Chapter1-015- Forming and Testing Hypotheses

We social psychologists have a hard time thinking ofanything more fascinating than human existence. As we wrestlewith human nature to pin down its secrets, we organize our ideas andfindings into theories. A theory is an integrated set of principles thatexplain and predict observed events. Theories are a scientific shorthand.

In everyday conversation, “theory” often means “less thanfact”—a middle rung on a confidence ladder from guess to theory to fact. Thus,people may, for example, dismiss Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution as “justa theory.” Indeed, notes Alan Leshner (2005), chief officer of the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science, “Evolution is only a theory, but sois gravity.” People often respond that gravity is a fact—but the fact is thatyour keys fall to the ground when dropped. Gravity is the theoreticalexplanation that accounts for such observed facts.

To a scientist, facts and theories are apples andoranges. Facts are agreed-upon statements about what we observe. Theories areideas that summarize and explain facts. “Science is built up with facts, as ahouse is with stones,” wrote the French scientist Jules Henri Poincaré, “but acollection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.”

Theories not only summarize but also imply testablepredictions, called hypotheses. Hypotheses serveseveral purposes. First, they allow us to test a theory by suggesting how wemight try to falsify it. Second, predictions give direction to research andsometimes send investigators looking for things they might never have thought of.Third, the predictive feature of good theories can also make them practical. Acomplete theory of aggression, for example, would predict when to expect aggressionand how to control it. As the pioneering social psychologist Kurt Lewindeclared, “There is nothing so practical as a good theory.”

Consider how this works. Say we observe that people wholoot, taunt, or attack often do so in groups or crowds. We might thereforetheorize that being part of a crowd, or group, makes individuals feel anonymousand lowers their inhibitions. How could we testthis theory? Perhaps (I’m playing with this theory) we could devise alaboratory experiment simulating aspects of execution by electric chair. Whatif we asked individuals in groups to administer punishing shocks to a haplessvictim without knowing which member of the group was actually shocking thevictim? Would these individuals administer stronger shocks than individualsacting alone, as our theory predicts?

We might also manipulate anonymity:Would people deliver stronger shocks if they were wearing masks? If the resultsconfirm our hypothesis, they might suggest some practical applications. Perhapspolice brutality could be reduced by having officers wear large name tags anddrive cars identified with large numbers, or by videotaping their arrests—allof which have, in fact, become common practice in many cities.

But how do we conclude that one theory is better thananother?

A good theory effectively summarizes many observations,and makes clear predictions that we can use to

• confirm or modify the theory,

• generate new exploration, and

• suggest practical applications.

When we discard theories, usually it’s not because theyhave been proved false. Rather, like old cars, they are replaced by newer,better models.