Conceptual Framework Examples Explained

A conceptual framework is a researcher-built map of the specific variables, concepts, and relationships that a study will investigate. Where a theoretical framework applies existing theories from the literature, a conceptual framework shows how those theories (and the researcher's own reasoning) apply to the particular study being conducted.

Think of it this way: the theoretical framework says "here are the established lenses." The conceptual framework says "here is exactly how I am applying those lenses to my specific variables, in this specific context."

Conceptual vs Theoretical Framework

Many studies include both. The theoretical framework provides the existing intellectual context. The conceptual framework shows how the researcher has operationalized that context for this specific study.

What a Conceptual Framework Must Include

A complete conceptual framework identifies:

1. The independent variables: the factors the study treats as causes or predictors
2. The dependent variable(s): the outcomes the study measures
3. Mediating variables (if any): factors through which the independent variable influences the dependent variable
4. Moderating variables (if any): factors that change the strength or direction of relationships
5. Assumed directionality: which variables influence which, and in what direction

The framework is often presented as a diagram showing arrows between boxes. On this page, we represent those relationships using structured tables and descriptions, since visual diagrams of the same information convey equivalent content.

Example 1: Education Research

Study: Examining whether peer tutoring improves academic performance in first-generation college students, and whether self-efficacy mediates this relationship.

---

[FRAMEWORK DESCRIPTION]

This study tests a mediation model. The independent variable is the tutoring condition (peer tutoring vs control). The dependent variable is end-of-semester GPA. The proposed mediating variable is academic self-efficacy, measured at mid-semester. The moderating variable is first-generation status, which the study hypothesizes strengthens the relationship between tutoring and self-efficacy.

[RELATIONSHIP MAP]

[PROPOSED RELATIONSHIPS]

• Peer tutoring (IV) increases academic self-efficacy (mediator)
• Higher self-efficacy (mediator) predicts higher end-of-semester GPA (DV)
• First-generation status (moderator) strengthens the IV-to-mediator path, because peer modeling from similar peers has larger effects for students with fewer prior examples of academic success in their social environment

[THEORETICAL BASIS]

This framework draws on Bandura's (1977) Social Cognitive Theory, which identifies mastery experiences and vicarious learning as primary sources of self-efficacy development. The conceptual framework operationalizes this by specifying how peer tutoring creates both sources simultaneously: tutees gain mastery experiences through guided practice and vicarious experiences by observing a peer-as-model.

---

Example 2: Public Health

Study: Why low-income urban adults delay seeking care for chronic disease symptoms

---

[FRAMEWORK DESCRIPTION]

This study uses an adapted version of the Health Belief Model (Rosenstock, 1966) to explain care-seeking delay. The framework proposes that perceived barriers are the primary predictor of delay, but that this relationship is moderated by two factors: healthcare self-efficacy and the availability of a usual source of care.

[VARIABLE MAP]

[PROPOSED RELATIONSHIPS]

• Higher perceived barriers (IV) predict longer care-seeking delay (DV)
• Higher perceived severity (IV) independently predicts shorter delay, but this effect is weaker than barriers
• Healthcare self-efficacy (moderator) reduces the strength of the barriers-to-delay relationship: respondents who are confident in navigating the system experience barriers as less prohibitive
• Having a usual source of care (moderator) independently reduces delay and also weakens the barriers effect, because established relationships reduce transaction costs of seeking care

[RATIONALE FOR FRAMEWORK CONSTRUCTION]

The Health Belief Model in its original form includes six constructs. This framework retains perceived barriers and perceived severity as the most empirically supported predictors for care-seeking delay specifically, and adds healthcare self-efficacy and usual care source as moderators based on the qualitative literature on low-income healthcare navigation. Omitting the other original constructs (perceived susceptibility, cues to action) reflects a theoretical choice: this sample has already recognized symptoms, so susceptibility is not the relevant construct.

---

Example 3: Organizational Research

Study: The relationship between transformational leadership and employee innovation behavior, mediated by psychological safety

---

[FRAMEWORK DESCRIPTION]

This framework tests a full mediation model. Transformational leadership behavior (independent variable) is hypothesized to increase team psychological safety (mediator), which in turn increases employee innovation behavior (dependent variable). Two control variables are included: team tenure (longer-tenured teams may have more established psychological safety regardless of leadership) and team size (smaller teams may produce more innovation due to coordination advantages).

[VARIABLE MAP]

[PROPOSED RELATIONSHIPS]

• Transformational leadership (IV) increases team psychological safety (mediator) by demonstrating intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and idealized influence, all of which signal that dissent and experimentation are safe
• Psychological safety (mediator) increases innovation behavior (DV), because employees who believe they can take interpersonal risks are more willing to propose novel ideas, challenge existing practices, and experiment with new approaches
• The relationship between transformational leadership and innovation behavior is fully mediated by psychological safety: the direct effect of leadership on innovation disappears when controlling for safety

[THEORETICAL BASIS]

This framework draws on Bass and Avolio's (1994) transformational leadership theory and Edmondson's (1999) work on team psychological safety. The mediation pathway extends existing work by Pieterse et al. (2010), who found direct effects of leadership on innovation but did not examine psychological safety as a mechanism.

---

How to Build a Conceptual Framework

Step 1: Identify your dependent variable. Start with what you want to explain or predict. This is the outcome of interest.

Step 2: Identify your independent variables. What factors does your research question propose as causes, predictors, or influences? List all candidates, then narrow to the ones your study can actually measure.

Step 3: Determine whether any variables mediate or moderate. A mediator explains how the independent variable affects the dependent variable (A affects B through C). A moderator changes the strength or direction of that relationship (A affects B more strongly when D is high).

Step 4: Draw the relationships. Map which variables influence which, and in what direction. This does not have to be a formal diagram; even a table showing variable types and relationships is sufficient.

Step 5: Ground it in existing theory. Identify the established theory or theories that provide the basis for each proposed relationship. A proposed relationship without theoretical grounding is a hypothesis, not a framework.

Step 6: State what you are NOT including and why. A framework that includes everything is not a framework. State which variables you are excluding and justify the exclusion.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an example of a conceptual framework? In a study of homework and student achievement, the conceptual framework would show: homework amount (independent variable), study habits as a mediator (students who do more homework develop stronger study skills, which improve achievement), and prior academic achievement as a moderator (the homework-achievement relationship may be stronger for students who are already performing well). The framework maps these relationships explicitly before data is collected.

What is the difference between a conceptual and a theoretical framework? A theoretical framework applies existing published theories to interpret a study. A conceptual framework maps the specific variables and relationships in this particular study, often drawing on theoretical frameworks as its foundation. The theoretical framework is borrowed; the conceptual framework is constructed by the researcher.

Does every study need a conceptual framework? Most empirical studies benefit from one. Purely exploratory qualitative studies sometimes describe their framework less formally, acknowledging the key concepts and relationships they expect to find without claiming to test specific relationships. Deductive quantitative studies almost always need an explicit conceptual framework to show how hypotheses are derived from theory.

Can a conceptual framework be a diagram? Yes, and this is the most common presentation format. Boxes represent variables; arrows represent proposed relationships; double-headed arrows represent bidirectional relationships. The direction of each arrow should be justified by the theoretical framework or prior empirical evidence. On this page, tables and descriptions serve the same purpose for clarity.

For the broader literature context that informs a conceptual framework, see how to write a literature review. For the theoretical framework that often accompanies it, see theoretical framework example. For structuring your research questions, see research question examples.