By Marc Chao

In today’s information age, individuals are constantly exposed to a vast amount of unverified information from various sources, including social media, news outlets, and even personal conversations. Some of this information can be sensational, emotional, or even outrageous, prompting quick reactions, hasty generalisations, and conclusions. However, such rapid judgements or ill-informed hypotheses can often lead to misunderstanding or misinformation. To navigate this flood of information and make informed decisions, it is essential to apply a critical thinking approach.

The OBSERVE framework (Figure 1.4.1) is a structured critical thinking method designed to help individuals systematically assess and evaluate hypotheses in response to observed phenomena or received information. It guides you through a process of inquiry and analysis, encouraging a thorough examination of the evidence, reflection on personal biases, and careful consideration of various hypotheses to determine which one is better supported by the available information.

The framework comprises the following seven steps:

1. Observe the Phenomenon
2. Examine Beliefs and Emotions
3. Cultivate Self-awareness of Cognitive Biases
4. Establish Primary Hypothesis
5. Recognise Alternative Hypotheses
6. Verify the Evidence
7. Evaluate the Criteria of Adequacy.

1. Observe the Phenomenon

The first step in the OBSERVE framework is to observe the phenomenon. This involves carefully noticing and describing the event or situation you are investigating. For instance, you may observe that your performance on a recent test was subpar, potentially due to feeling unusually fatigued before the exam. This differed from a previous test in which you performed well after having had a restful night’s sleep. This observation may lead you to hypothesise that sleep deprivation could influence test performance.

In the realm of psychology and other sciences, observation is the foundation upon which all subsequent steps are built. Before formulating hypotheses or designing experiments, scientists must first observe a phenomenon that piques their curiosity or raises questions. This initial observation phase is essential because it allows researchers to identify patterns, anomalies, or interesting behaviours that warrant further investigation. For instance, a psychologist might notice that individuals who report high levels of stress also seem to have difficulty concentrating. This observation could lead to a more structured investigation into the relationship between stress and cognitive function.

Observation is not a passive activity; it requires active engagement and a keen eye for detail. Scientists must be meticulous in their observations, taking note of all relevant factors and conditions. This might involve recording behaviours, measuring physiological responses, or documenting environmental conditions. Inaccurate or incomplete observations can lead to flawed hypotheses and unreliable results.

Furthermore, observation is an ongoing process throughout the research. As experiments are conducted and data is collected, researchers continue to observe and refine their understanding of the phenomenon. They might notice new patterns or unexpected results that prompt further investigation. This iterative process of observation and hypothesis testing is at the heart of the scientific method, driving the advancement of knowledge.

2. Examine Beliefs and Emotions

The next step is to examine your own beliefs and emotions. This involves being aware of how your personal beliefs, emotions, and biases might shape your observations of the phenomenon. For example, if you believe that sleep deprivation significantly impacts cognitive performance, you may be more inclined to focus on aspects of the phenomenon that support this belief, such as feeling tired or struggling to concentrate. On the other hand, you may overlook or downplay evidence, such as social or environmental factors, that may contradict this view. By recognising the potential influence of your beliefs and emotions, you can approach your observations more objectively, which helps in forming a more balanced hypothesis.

Emotions and beliefs play a crucial role in how we observe and interpret phenomena. Strong emotions, such as excitement, frustration, or anxiety, can distort our observations and lead us to focus on certain details while neglecting others. For instance, if you have a personal interest in a new intervention or theory, you might be more likely to notice positive signs and ignore any negative ones. Alternatively, if you are sceptical about a certain concept, your emotions may cause you to focus on its flaws while dismissing any potential benefits. Recognising the influence of emotions and beliefs is key to maintaining objectivity and ensuring that your observations are not unduly affected by personal biases.

In addition to emotions, our existing beliefs can lead us to make biased observations. This tendency, known as motivated reasoning, involves interpreting new information in a way that aligns with our pre-existing views. For instance, if you strongly believe in the benefits of a specific diet, you might selectively focus on any positive outcomes related to it, while ignoring other factors that could explain those results. This tendency to interpret observations through the lens of our beliefs can limit our ability to consider alternative explanations and hinder the development of objective hypotheses.

To mitigate these biases, it is important to practice self-awareness and critical reflection throughout the observation process. Begin by acknowledging your beliefs and emotions and how they may be influencing what you observe. Ask yourself questions like, “Am I focusing on evidence that confirms my beliefs?” or “How might my emotional state be shaping my observations?”. By actively questioning your own thought processes, you can identify and counteract potential biases, helping to ensure that your observations are more accurate and reflective of the phenomenon itself.

3. Cultivate Self-Awareness of Cognitive Biases

Building on the previous step, this involves cultivating a deeper self-awareness of your cognitive biases. Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from rationality or logical judgement.

After observing a phenomenon, it is natural to form initial impressions and hypotheses. However, these initial thoughts are often influenced by cognitive biases. For example, if you have a tendency to believe that a particular teaching method is ineffective, you might be more likely to notice and emphasise instances where students struggle under this method, while overlooking cases where they succeed. This selective attention can lead to confirmation bias, where we favour information that supports our existing views and ignore or downplay information that contradicts them. Similarly, the anchoring bias can also play a role. If you initially observe poor performance with a specific method, you might anchor your evaluation to that first impression, making it harder to adjust your opinion even as new, more favourable evidence emerges. By recognising these biases, you can take steps to reduce their impact, such as seeking out disconfirming evidence or using blind analysis techniques.

One effective strategy is to actively seek out disconfirming evidence. Rather than focusing solely on data that supports your hypothesis, look for information that challenges it. This approach helps to balance your perspective and reduce the risk of confirmation bias. For instance, if you believe that a new educational program is effective, examine cases where it did not produce the expected results and consider alternative explanations.

Another strategy is to involve others in your research process. Collaborating with colleagues or seeking feedback from peers can provide fresh perspectives and help identify biases you might have overlooked. Others can offer critical insights and challenge your assumptions, leading to a more robust and objective analysis.

4. Establish Primary Hypothesis

Once a phenomenon has been thoroughly observed and you have reflected on your own beliefs, emotions, and biases, the next step is to establish a primary hypothesis. This is a tentative explanation or prediction that you will test through further investigation. This is where the interplay between observation and creativity becomes evident. Observing a phenomenon sparks curiosity and prompts questions, leading researchers to think creatively about potential explanations. For example, after observing that sleep-deprived individuals perform poorly on cognitive tasks, a psychologist might hypothesise that sleep deprivation impairs memory consolidation processes in the brain.

A well-crafted hypothesis should be specific and measurable. For example, instead of a vague hypothesis like “sleep affects cognitive performance”, a more precise hypothesis would be “sleep deprivation of less than five hours per night for a week negatively impacts short-term memory performance in adults”. This specificity allows for clear operational definitions and measurable outcomes, making it easier to design experiments and analyse results.

The process of establishing a primary hypothesis often involves reviewing existing literature and theories related to your observed phenomenon. This background research helps ensure that your hypothesis is grounded in current knowledge and addresses gaps or unresolved questions in the field. For instance, if previous studies have shown mixed results on the impact of sleep deprivation on cognitive performance, your hypothesis might aim to clarify these inconsistencies by focusing on a specific aspect, such as short-term memory.

In addition to being specific and measurable, a good hypothesis should be falsifiable. This means that it should be possible to prove the hypothesis wrong through empirical testing. Falsifiability is a cornerstone of the scientific method because it allows for hypotheses to be rigorously tested and potentially refuted, leading to a more robust understanding of the phenomenon.

Once you have formulated your primary hypothesis, it serves as a guiding framework for your research. It informs the design of your experiments, the selection of variables, and the methods of data collection. For example, if your hypothesis is that sleep deprivation negatively affects short-term memory, you might design an experiment where participants are assigned to different sleep conditions and their memory performance is assessed using standardised tests.

Establishing a primary hypothesis also helps in setting clear objectives and expectations for your research. It provides a benchmark against which you can compare your results and determine whether your hypothesis is supported or refuted. This clarity is essential for maintaining focus and direction throughout the research process.

5. Recognise Alternative Hypotheses

Critical thinking involves considering multiple perspectives, so it is important to recognise alternative hypotheses. These are other possible explanations for the phenomenon you are studying. Considering alternative hypotheses helps ensure that you do not prematurely settle on a single explanation and encourages a more comprehensive analysis of the data.

Recognising alternative hypotheses requires a creative and open-minded approach and a willingness to entertain different possibilities. For example, if your primary hypothesis is that sleep deprivation negatively affects cognitive performance, an alternative hypothesis might be that the observed cognitive decline is due to stress rather than sleep deprivation. This alternative explanation prompts you to consider additional variables and control for potential confounding factors in your study.

Exploring alternative hypotheses can also lead to a more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon. For instance, you might hypothesise that both sleep deprivation (factor 1) and stress (factor 2) contribute to cognitive decline, but in different ways or to varying degrees. This integrated perspective can help you design more comprehensive experiments that account for multiple factors and their interactions.

To effectively recognise alternative hypotheses, it is helpful to engage in brainstorming sessions and discussions with colleagues or peers. Collaborative thinking can generate a wider and more creative range of ideas and perspectives, helping to identify potential explanations that you might not have considered on your own. Additionally, reviewing diverse literature and case studies can provide insights into different factors that could influence the phenomenon.

Recognising alternative hypotheses also enhances the credibility and rigour of your research. It demonstrates a thorough and critical approach to inquiry, showing that you have considered multiple angles and potential explanations. This comprehensive analysis is essential for building a robust body of evidence and advancing knowledge in your field.

6. Verify the Evidence

The next step is to verify the evidence by gathering preliminary information to assess whether your hypotheses are worth testing. At this stage, instead of collecting primary data through experiments or surveys, you search for existing evidence that supports your primary and alternative hypotheses (we will see how these two evidence types contrast and challenge each other in Step 7). This involves reviewing relevant literature, conducting internet searches, and examining credible sources to evaluate whether there is sufficient empirical support for the hypotheses you intend to test.

Verifying evidence at this stage is crucial for ensuring that your hypotheses are grounded in reliable information and that your planned study will contribute meaningfully to the field. By gathering information from reputable sources, such as peer-reviewed journal articles or trusted academic publications, you can gauge whether your hypotheses are based on sound findings. On the other hand, sources such as social media posts or non-expert blogs may not provide reliable evidence, and it is important to critically evaluate these materials before considering them in your planning process.

During the verification process, it is important to assess the quality of the evidence you gather. You should scrutinise the credibility, methodology, and potential biases of the sources you encounter. For example, articles from peer-reviewed journals or research conducted by established experts in the field are generally considered more reliable than studies from questionable outlets. By verifying the credibility of your sources, you can identify any potential flaws or biases in the existing literature that might affect the hypotheses you are considering.

In addition to evaluating the credibility of your sources, it is important to assess the relevance and applicability of the evidence. Are the studies or articles you review directly related to your research question? Do they use appropriate methodologies and cover similar contexts or populations? For example, if you are considering the hypothesis that sleep deprivation negatively affects cognitive performance, you would want to review studies that examine similar variables, such as cognitive tests conducted on sleep-deprived individuals and assess how closely these studies align with your intended research design.

You should also examine the strength of the evidence you find. This includes evaluating the sample size, research design, and any statistical analysis used in prior studies. Strong evidence typically comes from well-designed studies with large, representative samples, appropriate controls, and robust statistical methods. For example, if you are testing the impact of sleep deprivation on cognitive performance, studies with carefully controlled sleep conditions and reliable cognitive tests would provide a more solid foundation for your hypothesis than studies with small sample sizes or poorly controlled variables.

Another important aspect of verifying evidence is to assess whether the findings from existing research can be replicated. If similar studies have consistently supported your hypothesis, this strengthens the case for further investigation. Conversely, if the evidence is inconsistent or there are significant challenges to replicating the findings, you might reconsider or refine your hypotheses. Replicability is a hallmark of reliable evidence and gives you greater confidence in the foundation upon which you are building your research.

Finally, it is essential to consider the ethical dimensions of the evidence you gather. While you are not yet conducting experiments or collecting primary data, you should still ensure that any existing research adheres to ethical standards, such as informed consent, privacy protection, and the minimisation of harm. Reviewing ethical considerations in prior studies can provide insight into how similar research has been conducted responsibly and can help inform your research design when the time comes to gather your data.

7. Evaluate the Criteria of Adequacy

Evaluating the criteria of adequacy for each hypothesis is a crucial step in the critical thinking process. This evaluation ensures that the hypotheses you consider are not only plausible but also robust and useful for advancing knowledge. The criteria of adequacy provide a systematic way to assess the strengths and weaknesses of each hypothesis, guiding you toward the most reliable and informative explanations. By rigorously applying these criteria, you can enhance the quality of your research and avoid common pitfalls such as confirmation bias or overcomplication.

In this step, you will use the evidence gathered in Step 6 of the OBSERVE framework to compare the hypotheses. The preliminary evidence from literature reviews, internet searches, and other reliable sources provides the foundation upon which you can critically compare the hypotheses.

The criteria of adequacy include testability, fruitfulness, scope, simplicity, and conservatism. Each of these criteria serves a specific purpose in evaluating hypotheses, helping to ensure that they are scientifically sound and practically useful.

Criterion 1: Testability

Testability is a fundamental principle in scientific inquiry. For a hypothesis to be useful, it must be testable, meaning it can be investigated through observation or experimentation and potentially proven wrong. This ensures that hypotheses are based on observable, measurable phenomena, not on vague or untestable ideas. For example, the hypothesis “sleep deprivation negatively affects cognitive performance” is testable because it can be studied through controlled experiments and cognitive tests.

A testable hypothesis allows researchers to design experiments to confirm or challenge it. This involves identifying specific variables, defining them clearly, and developing ways to measure their impact. In the sleep deprivation example, researchers might manipulate how much sleep participants get and then measure their cognitive performance using standard tests. If participants’ performance consistently declines with less sleep, the hypothesis is supported; if there is no change, the hypothesis may be disproven.

Testability also includes the idea of falsifiability. A hypothesis is falsifiable if there are potential observations or experiments that could prove it wrong. For example, the hypothesis “all swans are white” is falsifiable because it can be tested by looking for swans. If even one black swan is found, the hypothesis is disproven. Falsifiability is crucial for scientific progress because it allows theories to be refined over time. On the other hand, a non-falsifiable hypothesis cannot be tested or proven wrong. For instance, the hypothesis that “an invisible, undetectable force influences our thoughts” is non-falsifiable because there is no way to test or disprove it. Hypotheses that cannot be tested or falsified are not helpful in scientific research, as they do not contribute to advancing knowledge.

Criterion 2: Fruitfulness

Fruitfulness refers to a hypothesis’s ability to lead to new insights, predictions, and research questions. A fruitful hypothesis opens up new areas of exploration and helps expand scientific knowledge. For example, the hypothesis that sleep deprivation affects cognitive performance could lead to studies on which specific cognitive functions are impacted, the underlying brain processes, and ways to reduce the effects.

A fruitful hypothesis does not just explain what we observe; it also predicts new phenomena that can be tested. These predictions guide future research and help build a fuller understanding of the topic. For instance, if sleep deprivation is found to affect memory, researchers might predict that it also impacts attention and decision-making, leading to new studies in those areas.

Fruitfulness is also linked to heuristic value, which is a hypothesis’s ability to inspire further research and discovery. A hypothesis with high heuristic value encourages scientists to explore new ideas, develop innovative methods, and expand knowledge. This ongoing cycle of generating and testing hypotheses is essential for scientific progress.

Criterion 3: Scope

Scope refers to the range and general applicability of a hypothesis. A hypothesis with a broad scope applies to many situations and phenomena, making it more useful for understanding complex issues. For example, a hypothesis that sleep deprivation affects not just cognitive performance, but also emotional regulation and physical health has a broader scope than one that focuses only on cognitive performance.

A broad hypothesis can explain a wide range of observations, offering a more complete understanding of the phenomenon. This is especially important in fields like psychology, where many factors interact to affect behaviour and mental processes. For instance, a broad hypothesis about sleep deprivation could include its effects on mood, stress, immune function, and overall well-being.

However, it is important to strike a balance between scope and specificity. While a broad hypothesis may provide more insight, it must still be clear and testable. Researchers should aim to develop hypotheses that are both wide-ranging and grounded in evidence, ensuring they can be tested rigorously and lead to meaningful conclusions.

Criterion 4: Simplicity

Simplicity, or parsimony, refers to the preference for hypotheses that are clear and straightforward, without unnecessary complexity. This idea follows Occam’s Razor, which suggests that when faced with competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions is usually the best choice. A simple hypothesis is easier to test, understand, and communicate, making it more practical for scientific research.

For example, the hypothesis “sleep deprivation negatively affects cognitive performance” is simpler than a more complicated hypothesis that involves many interacting factors without clear definitions. Simplicity does not mean oversimplifying; it means focusing on the most important relationships and mechanisms while removing unnecessary details.

A simple hypothesis is easier to test and falsify because it has fewer variables and assumptions. This clarity makes it easier to design experiments and interpret results. However, simplicity should not sacrifice the ability to explain the phenomenon. The hypothesis must still accurately account for the observed data and offer meaningful insights.

Criterion 5: Conservatism

Conservatism refers to how well a hypothesis aligns with existing knowledge and theories. A conservative hypothesis fits with what is already known and does not require drastic changes to well-established scientific ideas. This ensures that new hypotheses build on existing knowledge, rather than contradicting or ignoring it.

For example, a hypothesis that sleep deprivation affects cognitive performance is conservative if it aligns with existing research on how sleep impacts brain function. On the other hand, a hypothesis proposing a completely new, unsupported mechanism would be less conservative and would require more rigorous testing.

Conservatism does not mean rejecting new ideas; rather, it highlights the importance of building on what we already know. New hypotheses should refine and extend current theories, integrating new findings into the larger body of scientific knowledge. This approach helps maintain the stability and reliability of science while still allowing for new discoveries.

Applying the OBSERVE Framework

The OBSERVE framework is a powerful technique that fosters critical thinking by providing a structured approach to analysing and understanding phenomena. It can be applied whenever someone encounters a new or complex situation, guiding them through systematic observation, reflection on personal biases, hypothesis formulation, consideration of alternative explanations, evidence verification, and rigorous evaluation of hypotheses. By employing the following steps, individuals can develop well-founded conclusions and make informed decisions, enhancing their ability to navigate and interpret the world around them.

Step 1: Observe the Phenomenon: Begin by carefully observing and describing the event or situation you are investigating. This step involves gathering initial data and noting relevant details to form a clear understanding of the phenomenon.

Step 2: Examine Beliefs and Emotions: Reflect on your own beliefs and emotions that might influence your interpretation of the phenomenon. Recognising how your personal perspectives can affect you helps maintain objectivity.

Step 3: Cultivate Self-awareness of Cognitive Biases: Develop a deeper awareness of your cognitive biases. These biases can skew your judgement, so acknowledging them is crucial for unbiased analysis.

Step 4: Establish Primary Hypothesis: Formulate a primary hypothesis, which is a tentative explanation or prediction about the phenomenon. This hypothesis will guide your investigation and focus your efforts on testing its validity.

Step 5: Recognise Alternative Hypotheses: Consider other possible explanations for the phenomenon. Recognising alternative hypotheses ensures a comprehensive analysis and prevents premature conclusions.

Step 6: Verify the Evidence: Search for existing evidence that supports your primary and alternative hypotheses. This step involves gathering and assessing the quality of evidence through reviewing relevant literature, conducting internet searches, and examining various sources of information.

Step 7: Evaluate the Criteria of Adequacy: Compare and contrast the primary hypothesis against the alternative hypotheses using the Criteria of Adequacy (Table 1.4.1), as follows:

The hypothesis that satisfies more of these criteria is considered better supported by the evidence. Therefore, when encountering potentially alarming or unverified information, whether online or from a personal source, it is advantageous to apply the OBSERVE framework. This approach encourages critical thinking and helps assess the credibility and accuracy of the information.