 hours. Is there a significant difference between the average life of all the manufacturer’s batteries and the average battery life of his sample?

October 14, 2020 at 8:22 pm

I don’t think you’d want to use a one-tailed test. The goal is to determine whether the sample is significantly different than the manufacturer’s population average. You’re not saying significantly greater than or less than, which would be a one-tailed test. As phrased, you want a two-tailed test because it can detect a difference in either direct.

It sounds like you need to use a 1-sample t-test to test the mean. During this test, enter 26 as the test mean. The procedure will tell you if the sample mean of 25.5 hours is a significantly different from that test mean. Similarly, you’d need a one variance test to determine whether the sample standard deviation is significantly different from the test value of 5 hours.

For both of these tests, compare the p-value to your alpha of 0.05. If the p-value is less than this value, your results are statistically significant.

September 22, 2020 at 4:16 am

Hi Jim, I didn’t get an idea that when to use two tail test and one tail test. Will you please explain?

September 22, 2020 at 10:05 pm

I have a complete article dedicated to that: When Can I Use One-Tailed Tests .

Basically, start with the assumption that you’ll use a two-tailed test but then consider scenarios where a one-tailed test can be appropriate. I talk about all of that in the article.

If you have questions after reading that, please don’t hesitate to ask!

July 31, 2020 at 12:33 pm

Thank you so so much for this webpage.

I have two scenarios that I need some clarification. I will really appreciate it if you can take a look:

So I have several of materials that I know when they are tested after production. My hypothesis is that the earlier they are tested after production, the higher the mean value I should expect. At the same time, the later they are tested after production, the lower the mean value. Since this is more like a “greater or lesser” situation, I should use one tail. Is that the correct approach?

On the other hand, I have several mix of materials that I don’t know when they are tested after production. I only know the mean values of the test. And I only want to know whether one mean value is truly higher or lower than the other, I guess I want to know if they are only significantly different. Should I use two tail for this? If they are not significantly different, I can judge based on the mean values of test alone. And if they are significantly different, then I will need to do other type of analysis. Also, when I get my P-value for two tail, should I compare it to 0.025 or 0.05 if my confidence level is 0.05?

Thank you so much again.

July 31, 2020 at 11:19 pm

For your first, if you absolutely know that the mean must be lower the later the material is tested, that it cannot be higher, that would be a situation where you can use a one-tailed test. However, if that’s not a certainty, you’re just guessing, use a two-tail test. If you’re measuring different items at the different times, use the independent 2-sample t-test. However, if you’re measuring the same items at two time points, use the paired t-test. If it’s appropriate, using the paired t-test will give you more statistical power because it accounts for the variability between items. For more information, see my post about when it’s ok to use a one-tailed test .

For the mix of materials, use a two-tailed test because the effect truly can go either direction.

Always compare the p-value to your full significance level regardless of whether it’s a one or two-tailed test. Don’t divide the significance level in half.

June 17, 2020 at 2:56 pm

Is it possible that we reach to opposite conclusions if we use a critical value method and p value method Secondly if we perform one tail test and use p vale method to conclude our Ho, then do we need to convert sig value of 2 tail into sig value of one tail. That can be done just by dividing it with 2

June 18, 2020 at 5:17 pm

The p-value method and critical value method will always agree as long as you’re not changing anything about how the methodology.

If you’re using statistical software, you don’t need to make any adjustments. The software will do that for you.

However, if you calculating it by hand, you’ll need to take your significance level and then look in the table for your test statistic for a one-tailed test. For example, you’ll want to look up 5% for a one-tailed test rather than a two-tailed test. That’s not as simple as dividing by two. In this article, I show examples of one-tailed and two-tailed tests for the same degrees of freedom. The t critical value for the two-tailed test is +/- 2.086 while for the one-sided test it is 1.725. It is true that probability associated with those critical values doubles for the one-tailed test (2.5% -> 5%), but the critical value itself is not half (2.086 -> 1.725). Study the first several graphs in this article to see why that is true.

For the p-value, you can take a two-tailed p-value and divide by 2 to determine the one-sided p-value. However, if you’re using statistical software, it does that for you.

June 11, 2020 at 3:46 pm

Hello Jim, if you have the time I’d be grateful if you could shed some clarity on this scenario:

“A researcher believes that aromatherapy can relieve stress but wants to determine whether it can also enhance focus. To test this, the researcher selected a random sample of students to take an exam in which the average score in the general population is 77. Prior to the exam, these students studied individually in a small library room where a lavender scent was present. If students in this group scored significantly above the average score in general population [is this one-tailed or two-tailed hypothesis?], then this was taken as evidence that the lavender scent enhanced focus.”

Thank you for your time if you do decide to respond.

June 11, 2020 at 4:00 pm

It’s unclear from the information provided whether the researchers used a one-tailed or two-tailed test. It could be either. A two-tailed test can detect effects in both directions, so it could definitely detect an average group score above the population score. However, you could also detect that effect using a one-tailed test if it was set up correctly. So, there’s not enough information in what you provided to know for sure. It could be either.

However, that’s irrelevant to answering the question. The tricky part, as I see it, is that you’re not entirely sure about why the scores are higher. Are they higher because the lavender scent increased concentration or are they higher because the subjects have lower stress from the lavender? Or, maybe it’s not even related to the scent but some other characteristic of the room or testing conditions in which they took the test. You just know the scores are higher but not necessarily why they’re higher.

I’d say that, no, it’s not necessarily evidence that the lavender scent enhanced focus. There are competing explanations for why the scores are higher. Also, it would be best do this as an experiment with a control and treatment group where subjects are randomly assigned to either group. That process helps establish causality rather than just correlation and helps rules out competing explanations for why the scores are higher.

By the way, I spend a lot of time on these issues in my Introduction to Statistics ebook .

June 9, 2020 at 1:47 pm

If a left tail test has an alpha value of 0.05 how will you find the value in the table

April 19, 2020 at 10:35 am

Hi Jim, My question is in regards to the results in the table in your example of the one-sample T (Two-Tailed) test. above. What about the P-value? The P-value listed is .018. I assuming that is compared to and alpha of 0.025, correct?

In regression analysis, when I get a test statistic for the predictive variable of -2.099 and a p-value of 0.039. Am I comparing the p-value to an alpha of 0.025 or 0.05? Now if I run a Bootstrap for coefficients analysis, the results say the sig (2-tail) is 0.098. What are the critical values and alpha in this case? I’m trying to reconcile what I am seeing in both tables.

Thanks for your help.

April 20, 2020 at 3:24 am

Hi Marvalisa,

For one-tailed tests, you don’t need to divide alpha in half. If you can tell your software to perform a one-tailed test, it’ll do all the calculations necessary so you don’t need to adjust anything. So, if you’re using an alpha of 0.05 for a one-tailed test and your p-value is 0.04, it is significant. The procedures adjust the p-values automatically and it all works out. So, whether you’re using a one-tailed or two-tailed test, you always compare the p-value to the alpha with no need to adjust anything. The procedure does that for you!

The exception would be if for some reason your software doesn’t allow you to specify that you want to use a one-tailed test instead of a two-tailed test. Then, you divide the p-value from a two-tailed test in half to get the p-value for a one tailed test. You’d still compare it to your original alpha.

For regression, the same thing applies. If you want to use a one-tailed test for a cofficient, just divide the p-value in half if you can’t tell the software that you want a one-tailed test. The default is two-tailed. If your software has the option for one-tailed tests for any procedure, including regression, it’ll adjust the p-value for you. So, in the normal course of things, you won’t need to adjust anything.

March 26, 2020 at 12:00 pm

Hey Jim, for a one-tailed hypothesis test with a .05 confidence level, should I use a 95% confidence interval or a 90% confidence interval? Thanks

March 26, 2020 at 5:05 pm

You should use a one-sided 95% confidence interval. One-sided CIs have either an upper OR lower bound but remains unbounded on the other side.

March 16, 2020 at 4:30 pm

This is not applicable to the subject but… When performing tests of equivalence, we look at the confidence interval of the difference between two groups, and we perform two one-sided t-tests for equivalence..

March 15, 2020 at 7:51 am

Thanks for this illustrative blogpost. I had a question on one of your points though.

By definition of H1 and H0, a two-sided alternate hypothesis is that there is a difference in means between the test and control. Not that anything is ‘better’ or ‘worse’.

Just because we observed a negative result in your example, does not mean we can conclude it’s necessarily worse, but instead just ‘different’.

Therefore while it enables us to spot the fact that there may be differences between test and control, we cannot make claims about directional effects. So I struggle to see why they actually need to be used instead of one-sided tests.

What’s your take on this?

March 16, 2020 at 3:02 am

Hi Dominic,

If you’ll notice, I carefully avoid stating better or worse because in a general sense you’re right. However, given the context of a specific experiment, you can conclude whether a negative value is better or worse. As always in statistics, you have to use your subject-area knowledge to help interpret the results. In some cases, a negative value is a bad result. In other cases, it’s not. Use your subject-area knowledge!

I’m not sure why you think that you can’t make claims about directional effects? Of course you can!

As for why you shouldn’t use one-tailed tests for most cases, read my post When Can I Use One-Tailed Tests . That should answer your questions.

May 10, 2019 at 12:36 pm

Your website is absolutely amazing Jim, you seem like the nicest guy for doing this and I like how there’s no ulterior motive, (I wasn’t automatically signed up for emails or anything when leaving this comment). I study economics and found econometrics really difficult at first, but your website explains it so clearly its been a big asset to my studies, keep up the good work!

May 10, 2019 at 2:12 pm

Thank you so much, Jack. Your kind words mean a lot!

April 26, 2019 at 5:05 am

Hy Jim I really need your help now pls

One-tailed and two- tailed hypothesis, is it the same or twice, half or unrelated pls

April 26, 2019 at 11:41 am

Hi Anthony,

I describe how the hypotheses are different in this post. You’ll find your answers.

February 8, 2019 at 8:00 am

Thank you for your blog Jim, I have a Statistics exam soon and your articles let me understand a lot!

February 8, 2019 at 10:52 am

You’re very welcome! I’m happy to hear that it’s been helpful. Best of luck on your exam!

January 12, 2019 at 7:06 am

Hi Jim, When you say target value is 5. Do you mean to say the population mean is 5 and we are trying to validate it with the help of sample mean 4.1 using Hypo tests ?.. If it is so.. How can we measure a population parameter as 5 when it is almost impossible o measure a population parameter. Please clarify

January 12, 2019 at 6:57 pm

When you set a target for a one-sample test, it’s based on a value that is important to you. It’s not a population parameter or anything like that. The example in this post uses a case where we need parts that are stronger on average than a value of 5. We derive the value of 5 by using our subject area knowledge about what is required for a situation. Given our product knowledge for the hypothetical example, we know it should be 5 or higher. So, we use that in the hypothesis test and determine whether the population mean is greater than that target value.

When you perform a one-sample test, a target value is optional. If you don’t supply a target value, you simply obtain a confidence interval for the range of values that the parameter is likely to fall within. But, sometimes there is meaningful number that you want to test for specifically.

I hope that clarifies the rational behind the target value!

November 15, 2018 at 8:08 am

I understand that in Psychology a one tailed hypothesis is preferred. Is that so

November 15, 2018 at 11:30 am

No, there’s no overall preference for one-tailed hypothesis tests in statistics. That would be a study-by-study decision based on the types of possible effects. For more information about this decision, read my post: When Can I Use One-Tailed Tests?

November 6, 2018 at 1:14 am

I’m grateful to you for the explanations on One tail and Two tail hypothesis test. This opens my knowledge horizon beyond what an average statistics textbook can offer. Please include more examples in future posts. Thanks

November 5, 2018 at 10:20 am

Thank you. I will search it as well.

Stan Alekman

November 4, 2018 at 8:48 pm

Jim, what is the difference between the central and non-central t-distributions w/respect to hypothesis testing?

November 5, 2018 at 10:12 am

Hi Stan, this is something I will need to look into. I know central t-distribution is the common Student t-distribution, but I don’t have experience using non-central t-distributions. There might well be a blog post in that–after I learn more!

November 4, 2018 at 7:42 pm

this is awesome.

Comments and Questions Cancel reply

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)..

The researcher decides where the experiment will take place, at what time, with which participants, in what circumstances,  using a standardized procedure.

• 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

Meta-analysis is a statistical procedure used to combine and synthesize findings from multiple independent studies to estimate the average effect size for a particular research question.

Meta-analysis goes beyond traditional narrative reviews by using statistical methods to integrate the results of several studies, leading to a more objective appraisal of the evidence.

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.

MA121: Introduction to Statistics

Setting Up Hypotheses

One- and two-tailed tests, learning objectives.

• Define Type I and Type II errors
• Interpret significant and non-significant differences
• Explain why the null hypothesis should not be accepted when the effect is not significant

In the James Bond case study, Mr. Bond was given 16 trials on which he judged whether a martini had been shaken or stirred. He was correct on 13 of the trials. From the  binomial distribution , we know that the probability of being correct 13 or more times out of 16 if one is only guessing is 0.0106. Figure 1 shows a graph of the binomial distribution. The red bars show the values greater than or equal to 13. As you can see in the figure, the probabilities are calculated for the upper tail of the distribution. A probability calculated in only one tail of the distribution is called a " one-tailed probability ".

Figure 1. The binomial distribution. The upper (right-hand) tail is red.

Figure 2. The binomial distribution. Both tails are red.

Should the one-tailed or the two-tailed probability be used to assess Mr. Bond's performance? That depends on the way the question is posed. If we are asking whether Mr. Bond can tell the difference between shaken or stirred martinis, then we would conclude he could if he performed either much better than chance or much worse than chance. If he performed much worse than chance, we would conclude that he can tell the difference, but he does not know which is which. Therefore, since we are going to reject the null hypothesis if Mr. Bond does either very well or very poorly, we will use a two-tailed probability.

On the other hand, if our question is whether Mr. Bond is better than chance at determining whether a martini is shaken or stirred, we would use a one-tailed probability. What would the one-tailed probability be if Mr. Bond were correct on only 3 of the 16 trials? Since the one-tailed probability is the probability of the right-hand tail, it would be the probability of getting 3 or more correct out of 16. This is a very high probability and the null hypothesis would not be rejected.

You should always decide whether you are going to use a one-tailed or a two-tailed probability before looking at the data. Statistical tests that compute one-tailed probabilities are called  one-tailed tests ; those that compute two-tailed probabilities are called  two-tailed tests . Two-tailed tests are much more common than one-tailed tests in scientific research because an outcome signifying that something other than chance is operating is usually worth noting. One-tailed tests are appropriate when it is not important to distinguish between no effect and an effect in the unexpected direction. For example, consider an experiment designed to test the efficacy of a treatment for the common cold. The researcher would only be interested in whether the treatment was better than a  placebo  control. It would not be worth distinguishing between the case in which the treatment was worse than a placebo and the case in which it was the same because in both cases the drug would be worthless.

Some have argued that a one-tailed test is justified whenever the researcher predicts the direction of an effect. The problem with this argument is that if the effect comes out strongly in the non-predicted direction, the researcher is not justified in concluding that the effect is not zero. Since this is unrealistic, one-tailed tests are usually viewed skeptically if justified on this basis alone.

• Abnormal Psychology
• Assessment (IB)
• Biological Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminology
• Developmental Psychology
• Extended Essay
• General Interest
• Health Psychology
• Human Relationships
• IB Psychology
• IB Psychology HL Extensions
• Internal Assessment (IB)
• Love and Marriage
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Prejudice and Discrimination
• Qualitative Research Methods
• Research Methodology
• Revision and Exam Preparation
• Social and Cultural Psychology
• Studies and Theories
• Teaching Ideas

Two-tailed or one-tailed test?

Travis Dixon April 13, 2021 Internal Assessment (IB)

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Everything you need for the IA in an instant download. Available here .

I can almost guarantee you’ll need a one-tailed test for your inferential statistics in the IB Psychology IA. Let’s see why.

It’s one of the most common mistakes made in the analysis, but it’s so easy to avoid. Do you need a one or two-tailed inferential statistics test (e.g. MWU or Wilcoxon)?

The Easy Answer

• If you have a one-tailed hypothesis, you must do a one-tailed inferential test.
• If you have a two-tailed hypothesis, you must do a two-tailed test.

Many students do a two-tailed test for a one-tailed hypothesis. If you do this it limits the maximum marks you can score in the analysis to 4/6. Even if you do everything else perfect but you make this one little mistake, you lose two marks.

The one vs two tailed debate still continues in Psychology ( read more ). The IB ignores this and makes it simple: one tailed hypotheses = one tailed test. No ifs, ands, or buts!

Learn more:

• Blog:  Hypotheses – How to write hypotheses
• Blog:  Lesson Idea: Inferential Statistics
• Video: How to do the Mann Whitney U test online
• Video: Internal Assessment Playlist

One vs two-tailed hypothesis: What’s the difference?

If you are predicting that one of your conditions in your experiment will have a higher value than the other, it’s one-tailed (because you know the direction of the effect – the IV is increasing the DV). Similarly, your hypothesis is one-tailed if you are predicting that manipulating the IV will cause a decrease in the DV.

However, if you think your IV will have an effect, but you’re not sure if it will increase  or  decrease it, this is two-tailed. You can see some example hypotheses here .

The default on the SocSci MWU calculator is two-tailed. Be sure to change it if you have a one-tailed hypothesis.

I’m almost 99% certain your hypothesis is one-tailed, but please double-check (and if it’s two-tailed leave a comment). The reason it’s probably one-tailed is because you have to be able to link your investigation to a theory. This invariably means explaining the results of an original study using a background theory. If you can use a theory to explain the results you know what direction to expect the results of  your  study.

The best online calculator?

The two most popular choices are VassarStats and Socscistatistics. I prefer https://www.socscistatistics.com/ because they provide a more clear summary of results which I find easier to interpret. For example, for the MWU test vassarstats provides two p values and two U values. The interface and reports are more confusing for vassarstats, I find.

Doing well on the IB Psych IA is about paying attention to detail. If you got this far in this post, I think you’re on track to do just great!

Travis Dixon is an IB Psychology teacher, author, workshop leader, examiner and IA moderator.

psychologyrocks

One- or two-tailed testing.

If your hypothesis is directional you should check the critical values for a one-tailed test. If your hypothesis is non-directional you should check the critical value for a two-tailed test. Take a careful look at some critical values tables and you will notice that it is more difficult to obtain a significant result with a two-tailed test. This is because the values are greater than the one-tailed test values for Spearman’s Rank and Chi Squared and less than the one-tailed value for Wilcoxon signed ranks.

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 Hypothesis

Definition:

A directional hypothesis is a specific type of hypothesis statement in which the researcher predicts the direction or effect of the relationship between two variables.

Key Features

1. Predicts direction:

Unlike a non-directional hypothesis, which simply states that there is a relationship between two variables, a directional hypothesis specifies the expected direction of the relationship.

2. Involves one-tailed test:

Directional hypotheses typically require a one-tailed statistical test, as they are concerned with whether the relationship is positive or negative, rather than simply whether a relationship exists.

3. Example:

An example of a directional hypothesis would be: “Increasing levels of exercise will result in greater weight loss.”

4. Researcher’s prior belief:

A directional hypothesis is often formed based on the researcher’s prior knowledge, theoretical understanding, or previous empirical evidence relating to the variables under investigation.

5. Confirmatory nature:

Directional hypotheses are considered confirmatory, as they provide a specific prediction that can be tested statistically, allowing researchers to either support or reject the hypothesis.

6. Advantages and disadvantages:

Directional hypotheses help focus the research by explicitly stating the expected relationship, but they can also limit exploration of alternative explanations or unexpected findings.

The ordeal of the one-tailed test

Statistics without fear: a tale of tails.

Posted April 29, 2011

• What Is Fear?
• Take our Generalized Anxiety Disorder Test
• Find counselling to combat fear and anxiety

Editor's Note: This post references research by Diederik Stapel. Many of his studies have since been found to be fradulent .

Tomás de Torquemada, "The hammer of heretics," would have loved to hate the one-tailed test (OTT) of statistical significance. The OTT, and those who use it, have been reviled as soft-headed, self-serving pseudo-scientists by those bent on upholding the ritual orthodoxy of the two-tailed test. O.k., this phrase came out a bit hyperbolical, and I don't have the apt scientific reference to back it up empirically beyond a reasonable doubt, p < .05, ___-tailed). Nonetheless, after observing the scene for a quarter of a century and after reviewing innumerable manuscripts, I stand behind my assessment. There's just nothing like an experience-grounded appeal to one's own authority. Well, let me at least give an example from recent research and blogging thereof. Bem (2011) tested the presence of retroactive causation (that's right!) using OTTs and skeptics have complained about it ( see here ). Incidentally, I believe that Bem, regardless of my limited sympathy for his research project, was right in choosing the OTT. But I'm getting ahead of the story.

Let me first describe two legitimate uses of the two-tailed test. Say you have set up a null hypothesis that the coin in your hand is fair and you have tossed it a bunch of times. The alternative to the null is that the coin is biased, and it could be biased by producing a number of heads or tails (no pun intended) that would be improbable if the null hypothesis were true. You then reject the assumption that the coin is fair and look for a better one. What this example illustrates is the testing of human-made devices that are supposed to yield a particular result with a particular probability. Gaming devices in general are illustrative, but one could look to industrial production as well. Sugar, to take a prosaic case, is put in bags that are supposed to contain a pound. Production may be biased, thus either cheating the consumer or the producer. Taking samples and testing the null hypothesis of no systematic error in either direction is a fine example for the use of the two-tailed test. In fact, the quality (or rather "quantity") control scenario was among the inspirations for the Neyman-Pearson decision-theoretic approach to hypothesis testing.

In psychological research, precise hypotheses that could be discredited in either tail of the distribution are rare. It is only the strongest theories that generate point-specific predictions that are not trivial and not confounded with chance (as the nil-null hypothesis is). Suppose your hypothesis that jumbo eggs are exactly half a standard deviation larger in diameter than large eggs. This hypothesis is a bold because it can be nullified at either end of the distribution and you have no idea which type of refutation is more probable. A two-tailed test is in order. Again, this is good because your substantive claim will be corroborated by a failure to reject the null hypothesis.

As these two examples show, the two-tailed test enters the fray when the researcher has a strong claim in place and ventures to falsify it. Alas, this is not the typical situation for the psychological researcher. Often, we can speculate that the effect will go in a certain direction. Most experiments are designed to test if a presumed causal variable has an effect. Will increasing self-esteem induce greater happiness ? Will practicing playing the guitar for long hours improve performance? Will holding a warm cup of coffee make you more agreeable? This is the kind of scenario envisioned in Fisher's conceptualization of significance testing. You look to reject a null hypothesis by finding an intervention that works as intended. Now, a rational person would not intend an intervention to work by either increasing or decreasing an outcome, be it happiness, virtuosity, or agreeableness . What kind of a theory predicts that the null hypothesis is false without caring in which direction it is false? Such a theory would be confirmed by a certain state of nature and also by its complete opposite. Nuts! Incidentally, this is why I prefer the phrase "global warming" over the noncommittal " climate change ."

Ergo , the OTT is the one to call when testing a directional hypothesis. Why is it done so rarely? I think the reason is that the use of the two-tailed test has become ritualized (Gigerenzer, 2004). If the two-tailed test is the right choice for the two types of strong hypothesis testing described above, why should it not be serviceable for the testing of an ordinary, directional research question? Being ritualized, the two-tailed test has become the default option. Use it, they say, unless there is a clear need not to. Unfortunately, such a need often becomes apparent only after the data are in. Suppose you wanted to show that loud music makes you more (not less) irritable. After doing the experiment, properly running a treatment condition, in which loud noise is delivered and a control condition in which it is not, you find that p = .06, two-tailed, for the comparison of the two means. The old school, hard-shell orthodoxians who live by the sword would also die by the sword. They would pronounce the experiment inconclusive, and they would not reject the null hypothesis. To the rest of us, who can resist anything but temptation, it seems that the finding is "marginally significant," which sounds more significant that "marginally attractive" sounds attractive. We see a "trend" in the desired direction, or we even see the data "trending" that way, as if they were moving. All this sounds shady, and that's where Torquemada and his henchmen come in. Reconsidering the use of the OTT after the data are in, statistics police say, is (self-) deception . Loosening the belt after the meal is to relax a noble standard.

The charge is that going with the OTT is to double the chances of a false positive result (i.e., rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true), and that is the worst sin against scientific conservatism. It seems to me, though, that this is not a problem of the OTT per se . If a two-tailed region of rejection were set up with p = .025 on either side, while at the same time a directional hypothesis was being considered, setting up an OTT with p = .025 boils down to the same thing. An OTT is not automatically less conservative than a two-tailed test; the difference appears only if a two-tailed test is replaced with an OTT post hoc . With the idea of p = .05 being the conventional level of conservatism, why not attach it to the tail of the distribution that matters? If the data are significant on the other side of the distribution, the null hypothesis is rejected as well, but so is your directional hypothesis of interest, and a fortiori so.

To you researchers out there, my advice is to go with the OTT from the outset if your research hypothesis is directional. That's how you can keep it straight (and somewhat liberal), and along the way you avoid being led into temptation by "trending" data.

L'esprit de l'escalier . After writing this post, I was waiting for a good example to come along. It took only one day. In an otherwise interesting article, Lammers, Stapel, and Galinsky (2010) present the results of several two-by-two factorial analyses of variance (ANOVA), in which the interesting result is the interaction between interpersonal power (high vs. low) and morality (judgment vs. behavior). Compared with low-power individuals, high-power individuals set stricter moral standards but act in a more relaxed fashion (i.e., they cheat more). Well, that's the narrative anyway; the statistics are arguable.

Instead of following up these interactions with simple F tests (Keppel, 1991), Lammers et al. use two-tailed t tests and promptly find some of p > .05. They don't bother with the post-hoc move to a one-tailed test or the rhetoric of marginal significance; they simply describe the results as significant. Chutzpah . Incidentally, the proper simple effects F test avoids the ‘how-many-tails headache;' the F distribution has only one tail.

So, what to make of the claim that compared with low-power individuals, high-power individuals "overreport travel expenses, t (57) = 1.78, p = .08" (p. 739)? And the head-scratching isn't over. If 61 subjects are randomized over a four-condition design, the degrees of freedom comparing two of the four means should be a bit less than half the total sample size. The final puzzler: How do you squeeze measures of moral judgment and moral behavior into the same ANOVA when the two sets of data are represented on different metrics (a 9-point scale vs. a 100-point scale). Lammers at al. choose standardization so that overall, morality judgments and the index of cheating each have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. They then report that there is no main effect for the comparison between judgment and behavior, " F < .01." The statistical ritual is running amuck! As Jacob Cohen (1994, p. 997) would say "Would you believe it? It could happen."

Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997-1003.

Gigerenzer, G. (2004). Mindless statistics. Journal of Socio-Economics, 33 , 587-606.

Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: a researcher's handbook (3rd edn). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lammers, J., Stapel, D. A., & Galinsky, A. (2010). Power increases hypocrisy: Moralizing in reasoning, immorality in behavior. Psychological Science, 21 , 737-744.

Joachim I. Krueger, Ph.D. , is a social psychologist at Brown University who believes that rational thinking and socially responsible behavior are attainable goals.

• Find Counselling
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United Kingdom
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience