PERSPECTIVE article
Front. Psychol.
Sec. Quantitative Psychology and Measurement
Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1708313
There are no alternative hypotheses in tests of null hypotheses
Provisionally accepted
- Université d'Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Null hypothesis statistical testing (NHST) is typically taught by first posing a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis. This conception is sadly erroneous as there is no alternative hypothesis in the NHST. This misconception generated erroneous interpretations of the NHST procedures, and the fallacies that were deduced from this misconception attracted much attention in deterring the use of NHST. Herein, it is reminded that there is just one hypothesis in these proce-dures. Additionally, procedures accompanied by a power analysis and a threshold for type-II errors are actually a different inferential procedure that could be called dual hypotheses statistical testing (DHST). The source of confusions in teaching NHST may be found in Aristotle's axiom of excluded middle. In empirical sciences, in addition to the falsity or veracity of assertions, we must consider the inconclusiveness of observations, which is what is rejected by the NHST.
Keywords: NHST (or Null Hypothesis Significance Testing), Nhst controversy, Alternative hypothesis, Statisti cal analysis, Fallacies
Received: 18 Sep 2025; Accepted: 06 Oct 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Cousineau. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Denis Cousineau, denis.cousineau@uottawa.ca
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.