Scribd Logo
Unggah

Selamat datang di Scribd!

  • Baron & Kenny (1986) - JPSP

    Diunggah oleh

    jourdanse
    232 tayangan10 halaman
    buku baron dan kenny tahun 1986

    Hak Cipta

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Format Tersedia

    PDF atau baca online dari Scribd

    Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

    Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

    Laporkan Dokumen Ini
    buku baron dan kenny tahun 1986

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai PDF atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    232 tayangan10 halaman

    Baron & Kenny (1986) - JPSP

    Diunggah oleh

    jourdanse
    buku baron dan kenny tahun 1986

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai PDF atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    dari 10
    Com yh en Pein tn a The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations Reuben M. Baron and David A. Kenny University of Connecticut In this article, we attempt to distinguish between the ata numberof levels, First, we seek to make theocs properties of moderato nd mediator variables js and researchers avare of the importance of not using the terms moderaior and mediator interchangeably by carefully elaborating, both concep ‘wally end strategically the many ways in which moderators and mediators dif We then go beyond this largely pedagogical function and delineate the conceptual and strategic implications of making suse of such distinc ions with regard to a wide range of phenomena, including contol and stress, stitades, and personality traits, We alzo provide aspciic compendium of analytic procedures ap- ‘propriate for making the most effective use ofthe moderator and mediator distinction, both sepa- ‘ately and in terms ofa broader causal system that includes both moderators and mediators. ‘The purpose of this analysis is to distinguish between the properties of moderator and mediator variables in such a way fs to clarify the different ways in which conceptual variables may account for differences in peoples’ behavior. Specifically, wwe differentiate between two often-confused functions of third variables: (a) the moderator function of third variables, which partitions a focal independent variable into subgroups that es- tablish its domains of maxima effectiveness in regard toa given ‘dependent variable, and (b) the mediator function of a third variable, which represents the generative mechanism through Which the focal independent variable is able to influence the dependent variable of interest, “Although these two functions of third variables have a rela- tively long tradition in the socal sciences, it is nota all uncom. ‘mon for social psychological researchers to use the terms mod- trator and mediator interchangeably. For example, Harkins, Latang, and Williams (1980) first summarized the impact of identifiability on socal loafing by observing that it “moderates social loafing” (p. 303) and then within the same paragraph proposed “that identifiability isan important mediator of social Toahng.” Similarly, Findley and Cooper (1983), intending a ‘moderator interpretation, labeled gender, age, race, and socio economic level as mediators of the relation between locus of control and academic achievement. Thus, one largely pedagosi- This research was supported in part by National Science Foundation Grant BNS.6210137 and National Insitute of Mental Health Grant [ROIM-#0295-01 tothe second author Support was also given to him ding his sabbatical year (1982-83) by the MacArthur Foundation at the Center for Advanced Studies inthe Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, Califor “Thanks are due to Judith Harackiewicr, Charles Judd Stephen West land Haris Cooper who provided comments on an eslier version of this article Stephen P. Needel was instrumental in the beginning stages ofthis work, ‘Correspondence concerning tis article should be addressed 0 Reu- ben M. Baron, Department of Psychology U-20, University of Connect- ‘out, lors, Connecticut 06268. 7 cal function of this article is to clarify for experimental re- searchers the importance of respecting these distinctions. “Thisis not, however, the central thrust of our analysis. Rather, ‘our major emphasis is on contrasting the moderator-mediator functions in ways that delineate the implications of this distinc tion for theory and research. We focus particularly on the differential implications for choice of experimental design, re- search operations, and plan of statistical analysis. We also claim that there are conceptual implications of the failure to appreciate the moderator-mediator distinction. ‘Among the issues we will discuss inthis regard are missed op- portunities to probe more deeply into the nature of causal ‘mechanisms and integrate seemingly irreconcilable theoretical positions. For example, itis possible that in some problem areas Gisagreements about mediators can be resolved by treating cer tain variables as moderators. ‘The moderator and mediator functions will be discussed at three levels: conceptual, strategic, and statistical. To avoid any ‘misunderstanding ofthe moderator-mediator distinction by er- roneously equating it with te difference between experimental ‘manipulations and measured variables, between situational and ‘person variables, or between manipulations and verbal self-re- ports, we will describe both actual and hypothetical examples involving a wide range of variables and operations. That is, ‘moderators may involve either manipulations or assessments nd either situational or person variables. Moreover, mediators are in no way restricted to verbal reports or, for that matter, 0 individual-level variables. Finally, for expository reasons, our analysis will intially stress the need to make clear whether one is testing a moderator ‘or a mediator type of model, In the second half of the article, ‘we provide a design that allows one to test within the structure of the same study whether a mediator or moderator interpreta- tion is more appropriate. : ‘Although these issues are obviously important for a large ‘numberof areas within psychology, we have targeted this article fora social psychological audience because the relevance ofthis distinction is highest in social psychology, which uses experi= 174 REUBEN M, BARON AND DAVID A. KENNY ‘mental operations and at the same time retains an interest in ‘organismic variables ranging from individual difference mea- sures to cognitive constructs such as perceived control. ‘The Nature of Moderators In gencral terms, a moderator is a qualitative (esx, race, lass) or quantitative (e, level of reward) variable that affects the direction and/or strength of the relation between an inde pendent or predictor variable and a dependent or criterion vari- able. ‘Specifically within @ correlational analysis framework, a ‘moderator is third variable that affects the 2ero-order correla tion between two other variables. For example, Stern, McCants, and Pettine (1982) found that the positivity of the relation be- ‘ween changing life events and severity of iliness was considera- bly stronger for uncontrollable events (e., death of a spouse) than for controllable events (eg, divorce). A moderator effect within a correlational framework may also be said to occur ‘where the direction of the correlation changes. Such an effect ‘would have occurred in the Stern et al. study if controllable life ‘changes had reduced the likelihood of illness, thereby changing the direction of the relation between life-event change and ill ‘ness from positive to negative. In the more familiar analysis of variance (ANOVA) terms, & basic moderator effect can be represented as an interaction be- tween a focal independent variable and a factor that specifies the appropriate conditions for its operation. In the dissonance forced compliance area, for example, it became apparent that the ability of investigators to establish the effects of insuficient justification required the specification of such moderators as ‘commitment, personal responsibility, and free choice (cf, Brehm & Cohen, 1962). ‘An example of a moderatortype effect in this context is the ‘demonstration of a crossover interaction of the form that the insufficient justification effect holds under public commitment (ea. attitude change is inversely related to incentive), whereas attitude change is directly related to level of incentive when the ‘counterattitudinal action occurs in private ef. Collins & Hoyt, 1972), A moderator-interaction effect also would be said to 0c- cour if'a relation is substantially reduced instead of being re- versed, for example, if we find no difference under the private condition." Toward Establishing an Analytic Framework for Testing Moderator Eifects ‘A common framework for capturing both the correlational and the experimental views of a moderator variable is possible by using a path diagram as both a descriptive and an analytic procedure. Glass and Singers (1972) finding of an interaction of the factors stressor intensity (noise level) and controllability (periodic-aperiodie noise), of the form that an adverse impact (on task performance occurred only when the onset ofthe noise ‘was aperiodic or unsignaled, will serve as our substantive exam- ple, Using such an approach, the essential properties of a mod- ‘erator variable are summarized in Figure | ‘The model diagrammed in Figure 1 has three causal paths that feed into the outcome variable of task performance: the Predictor. Outcome Moderator ———b_> aleome s Predictor x Moderotor Figure 1 Moderator mode impact ofthe noise intensity as a predictor (Path a), the impact ‘of controllability as a moderator (Path 5), and the interaction ‘or product of these two (Path c). The moderator hypothesis is, supported ifthe interaction (Path c) is significant. There may also be significant main effects forthe predictor and the moder- ator (Paths a and 6), but these are not directly relevant concep- tually to testing the moderator hypothesis, In addition to these basic considerations, itis desirable that the moderator variable be uncorrelated with both the predictor, ‘and the criterion (the dependent variable) to provide a clearly ‘interpretable interaction term. Another property of the moder- ator variable apparent from Figure | is that, unlike the media ‘or-predictor relation (where the predictor is causally anteced- ‘ent to the mediator), moderators and predictors are atthe same level in regard to their role as causal variables antecedent or exogenous to certain criterion effects. That is, moderator vari- ables always function as independent variables, whereas medi- ‘ating events shift roles from effects to causes, depending on the focus ofthe analysis. Choosing an Appropriate Analytic Procedure: Testing Moderation In this section we consider in detail the specific analysis pro- cedures for appropriately measuring and testing moderational hypotheses. Within this framework, moderation implies that the causal relation between two variables changes asa function of the moderator variable. The statistical analysis must measure nd test the differential effect ofthe independent variable on the dependent variable as a function of the moderator. The way to ‘measure and tes the differential effects depends in part on the level of measurement of the independent variable and the mod- crator variable. We will consider four cases: In Case 1, both moderator and independent variables are categorical variables; in Case 2, the moderator isa categorical variable and the inde- pendent variable a continuous variable; in Case 3, the modera- " Ata conceptual level a moderator maybe more impressive if we go from a strong to a weak relation or to no felation at ll as opposed to finding a crossover interaction. Tati although crossover interactions are stronger statistically as they are not accompanied by residual main fects, conceptually no elect shits may be more impressive. ‘THE MODERATOR-MEDIATOR DISTINCTION tor is a continuous variable and the independent variable is a categorical variable; and in Case 4, both variables are continu- fous variables, To ease our discussion, we will assume that all the ‘categorical variables are dichotomies. Case 1 “This is the simplest case. For this case, a dichotomous inde- pendent variable’s effect on the dependent variable varies as a function of another dichotomy. The analysis is a2 x 2 ANOVA, ‘and moderation is indicated by an interaction. We may wish to measure the simple effects of the independent variable across the levels of the moderator (Winer, 1971, pp. 435-436), but these should be measured only ifthe moderator and the inde- pendent variable interact to cause the dependent variable. Case 2 Here the moderator isa dichotomy and the independent vari ableisa continuous variable. For instance, gender might moder- ate the effect of intentions on behavior. The typical way to mea sure this type of moderator effect is to correlate intentions with, ‘behavior separately foreach gender and then test the difference. For instance, virtually all studies of moderators ofthe attitude ‘behavior relation use a correlational test. “The correlational method has two serious deficiencies. Fist, it presumes that the independent variable has equal variance at tach level of the moderator. For instance, the variance of inten tion must be the same for the genders. If variances differ across levels of the moderator, then for levels of the moderator with less variance, the correlation of the independent variable with the dependent variable tends to be less than for levels of the ‘moderator with more variance. The source ofthis difference is, referred to as a restriction in range (McNemar, 1969). Second, if the amount of measurement error in the dependent variable ‘varies asa function of the moderator, then the correlations be- ‘tween the independent and dependent variables will diffe spuri- ously. ‘These problems illustrate that correlations are influenced by changes in variances, However, regression coeficents are not affected by differences in the variances of the independent vari- ‘able or differences in measurement error in the dependent vari- ‘able. It is almost always preferable to measure the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable not by correla tion coefficients but by unstandardized (not betas) regression coefficients (Duncan, 1975). Tests ofthe difference between re- gression coefficients are given in Cohen and Cohen (1983, p. 56). This test should be performed first, before the two slopes. are individually tested. I there is differential measurement error in the independent variable across levels ofthe moderator, bias results. Reiabilites ‘would then need to be estimated for the different levels of the ‘moderator, and slopes would have to be disattenuated. This can ‘be accomplished within the computer program LISREL-VI (Gareskog & Srbom, 1984) by use of the multiple group op- tion. The levels ofthe moderator are treated as different groups. Case 3 In this case, the moderator is a continuous variable and the independent variable isa dichotomy. For instance, the indepen- 1175 ttect ofthe independent ‘arlble on The dependent voriate Ettect of he Lal of the moaarter variable Figure 2. Three diferent ways in which the moderator changes the eect ofthe independent variable on the dependent variable: linear top), quae IV 3) DV> Mad LV Dv> iv Testing Mediation An ANOVA provides limited test ofa mediational hypothesis as extensively discussed in Fiske, Kenny, and Taylor (1982). Rather, as recommended by Judd and Kenny (1981b),a series of regression models should be estimated. To test for mediation, ‘one should estimate the three following regression equations: first, regressing the mediator on the independent variable; sec- ‘ond, regressing the dependent variable on the independent vari- able; and third, regressing the dependent variable on both the independent variable and on the mediator. Separate coefficients for each equation should be estimated and tested. There is no need for hierarchical or stepwise regression or the computation, cof any partial or semipartial correlations. These three regression equations provide the tests ofthe link- ‘ages of the mediational model. To establish mediation, the fol- lowing conditions must hold: First, the independent variable ‘must affect the mediator in the frst equation; second, the inde~ ‘pendent variable must be shown toaffect the dependent variable in the second equation; and third, the mediator must affect the

    Anda mungkin juga menyukai