Testing the Chemistry of “The Love Hypothesis”

Since its debut on Sept. 23, “The Love Hypothesis,” starring Lili Reinhart and Tom Bateman has exploded online.

Based on Ali Hazelwood’s famous novel, the film follows PhD candidate Olive Smith (Reinhart), who convinces her best friend, Anh Pham, that she has a boyfriend by fake-dating her professor Dr. Adam Carleson (Bateman), known around Stanford as Dr. Evil. Olive’s hypothesis is as follows: If Anh believes Olive has moved on, Anh can pursue Olive’s real crush, Jeremy Langley. 

When you take love out of the equation, “The Love Hypothesis” is saturated with goofy science references. The film even juggles complex concepts like ionically cross linked polymer networks to circulating tumor cells. But how accurate are the scientific concepts the film discusses? Let’s dissect the science of “The Love Hypothesis.”

Hypotehesis and Null Hypothesis

After Olive and Adam’s first meeting in the lab bathroom, an intertile appears on screen to define a hypothesis: “an explanation based on limited evidence.” While this definition explains the gist, it does not fully encompass how hypotheses are used in research. 

A “good” hypothesis should contribute to scientific knowledge in some way shape or form. Even if the hypothesis is not supported, it can still contribute to knowledge. But because it’s a prediction that is tested through research, a hypothesis cannot be changed to match the results. 

Instead, scientists must adapt their understanding when the evidence does not support their prediction. At the end of the day, science is about the pursuit of truth, not a “right” answer. When proven wrong a “good” scientist will raise questions and explore alternate answers. 

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent… It is the one that is most adaptable to change.”

Charles Darwin, paraphrased by Leon C. Megginson, 1963. 

Every hypothesis test has a null hypothesis, which proposes that there is no relationship between the variables being studied. The competing hypothesis, sometimes reffered to as the alternative hypothesis, predicts that there will be an effect.   

Null Hypothesis: Ahn and Jeremey will NOT get together if they believe that Olive and Adam are dating. 

Competing Hypothesis: Ahn and Jeremey WILL get together if they believe that Olive and Adam are dating. 

If one rejects the null even though the evidence supports the competing hypothesis, or fails to reject the null but there is not enough evidence to support the competing hypothesis, then you do not have enough evidence to support your claim. 

There are ways to build a hypothesis that is more likely to be supported by evidence, but there is no foolproof way to guarantee it. 

Once a hypothesis and its null have been established, researchers collect and analyze data to determine whether there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis or whether they fail to reject it. Failing to reject the null does not prove that your hypothesis is ‘true,’ it means the evidence was not strong enough to disprove it. 

Type I and II Errors

During Olive and Adam’s resolution, Olive suggests that their breakup was because of a Type I error, also known as an α error. A Type I error typically occurs when a researcher rejects a null hypothesis, a prediction that there is no relationship, even though the null is true. Many scientists, like Olive, refer to this phenomenon as a “false positive.” 

For a Type I error to occur there needs to be a hypothesis to test. While Olive’s and Adam’s relationship does not explicitly state a hypothesis in the film, we can create one: Olive and Adam will fall in love if they pretend to date. The corresponding null hypothesis would be: Olive and Adam will NOT fall in love if they pretend to date. 

If this was the hypothesis Olive was referring to, her explanation does not seem to make sense. Their relationship could not have ended because of a Type I error. If we look back to the beginning of the movie Olive failed to reject the null, since she believed that she would not fall in love with Adam while they were fake dating. Therefore, her relationship with Adam could not have ended due to a Type I error. A Type I error would require Olive to reject the null and hypothesize that her and Adam would fall in love if they were to “fake date.” 

Like I’ve mentioned, a hypothesis cannot be changed to fit results; it’s deemed as unethical. This is why Adam suggests that a Type II might better explain their breakup. Also known as β errors, a Type II error is more commonly known as a “false negative.” It occurs when a researcher fails to reject the null although the competing hypothesis is actually true. 

In Olive and Adam’s case, they both failed to reject (a.k.a they believed) the null hypothesis: they would not fall in love while pretending to date, only to discover that this was false. By the end of the film, their relationship is evidence for the competing hypothesis: Olive and Adam will fall in love if they pretend to date.

Contamination

Towards the end of their resolution, Olive asks Adam: “so you contaminated the experiment?” In scientific research, contamination refers to an unwanted factor entering an experiment and altering its results. In this case, Adam “contaminated” the experiment by intentionally changing the conditions of their fake relationship: he ignored Olive, preventing their relationship from flourishing. 

In a purely biological context, contamination most often refers to a sample being exposed to something, potentially compromising the experiments results. We see an example of this earlier in the film, when a student accidentally spills mountain dew into one of her samples, contaminating it and producing skewed results. 

As a side note, this scene is unlikely to happen in a real laboratory, especially at an Ivy League institution. Most labs have strict rules prohibiting food and drinks.

Discussion

Olive and Adam’s relationship may have been an experiment gone wrong but it produced a convincing result and an exciting movie. The real “science” here is that life rarely follows a hypothesis: things do not always go according to plan. So when the evidence does not support your hypothesis be a “good” scientist and adapt.

• entertainment
• film adaptation
• love
• science