For students with a draft introduction to an empirical psychology thesis or dissertation. The page shows the structure psychology readers expect, a funnel from the phenomenon to the theory, the earlier findings, the gap, and the hypotheses, and what they check at each step: whether the hypotheses follow from the theory you present, and whether the constructs are defined the way your method measures them.
No one sees their own blind spots, with or without AI help. Esmond points them out in your draft from within your field, along with factual errors and inconsistencies.
An empirical psychology introduction is an argument that ends in a test. At the University of Waterloo, the honours thesis handbook in psychology describes the empirical project this way: “For an empirical project, the student develops a testable hypothesis and uses scientific procedures to evaluate the hypothesis.” The introduction is where that hypothesis is built: it names a phenomenon, explains it with a theory, shows what earlier studies found and where they stop, and arrives at a prediction the method section can test.
The movement is from broad to narrow. The School of Psychology at UNSW Sydney describes the introduction of a psychology lab report this way: “It starts broadly, beginning with the broad context of the problem, and becomes more focused on the specific issue or issues within the relevant literature.” For the elements every thesis introduction shares (context, gap, aim, outline), see the general page on the master's thesis introduction. This page covers what psychology adds.
A hypothetical example of a commentYour introduction defines resilience as a process of recovery over time, but Hypothesis 1 is tested with a single trait questionnaire. Which of the two definitions does the hypothesis use?
A first comment on one part of your own draft, right away and without an account.
Get a free previewIn an APA-style manuscript, the introduction carries no "Introduction" heading. The paper's title is repeated on the first page of text and the introduction follows directly below it; Trent University's APA 7 guide for student papers describes that first page in this way. Subsections inside the introduction get APA headings, and the introduction ends just before the Method heading.
The two German groups quoted here use a chapter form instead. The guidelines of the Cognitive Modelling and Decision Neuroscience Lab at the University of Hamburg list a short Introduction, then Theoretical and empirical background, then an overview of the student's own study with the hypotheses. Bochum's Psychological Methods group uses a similar sequence, with a chapter for research questions and hypotheses before the Methods. The funnel is the same in both shapes; only the headings differ.
The chapter form is not a separate literature review. Hamburg says of the background chapter: “This part of the thesis does not have the function of providing a broad literature review.” If your program asks for a separate review chapter, the psychology literature review page covers that; the introduction stays selective and keeps only the work that leads to your hypotheses.
The gap step has its own page on the research gap in a thesis. In psychology, a reader expects the gap to be stated in the terms of the theory: which prediction hasn't been tested, in which population, or with which design.
| Step | What it does | What a reader asks |
|---|---|---|
| Phenomenon | Names the psychological question in the first paragraph | Is this a question about thinking, feeling, or acting, or only a social trend? |
| Constructs | Defines each key construct and how it is usually measured | Does the definition match the instrument in the method section? |
| Theory | Presents the model that explains the phenomenon | Does the theory make a prediction, or only describe? |
| Earlier findings | Shows what studies testing the theory found, with their designs and samples | Are conflicting findings reported, or only those that fit? |
| Gap | States what those studies leave open | Does the gap follow from the studies just discussed? |
| Rationale | Explains why your design can address the gap | Why this sample, this manipulation, this measure? |
| Hypotheses | States the predictions, each tied to the theory | Could each one fail, and does each have a test later? |
A psychology reader traces each hypothesis back to a paragraph in the introduction. The University of Warsaw's rules for the master's thesis in psychology describe what that part must contain: “The theoretical part of the thesis should include a description of the theoretical context providing the background for the research questions or a set of premises for the hypotheses formulated.” A hypothesis that appears without such premises looks chosen after the fact.
Precision matters as much as origin. The University of Guelph's Department of Psychology advises: “When hypothesizing you should clearly specify both the direction and the magnitude of an effect.” "Self-esteem will be related to social media use" names no direction. "Students who compare themselves more often with peers on social media will report lower self-esteem, with a small-to-moderate correlation" can be tested, and can fail. Where earlier findings conflict or are few, SWPS University's standards accept non-directional questions or a general research objective instead.
Departments differ on how much statistical detail belongs here. Hamburg's guidelines separate the levels: “At this point in the text, only conceptual hypotheses should be formulated; the operationalized and statistical hypotheses can become part of the methods section after the operationalizations and the statistical procedure have been presented.” In an APA manuscript, the hypotheses usually close the introduction, in conceptual form, numbered so the results can follow the same order.
Psychological constructs (anxiety, resilience, working memory, self-control) have several definitions, and each definition implies a different measure. The introduction chooses one and says why. The method section then measures that construct with an instrument that fits the definition. A reader checks the pair: a construct defined as a state measured with a trait scale, or a construct defined as multidimensional and analyzed as a single total, will be questioned.
Bochum's evaluation criteria for the introduction and theoretical background name a clear definition and delineation of central constructs, and for the hypotheses a theoretically consistent derivation from the literature. SWPS University's standards ask correlational theses to begin with a clear definition of the main theoretical variables and the theoretical basis for that definition.
Hamburg's lab allows generative AI as a supporting aid on condition that its use is transparent and documented, and Bochum's group allows AI tools only as assistants, with every use documented in the thesis. If your department has a rule like this, ask your supervisor before you use Esmond on your introduction, and document the use as the rules require.
These fragments are made up. None of them comes from a real thesis.
Esmond evaluates every assignment before you submit. It never writes it.
Esmond is an AI tool that doesn't write for you. If your course doesn't allow any AI tools, don't use Esmond for that work. If you're unsure, ask your instructor or advisor.
In an introduction, Esmond can flag the gaps a psychology reader would query in your own text: a hypothesis with no premise in the theory you present, a hypothesis with no direction, a construct defined one way here and measured another way in the method, a gap claim that your own citations contradict, or studies that never lead anywhere. The sample report shows how such comments look, and how Esmond works explains the steps. For other chapters, start at thesis chapter feedback.
Esmond reads what you upload. If the file holds the whole draft, it can set this chapter against the others; if it holds one chapter, the review stays within that chapter and may raise a point that another chapter already answers.
Esmond doesn't approve your hypotheses, doesn't search for literature you haven't cited, and doesn't check your headings against APA or your department's template. You decide what to change. For the research question itself, see what a research question is.
A funnel: the phenomenon, the key constructs and their definitions, the theory, earlier findings, the gap, the rationale for your study, and the hypotheses. In APA manuscript form this is one continuous introduction; in the chapter form used by the Hamburg lab and the Bochum group, it is split into an introduction, a theoretical background, and a chapter on research questions and hypotheses.
Not the word "Introduction". In APA style the title of the paper is repeated on the first page of text and the introduction starts below it. Departments that use numbered thesis chapters may ask for an Introduction chapter, so follow your department's template.
The introduction keeps only the studies that lead to your hypotheses and ends with them. A literature review, where a program asks for one, covers the field more broadly. Hamburg's guidelines say the background chapter does not have the function of a broad literature review.
At the end of the introduction in APA form, or in a separate chapter before the Methods in the chapter form used by Bochum and Hamburg. Hamburg keeps conceptual hypotheses there and moves operationalized and statistical hypotheses to the methods section.
An example shows the funnel and the level of detail. Your introduction has to lead to your own hypotheses, so the useful test is whether each hypothesis can be traced back to the theory and studies you present.
Read on November 8, 2026.
Get your paper evaluated before you submit