Writing Hypotheses

1. Writing Hypotheses

2. 1. Wars are the product of poverty. DV is unclear. How? What kind of war (civil war or inter-state war)? Directionality: assumes causation rather than probability. War might be the product of what other factors? Alternative hypothesis: Countries with lower levels of poverty are more likely to go to war than countries with countries greater levels of poverty.

3. 2. Congress has the power to declare war. Is this even a hypothesis? No, this is simply a statement. No IV—no factor influencing declaration of war—is identified. Directionality: no relationship specified at all. Alternative hypothesis: Congress is more likely to declare war with greater public support for a military conflict than with weaker public support.

4. 3. There are important differences between whites, blacks, and Latinos in support for the Afghan war. Directionality: no relationship specified at all. What are the 3 different IVs identified here? Must be able to rank differences in influence of each IV (race) on support for the War—can write one long hypothesis or write separate ones: H1: White citizens are more likely to support the Afghan War than black or Latino citizens. H2: Black citizens are more likely to support the Afghan War than Latino citizens.

5. 4. The only way to stop civil wars is by increasing the power of the United Nations. Power = vague concept—needs to be more specific. Directionality: assumes causation not probability. Why we cannot make this assumption? (a) no plausible way to identify all possible variables. (b) no feasible way to test whether all other variables really have no impact. (c) no way to conclude that only one IV has influence on ending civil wars.

6. 4. The only way to stop civil wars is by increasing the power of the United Nations. Alternative hypothesis: The more authority the UN has to impose sanctions on countries, the less likely it is that countries will have civil wars, than the less sanctioning authority the United Nations has.

7. 5. Party contacts are more effective than interest group contacts. No DV identified—effect on what? IVs are ambiguous. How? What kind of parties? What kind of contacts (contacts as actors, contacts as actions)? Directionality: relationship needs to be more specific—contacts are effective how? We might not be able to measureinfluence of each IV on DV the same way, or with same accuracy—(need separate Hn).

8. 5. Party contacts are more effective than interest group contacts. Alternative hypotheses: H1: Voters contacted by a political party are more likely to vote than voters not contacted by a political party. H2: Voters contacted by an interest group are more likely to vote than voters not contacted by an interest group.

9. 6. The effects of education on turnout depend on the person’s gender. DV is ambiguous. How? What sort of turnout are we talking about? Directionality: relationship needs to be more specific—affects turnout how, and depends on one’s gender how? Moderating effect here: 2 IVs are interacting to create overall effect on DV. gender education  turnout

10. 6. The effects of education on turnout depend on the person’s gender. gender education  turnout Which IV has a stronger influence, here, on turnout? Alternative hypothesis: Higher levels of education increase voter turnout among women than lower levels of education.