You've spent weeks cleaning data. Your eyes are blurry from staring at Python scripts or SPSS windows. Finally, you run the test, and there it is: a number that makes your heart sink. The p-value is 0.42. Or maybe 0.06—the "so close but so far" heartbreak of the statistics world. If p value is greater than alpha, the knee-jerk reaction is to think you've failed. You might feel like you wasted your time or that your hypothesis was stupid.
But honestly? That's not how science works.
✨ Don't miss: Mobile Tech News WTGMobileTech: Why 2026 is the Year of the Unfair Advantage
A high p-value isn't a "no." It's more of a "not enough evidence." It’s the statistical version of a "Not Guilty" verdict in a courtroom. Just because a jury finds someone not guilty doesn't mean they are definitely innocent; it just means the prosecution didn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. In your study, the "prosecution" is your data, and the "reasonable doubt" is your alpha level.
The Boring Truth About the Null Hypothesis
When your p-value is greater than alpha, you fail to reject the null hypothesis. It’s a mouthful. Most people hate saying it. We want to say "the null hypothesis is true," but statisticians will jump down your throat for that. Why? Because you haven't proven the null is true. You've just shown that your data is perfectly consistent with a world where nothing interesting is happening.
Imagine you're testing a new "brain-boosting" coffee. Your null hypothesis ($H_0$) is that the coffee does absolutely nothing for focus. Your alpha ($\alpha$) is set at the standard 0.05. After testing twenty people, you find a p-value of 0.12. Since 0.12 is greater than 0.05, you can't brag about your coffee.
Does this mean the coffee is useless? Not necessarily. It might mean your sample size was too small to catch a subtle effect. Or maybe the coffee only works on people who are sleep-deprived, and your participants were all well-rested. Basically, the noise in your data drowned out the signal. You didn't find the "truth"; you just found a lack of proof.
What Alpha Actually Is (And Why We Pick 0.05)
Alpha is your line in the sand. It’s the risk you're willing to take of being wrong—specifically, the risk of a Type I error. That’s when you claim something is happening when it’s actually just random luck.
We use 0.05 because a guy named Ronald Fisher suggested it in the 1920s. Seriously. There is no mathematical law written in the stars that says 0.05 is sacred. If you were testing a new brake system for a Boeing 747, an alpha of 0.05 would be terrifyingly high. You'd want an alpha of 0.0001. But if you’re testing whether people prefer blue pens or black pens, maybe 0.10 is fine.
📖 Related: How to unhide apps on iPhone 13: What most people get wrong
When your p-value ends up being 0.06, and your alpha is 0.05, you are in "marginal" territory. It’s frustrating. You’re looking at a result that is likely not just luck, but it doesn't meet the arbitrary threshold we've collectively agreed upon. This is where the nuance of an expert matters more than a computer readout.
Common Mistakes When the P-Value is High
People do weird things when they see a non-significant result. I’ve seen researchers try to "p-hack" their way out of it. They might go back and remove "outliers" that were actually valid data points just to push that 0.06 down to a 0.049.
Don't do that. It ruins the integrity of the science.
Another big mistake is assuming the effect size is zero. If you're testing a medical treatment and the p-value is 0.20, but the patients in the treatment group lived three years longer than the control group, that's a huge deal! The high p-value might just be because you only had ten patients. In this case, the clinical significance outweighs the statistical significance. You've got a "power" problem, not a "the medicine doesn't work" problem.
The Problem of Low Power
Power is the probability that your test will find an effect if there actually is one. If your study has low power, you are almost destined to have a p-value greater than alpha.
Think of it like trying to find a needle in a haystack with a weak magnet. If you don't find the needle, is it because the needle isn't there? Or is it because your magnet sucks? Usually, it's the magnet. Small sample sizes are the weakest magnets in the world of data. If you only test five people, you could discover the cure for aging and still end up with a p-value greater than alpha because the math requires more "proof" to rule out a fluke.
Real World Example: The 2016 Election Polls
Statistical significance is misunderstood even by the pros. Remember the 2016 US election? Many polls suggested a specific outcome, but the margins of error (which are tied to p-values and confidence intervals) were often ignored by the public. When a result falls within the margin of error, it's essentially saying the p-value for a "difference" is greater than alpha.
The data was telling us "it's too close to call," which is exactly what happens when you fail to reject the null. The null, in that case, was that both candidates had equal support. People saw "no significant difference" and interpreted it as "Candidate A is definitely winning by a tiny bit." Then, when the results flipped, they blamed the stats. The stats weren't wrong; the interpretation of the uncertainty was.
Why "Trending Toward Significance" is a Trap
You'll see this phrase in academic papers all the time. "While the result was not significant (p = 0.08), it trended toward significance."
It sounds smart. It's actually kind of nonsense.
A result is either significant based on your pre-set alpha, or it isn't. You can't be "kind of" pregnant, and you can't be "kind of" significant in a frequentist framework. If you find yourself using this phrase, you're likely trying to salvage a "failed" experiment. Instead of hunting for trends, look at your confidence intervals.
If your confidence intervals are massive, your study was noisy. If they are tight and centered near zero, you can actually start to argue that there really is no effect. That is a much more powerful statement than saying something "trended."
Embracing the Null
Some of the most important discoveries in history came from a p-value being greater than alpha. Look at the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887. They were trying to detect "aether," a substance people thought light moved through. They expected to find a significant difference in the speed of light depending on how the Earth was moving.
💡 You might also like: Natural Log of Complex Number: Why Your Calculator Probably Lies to You
They found nothing.
The p-value (if they had used modern terms) would have been huge. They failed to reject the null. That "failure" paved the way for Einstein’s theory of relativity. If they had p-hacked their way to a "significant" result to satisfy their peers, modern physics might have been set back by decades.
How to Handle a High P-Value in Your Report
If you are writing up a report where the p-value is greater than alpha, be honest and thorough. Don't bury it in the appendix.
- Report the exact p-value. Don't just write "p > 0.05." If it's 0.06, say it's 0.06. If it's 0.90, say it's 0.90. Those two numbers tell very different stories.
- Discuss Effect Size. Use Cohen’s d or Pearson’s r. If your effect size is large but your p-value is also large, acknowledge that you likely lacked the sample size to reach significance.
- Analyze Post-hoc Power. Check if your study actually had a chance of succeeding. If your power was 0.20, your p-value being greater than alpha was almost a mathematical certainty from the start.
- Suggest Future Directions. Maybe the variable you tested doesn't work on its own, but it might work as an interaction.
It's All About Context
Statistics are a tool, not a religion. The alpha level of 0.05 is a guideline, not a divine command. When the p-value is greater than alpha, it's a signal to look deeper, not a signal to quit. Maybe your hypothesis was wrong. That's fine! Knowing what doesn't work is just as valuable as knowing what does. It saves the next researcher from wasting their time on the same dead end.
Actionable Steps for Your Next Analysis
If you find yourself staring at a non-significant result, don't panic. Take these steps to ensure your work still has value:
- Check your assumptions. Was your data normally distributed? Did you use a parametric test when you should have used a non-parametric one? Sometimes a p-value is high simply because the test was the wrong "shape" for the data.
- Visualize the data. Create a box plot or a scatter plot. Sometimes you can see a clear pattern that the p-value is missing because of one or two extreme outliers that skewed the variance.
- Look at the Confidence Intervals. If the interval includes zero, you can't claim a direction. But look at how much it includes zero. Is the interval mostly on the positive side? That’s a hint for future research.
- Be transparent in your writing. Explain why you think the p-value was high. Was it the measurement tool? Was it the sample? Scientific integrity is worth more than a dozen significant results that can't be replicated.
Ultimately, if p value is greater than alpha, you have a result. It's just not the "eureka" moment you wanted. But in the long game of data science and research, "no evidence of a difference" is a vital piece of the puzzle. Document it, learn from it, and move on to the next test with better power and a tighter design.