Understanding and Using Mediators and Moderators PDF

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225421729
Understanding and Using

Mediators and Moderators
Article in Social Indicators Research July 2008
DOI: 10.1007/s11205-007-9143-1
CITATIONS
READS
135
3,719
2 authors:
Amery D Wu
University of British Columb
20 PUBLICATIONS 422 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Bruno D Zumbo
University of British Columb
292 PUBLICATIONS 5,465
CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Available from: Bruno D Zumbo

Retrieved on: 05 October 2016
Soc Indic Res (2008) 87:367392

DOI 10.1007/s11205-007-9143-1
Understanding and Using Mediators and Moderators

Amery D. Wu Bruno D. Zumbo
Accepted: 14 May 2007 / Published online: 6 June 2007

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007
Abstract Mediation and moderation are two theories for refining and understanding a
causal relationship. Empirical investigation of mediators and moderators requires an
integrated research design rather than the data analyses driven approach often seen in the
literature. This paper described the conceptual foundation, research design, data analysis,
as well as inferences involved in a mediation and/or moderation investigation in both
experimental and non-experimental (i.e., correlational) contexts. The essential distinctions
between the investigation of mediators and moderators were summarized and juxtaposed in
an example of a causal relationship between test difficulty and test anxiety. In addition, the
more elaborate models, moderated mediation and mediated moderation, the use of structural equation models, and the problems with model misspecification were discussed
conceptually.
Keywords Mediator Moderator Moderated mediation Mediated moderation
Cause and effect Structural equation model Experimental design
The methodology of mediation and moderation is commonly used in social science, health,
psychological, educational, and sociological research. The purpose of this paper is to
provide an up-to-date review of the concepts, uses, and methodology of mediation and
moderation. The examples, notation, and statistical demands are purposefully broad and
easily accessible, involving several different disciplines, so as to capture as wide an
audience of readers as possible. Likewise, we begin with conceptual matters and matters of
research design so as to clear ground of many of these confusing foundational ideas before
moving to the statistical ideas that build from these foundations.
Mediation and moderation are theories for refining and understanding a causal relationship. They, in essence, are researchers hypotheses about how a cause leads to an
A. D. Wu B. D. Zumbo (&)
Department of ECPS, University of British Columbia, Scarfe Building, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver,
BC, Canada V6T 1Z4
e-mail: bruno.zumbo@ubc.ca
123
368
A. D. Wu, B. D. Zumbo
effect. The investigation of mediation and moderation effects demands an integrated research plan from articulating the theoretical rationale, choosing a research design, analyzing the data, to drawing conclusions. Unfortunately, mediation and moderation effects
have been widely misunderstood and misused as data analytical tools and statistical
hypothesis testing with little theoretical and methodological considerations. Failure to
attend to the necessity of an integrated research plan may lead to spurious conclusions. The
purpose of this paper is to shed light on the investigation of mediation and moderation
effects by describing the conceptual framework, the design demand, the data analyses, as
well as the inferences one can and cannot make regarding mediation and moderation
effects. To do so, both classical and contemporary methodologies were described and
compared.
This paper is organized as follows. First, the general concept and meaning of mediation
and moderation effects are introduced with an analogy, example, and graphical demonstration. Second, the issues about the design demand and data analysis for modeling
mediation and moderation are discussed, in more detail, in the context of a hypothetical
experiment. Third, the distinction between a mediator and moderator is contrasted and
summarized with examples. Fourth, the basic concepts for more elaborate models (i.e.,
mediated moderation and moderated mediation) are introduced. Fifth, the use of structural
equation modeling (SEM) in investigating mediation and moderation effects from correlational data is briefly described. In the last section, the problem surrounding model
misspecification of mediation and moderation is discussed.
1 Conceptualization: What are Mediators and Moderators?

The cause-and-effect relationship has been the pursuit of many scholars in the fields of
behavioral science. Testing causal hypotheses not only verifies researchers substantive
theories around a phenomenon but also answers practical questions about whether an
intervention or treatment program has the expected effect. However, as the findings mature, researchers often go beyond the simple account of the bivariate cause-and-effect
relationship, and attempt to understand what bridges the causal relationship and what alters
the magnitude or direction of the causal relationship (Frazier et al. 2004; Rose et al. 2004).
Mediators and moderators are two tools that engage with these puzzles.
A mediator is a third variable that links a cause and an effect. A moderator is a third
variable that modifies a causal effect. As we shall describe in detail below, mediation and
moderation are causal models. Here, a causal model refers to a theoretical hypothesis about
how changes in one variable results in changes in another. Testing a causal hypothesis
entails investigating whether a causal inference such that X causes Y is viable. Wegener
and Fabrigar (2000) explicitly stated that there are three types of common causal
hypotheses: direct causal effect, mediated causal effect, and moderated causal effect. Even
if the data does not permit a causal conclusion (e.g., cross-sectional or non-experimental
data), mediation and moderation models are, by nature, causal models because the
underlying theories suggest directional inferences that are intrinsically causal (Rose et al.
2004), as one will see in the forthcoming discussions.
General speaking, mediators and moderators are third variables, whose purpose is to
enhance a deeper and more refined understanding of a causal relationship between an
independent variable and dependent variable. The causal nature of mediation and mod-
123
369
eration is often overlooked or simply misunderstood hence, leading to misapplication and

misinterpretation in much of applied research (Frazier et al. 2004; MacKinnon et al. 2002;
Rose et al. 2004).
Methodologists often present mediation and moderation effects concurrently because,
conventionally, they are two competing causal theories about the mechanism through
which a third variable operates between a cause and an effect (Frazier et al. 2004; Rose
et al. 2004). That is, third variables are often hypothesized to function either as a mediator
or a moderator to explain a causal relationship. At this point, it is crucial to pinpoint a
misconception that is widely suggested and accepted among researchers. That is, a variable
is tested for a mediation effect, if the hypothesis is disconfirmed, then the same variable is
tested for moderation effect, or vice versa. We contend that the same operationalized
variable should not be tested for both mediation and moderation effects. The appropriate
role a third variable plays should be determined primarily by the researchers substantive
theory and appropriate operationalization, as we will explain in detail later.
1.1 Mediators
Mediation is a causal model (Rose et al. 2004; Wengener and Fabrigar 2000) that explains
the process of why and how a cause-and-effect happens (Baron and Kenny 1986;
Frazier et al. 2004). Hence, a mediational analysis attempts to identify the intermediary
process that leads from the independent variable to the dependent variable (Muller et al.
2005, p. 852). In other words, in a simple mediational model, the independent variable is
presumed to cause the mediator, and in turn, the mediator causes the dependent variable.
For this reason, a mediation effect is also termed an indirect effect, surrogate effect,
intermediates effect, or intervening effect (MacKinnon et al. 2002). Collins et al. (1998)
provided a vivid analogy for the mediation effect. They described the mediation process as
a line of dominos and knocking over the first domino starts a sequence where the rest of
the dominos are knocked over one after another (p. 297). They also provided an easily
understood example for a mediation model where a drug abuse prevention program (i.e.,
independent variable; treatment or control) is hypothesized to affect a participants
resistance to drugs (i.e., mediator), and in turn resistance to drug use affects the outcome of
a drug offer (i.e., dependent variable; acceptance or refusal).
The theoretical conceptualization of mediation has long been articulated in psychology
(e.g., MacCorquodale and Meehl 1948; Rozeboom 1956). Woodworths (1928) work is
one of the earliest to introduce the notion of mediation in his formulation of the Stimulus
OrganismResponse (SOR) approach to psychology in contrast to the strictly Stimulus
Response (SR) approach of the behaviorist. The Organism mediates the stimulus and
the response, and is perceived as an active processor between a stimulus and response.
However, empirically modeling mediation was not popularized until the 1980s when a
group of social-cognitive, personality, and organizational researchers such as Baron and
Kenny (1986), James and Brett (1984), as well as Judd and Kenny (1981) began to
formalize the data analytical strategies.
Figure 1 demonstrates a mediation model using path diagrams (Baron and Kenny 1986;
Frazier et al. 2004). Path diagram A, at the top, shows that there is an overall causal effect
denoted as c that leads directly from X (e.g., drug abuse prevention program) to Y (e.g.,
outcome of a drug offer). Path diagram B introduces a mediator denoted as Me (e.g.,
resistance to drug use) to explain the processing mechanism between the simple XY
causal relationship. In addition to the partial direct effect of X on Y, denoted as c0 , X also
123
370
Fig. 1 Path diagram for mediation effect
has an effect on the mediator, denoted as a, and in turn, the mediator has an effect on Y
denoted as b. In essence, a mediator plays dual roles in a causal relationship. On one hand,
a mediator is the dependent variable for X, and on the other hand, it acts like an independent variable for Y.
1.2 Moderators
A moderation effect is a causal model that postulates when or for whom an independent variable most strongly (or weakly) causes a dependent variable (Baron and Kenny
1986; Frazier et al. 2004; Kraemer et al. 2002). In essence, a moderator modifies the
strength or direction (i.e., positive or negative) of a causal relationship. A simple analogy
for a moderator is a dimmer that adjusts the strength of a switch on the lighting. For
example, a teacher researcher may not be merely interested in knowing whether a new
instructional method leads to a better learning outcome. Additionally, he or she may wish
to know if the new instruction method is equally effective for students with low and high
parental involvementparental involvement being the moderator.
Perhaps the moderation effect is more commonly known as the statistical term
interaction effect where the strength or direction of an independent variable effect on
the dependent variable depends on the level (e.g., male or female) or the value (e.g.,
attitude) of the other independent variable. In fact, the embryo of the moderation effect can
at least be traced back to the notion of the interaction effect in the context of analysis of
variance (Saunders 1956).
However, it is important to point out the implicit distinction in the semantic use of
moderation effect and interaction effect. Interaction analysis has been extensively applied
to both correlational and experimental data, as a result, the term interaction effect seems
tacitly accepted as modeling hypothesis that are not necessarily causal in nature (e.g.,
Chaplin 1991). In contrast, the term moderation effect has continuously been reserved
for models that intend to make causal hypotheses. Namely, a moderation effect is a special
case of an interaction effect, a causal interaction effect, which requires a causal theory and
design behind the data. In other words, a moderation effect is certainly an interaction
effect, but an interaction effect is not necessarily a moderation effect.
Figure 2 demonstrates the moderation effect using a conceptual path diagram. The
causal effect of X on Y, denoted as c, is dependent on the value or level of the moderator,
Mo. The change of strength or direction of the casual effect is indicated by the gradient
shading of the arrow going from X to Y rather than a solid line as in Fig. 1.
123
371
Fig. 2 Conceptual path diagram for moderation effect
2 Control over Causal Design

Since both mediation and moderation are casual models, to further the understanding of
mediation and moderation, it is necessary to set the stage by describing the design control
for general causal models. There is a long history of philosophical and scientific debate
about what constitutes causation and the methodology to demonstrate it (e.g., Holland
1986; Kenny 1979; Pearl 2000; Rogosa 1987; Rosenbaum 1984; Rubin 1974, 1986; Sobel
1995, 2005). This paper primarily takes a manipulationist view in which a cause is
manipulated to show if the occurrence of the effect pattern is consistent with an experimenters hypothesis (Holland 1986; Rubin 1974, 1986; Shadish et al. 2002). Having said
that, this paper does not exclude alternative conceptualizations based on the correlation or
probability (e.g., Wegener and Fabrigar 2000; Sobel 1995, 2005).
The Cook and Campbell (1979, p. 2) definition of experiment is a test of a causal
proposition. This definition does not restrict experiments only to designs with randomization, and mediation and moderation is not restricted only to those causal relationships
that are established based on randomized experiments. Nonetheless, the power of an
experiment in making causal claims does depend on how much control a researcher has in
the design (i.e., the operations of the independent variable, Holland 1986). The more
control one has over the experiment, the more power one has in making strict causal
inferences. This notion is widely known as the internal validity of an experiment (Cook
and Campbell 1979; Shadish et al. 2002). In the following discussion, we describe four
levels of control in an experiment that are largely related to modeling mediation and
moderation effects. To understand the four levels of control over an experimental design,
consider four statements that claim: Test anxiety causes poorer math performance.
1. Both Linda and Helen did poorly in the math exam, and have high trait anxiety.
2. Linda and Helen did poorly in the math exam, their state anxiety level rose before the
exam.
3. Linda practiced an effective anxiety reduction technique before the exam but Helen
did not. Lindas performance was better than Helens. Both have high trait anxiety.
4. Linda took the exam without practicing the effective anxiety reduction technique.
Linda took the exam again (assuming Linda did not have any memory of the first
exam), but this time she practiced the effective anxiety reduction technique before the
exam. Lindas performance the second time was better than the first time. Linda has
high trait anxiety.
In the first statement, the independent variable, Linda and Helens general anxiety level,
is seen as a stable trait or innate attribute, and was observed (i.e., measured) by the
experimenter. The statement provides no indication of when the attribute was observed. In
the second statement, the observation of the independent variable preceded the observation
123
372
of the dependent variablei.e., statement two clearly specifies that trait anxiety was
observed before the math test. In the third statement, test anxiety was seen as something
that could be manipulated before the math test by practicing or not practicing an effective
anxiety reduction technique (i.e., treatment and control) instead of being of a stable trait of
an individual. In the final statement, each of the manipulations was assigned to the same
person, Linda, assuming she has no memory of the first exam; hence no exposure from the
first exam would influence her performance in the second exam.
It seems that as the statements moving from the first to the last one is gaining increasing
inferential power to conclude that test anxiety causes poor math performance. Most readers
would agree that statement four verifies a causal claim, if the assumption Linda has no
memory of the first exam holds. However, in reality, it is impossible to erase Lindas first
exam memory as if she could go back in time. Ideally, we would wish there were two
identical Linda(s) who could take the exam simultaneously with only one practicing the
anxiety reduction technique. This unrealistic requirement of two identical Linda(s) or
erasing Lindas first exam memory is called the fundamental problem of causal inference
(Holland 1986).
At this point, it is appropriate to clarify the four levels of design control implied in each
of the four statements:
Observation: The independent variable is simply observed or measured, and is typically
a stable trait and innate attribute of a person (i.e., Lindas general anxiety trait)
Precedence: The observation or measurement of the independent variable precedes the
observation of the dependent variable in time (i.e., measuring Lindas anxiety level before
the test began).
Manipulation: Each level (e.g., control and treatment) of the independent variable is
assigned to different groups of participants (i.e., Linda practiced anxiety reduction technique, but Helen did not).
Randomization: The participants are randomly assigned to each level of the independent
variable.
Random assignment provides an alternative solution to the fundamental problem of
causal inference described earlier. If a large enough number of participants is randomly
assigned to the control or treatment groups, it is expected that all the participants characteristics influencing causal relationship are homogeneous as if the two groups of participants represent the two identical Linda(s)Linda in the control group and Linda in the
anxiety reduction group.
Note that the four levels of control are hierarchical, that is, if a higher level of control is
gained, a lower level of control is certainly gained. For example, if an experimenter has
control over randomization, then s/he has control over manipulation, precedence, and
observation. The debate over what level of control is required to make a causal claim is
beyond the scope of this paper. Fortunately, most methodologists would agree that (1) level
one control is not eligible for a causal inference, and, at best, a correlational inference can
be made, (2) level four control is legitimate for a causal inference if done appropriately. If
the situation allows, a researcher should always aim for level four controls for maximum
power of causal inference. As for the other two levels, the legitimacy in making causal
inference would depend upon the control of the other design aspects and perhaps,
soundness of the researchers theoretical reasoning.
Having described the basic design control for a causal design, we can move to review
various methodological and data analytic strategies available today in studying mediation
and moderation effects.
123
373
3 Research Design and Data Analysis for Mediation Models

Typically, mediating mechanisms are proposed only if a body of literature has tentatively
documented a causal relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable (Rose et al. 2004). A mediator is often a cognitive, affective, physiological, motivational state that functions as a persons psychological process after receiving a stimulus
such as intervention treatments (Hoyle and Robinson 2003). In turn, the responsive
changes in the mediator leads to the change in the outcome. A state is a temporary
condition of mentality or mood, transitory level of arousal or drive, and currently evoked
activities or processes (Messick 1989, p. 15). Theoretically and conceptually, a mediator
should be a responsive variable that changes within a person. For this reason, psychological
constructs that are believed to be relatively more stable such as personality traits (e.g.,
extraversion) or innate attributes (e.g., gender or ethnicity) are less likely to be a candidate
for a mediator.
Although several design frameworks for mediation effect have been proposed to date,
the classic work by Kenny and colleagues (Baron and Kenny 1986; Judd and Kenny 1981;
Kenny et al. 1998) is still the most prevalent approach, and is regarded as the default
paradigm for modeling mediation (Spencer et al. 2005; Collins et al. 1998). Hence, our
description will focus more on this line of conceptualization, which we refer to as the
Kenny approach, and then briefly introduce other contemporary thinking cast as
alternatives to the Kenny approach.
3.1 The Kenny Approach

The basic formation of the Kenny approach is identical to that shown in Fig. 1. Note that in
Kennys original formulation, X is randomly manipulated to show its causal effect on Y,
which is a measured variable. It is crucial to make clear that it is the random assignment of
the independent variable that validates the causal inferences such that X causes Y, not the
simple drawing of an arrow going from X towards Y in the path diagram. Nonetheless, the
mediator is not manipulated; rather, it is an observed variable just like the dependent
variable.
The work by Kenny and his colleagues (Baron and Kenny 1986; Judd and Kenny 1981;
Kenny et al. 1998) is summarized as a four-step data analytic method to establish a
mediation effect. Please refer to Fig. 1 while reading the following.
Step 1.
Y i cX e
To show that the independent variable is related to the dependent variable, Y is predicted
by X to estimate effect c in Fig. 1. This step establishes that there is an overall direct
effect that may be mediated. Also, i denotes the regression intercept and e denotes
the regression error.
Step 2.
Me i aX e
123
374
To show that the independent variable is correlated with the mediator, the mediator is
treated as a dependent variable and is predicted by X to test effect a in Fig. 1.
Step 3.
Y i c0 X bMe e
To show that the mediator affects the dependent variable, Y is predicted by both X and
Me to test effect b in Fig. 1. Note that it is insufficient just to regress the dependent
variable only on the mediator; the mediator and the dependent variable can be related
because they are both caused by the independent variable (i.e., X ? Me and Y), which
contradicts the specification of the mediation model (X ? Me ? Y). Hence, the
independent variable must be controlled in establishing the unique effect of the mediator
on the dependent variable in step 3.
Step 4. Compare c in Step 1 with c0 in Step 3.
If the mediator completely mediates the X ? Y relationship, the effect of c0 in Eq. 3,
which is the direct effect of X on Y controlling for the mediator, should turn to zero.
The extent to which the mediator accounts for the overall direct X ? Y relationship can
be calculated by the simple subtraction c c0 (Kenny and Judd 1984), which is the
decrease from the overall direct effect c in path diagram A to the partial direct effect c0 in
path diagram B. Alternatively, the product of the two effects that sequentially connect the
mediation paths a b indicates the mediation effect (Sobel 1982, 1988). Theoretically,
c c0 turn out to be identical to a b in the population within the ordinary least squares
statistical framework (MacKinnon et al. 1995). If step 4 is met, the magnitude of the
mediation effect c c0 , would equal to c 0 = c, which is equal to the overall direct effect.
In this case, the X ? Y relationship is said to be completely mediated. That is to say, once
the mediator is included to explain the variation in the dependent variable, the overall
direct effect X ? Y disappears. If c0 departs from zero, the X ? Y relationship is said to be
partially mediated.
In more recent thinking, Kenny et al. (1998) specified that only step 2 and 3 are essential
conditions for establishing a mediation effect. Obviously, step 4 is necessary only if
complete mediation is hypothesized, which is somewhat unlikely if only one mediator is
modeled. As for step 1, many data analysts have argued against its necessity for the
following reasons: (1) an overall effect is implied if step 2 and 3 are met, (2) it is possible
that an overall effect would not be observed, if c0 are opposite in sign to ab, a scenario that
the mediator acts like a suppressor (Kraemer et al. 2001; MacKinnon et al. 2000), and (3)
the overall effect will not be observed if multiple mediation effects are present and cancel
each other out.
Kenny also points out that meeting all four steps does not conclusively establish that the
hypothesized mediation model has occurred because there are other alternative models that
meet the above specification. For example, because the mediator is observed and not
experimentally manipulated, a reverse hypothesis that the dependent variable causes the
mediator is not ruled out.
As emphasized by Kenny and his colleagues, this four-step procedure is not a direct
statistical test of mediation effect; rather it uses data analysis as a tool to examine whether
a mediation effect is in place (Kenny et al. 1998; Kraemer et al. 2002). The four steps are
stated in terms of descriptive non-zero coefficients. Their rationale behind this warning is
that a trivial coefficient can be statistically significant with a large sample size, and large
123
375
coefficients can be non-significant with a small sample size. Hence, the four-step approach
is not intended to test the statistical significance of the mediation effect.
Even though it is argued that the four-step method is not a statistical test, per se, the
interest in testing the significance of the mediation effect has not been diminished in
practice. In fact, it could be argued that this sort of statistical testing has increased in usage
in the last decade. To date, the commonly accepted approach is to directly test the significance of the mediation effect, ab. However, the test of a mediation effect has been a
continuous debate because there is no consensus about the best way to estimate the
standard error. The most commonly applied significance test of mediation is the Sobel test
(Sobel 1982, 1988; Holmbeck 2002), which directly tests the significance
of ab against
a
p
normal Z distribution, with a standard error approximately equal to b2 SEa2 a2 SEb2 (SEa
and SEb are the standard errors of a and b). Preacher and Hayes (2004) provides the SAS
and SPSS macros for using the Sobel test, which are downloadable at http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/ahayes/sobel.htm.
Unfortunately, the Sobel test has been shown to have low statistical power because the
distribution of ab often departs from a normal distribution (Hoyle and Kenny 1999;
MacKinnon et al. 2002, 1995). When the sample size is small, it is recommended to use
other distributional alternatives (Hoyle and Kenny 1999). Two promising alternatives have
been proposed. MacKinnon provides a Z0 statistic against which ab is tested. The Z0 table is
derived from an empirical sampling distribution for a wide range values of a and b. On the
basis of these empirical sampling distributions, critical values for different significance
level were determined. Tables of these critical values can be found in electronic format at
http://www.public.asu.edu/*davidpm/ripl/methods.htm. The other alternative is to bootstrap the standard error of ab. Mallinckrodt et al. (2006) and Shrout and Bolger (2002)
provide step-by-step application procedures for bootstrapping.
As noted earlier, in Kennys formulation of mediation, the mediator is merely measured,
despite the independent variable being randomly manipulated. This lends to the criticism
that Kennys mediational model cannot provide convincing evidence that the mediator
actually causes Y. Many alternative interpretations can void the intended causal inference.
For example, the correlation between Me and Y may be due to another third variable that
has nothing to do with the independent variable. Neither is there clear evidence in making
directional inferences going from Me to the dependent variable; it may well be equally
likely that Y causes the mediator, which is contrary to the hypothesized direction. Obviously, there is a weak point at the second causal link in Kennys mediation network,
consequently, the strength in making mediational interpretation is considerably diminished
by this.
A mediation model has an intrinsic requirement for precedence control in the design
(Frazier et al. 2004; Kraemer et al. 2002; Rose et al. 2004). That is, the independent
variable precedes the mediator, which itself precedes the dependent variable. The operation
of a mediator, either manipulated or observed, should carefully follow this temporal sequence. Apart from the temporal sequence, the timing of observation after a treatment is
also critical. Observation should follow long enough after the manipulation for the causal
effect to occur and soon enough that the causal effect has not started to dissipate. However,
in Kennys formulation, although precedence of the independent variable over the
dependent variable is assured through manipulation, there is no articulation about the
necessity in the precedence of the independent variable over the mediator, nor was the
necessity in the precedence of the mediator over the dependent variable.
The other drawback of the Kenny approach for modeling mediation is that it is data
analytical in nature; as an unfortunate result, it can easily be mistakenly applied to any
123
376
types of data including those collected with only observational control. In these cases,
causal inference is far from conclusive and only a weak form of causality can be suggested.
Unless the researcher has a strong empirically tested theory behind the causal claims or
special design aspects are in place to rule out alternative inferences, the phrasing of
interpretation should remain correlational.
3.2 Experimental-Causal-Chain Design

As a caveat to the dominant approach by Kenny and his colleagues, Spencer et al. (2005),
affirmed the distinction between theoretical mediation, which views mediation as a theoretical articulation, and statistical mediation, which applies to various design and data
analytical procedures. They argued that Kennys analytical approach is simply one of the
methods to provide statistical evidence. They promoted the importance of more experimental controls to establish the mediation effect. In their view, The Kenny approach was
referred to as measurement-of-mediation design, a design that only achieves the measurement level of control (i.e., observation) over the mediator when it plays a role as an
independent variable.
Spencer et al. (2005) promoted the notion of experimental-causal-chain design, where
the mediator is, as usual, observed when it functions like a dependent variable for the
manipulated independent variable. However, the mediator is manipulated subsequently to
act like an independent variable for the outcome variable. In essence, a researcher conducts
two separate manipulated experiments; one aims to establish the causal relationship of X
on Me, and the other aims to establish the causal relationship of Me on Y. Figure 3 shows
the path diagram of such mediational design.
Using the drug abuse prevention program as an example, two separate experiments
should be conducted. One shows that the drug abuse prevention program causes the
changes in the resistance to drug use, and the other shows manipulation of the resistance to
drug use causes the changes in the outcome of accepting or refusing a drug offer. Spencer
et al. (2005) contended that such designs are underutilized in the social and behavioral
sciences and should be given greater attention. In their view, this type of design provides
strong evidence for the theoretically proposed psychological process even though it does
not directly test the meditation effect statistically. In fact, they believe that this kind of
design, because it utilizes the power of experiments to demonstrate causality, often does a
better job of demonstrating the proposed psychological process than does the measurement-of-mediation design. The reason they make this claim is that by manipulating both
the independent variable and the mediator, one can make strong inferences about the causal
chain of events. They argued that such design is a more powerful way to examine psychological processes than the Kenny approach.
The drawback of this approach is that it necessitates two separate experiments, which
involves the manipulation of both the independent variable and the mediator. Manipulation
Fig. 3 Experimental-causal-chain design for mediation
123
377
of both the independent variable and mediator may not be feasible because a mediator is
often a psychological process that is unable to be manipulated. Also, the mediator must be
first measured in the first experiment (i.e., Medv in Fig. 3) and then manipulated in the
second experiment (i.e., Meiv in Fig. 3); Operationally, the same psychological processes
often do not allow both observation and manipulation. In addition, the underlying logic for
this type of design is that as long as one can show if A then B and if B then C, then
one can conclude that if A then C. This logic holds true only when B represents two
identical events. In other words, for the experimental-causal-chain design to work, one
must show that the mediator measured and the manipulated (i.e., Medv and Meiv) are, in
fact, the same variable so that the two separate causal links can be connected to a single
integrated mediational model.
3.3 Sequence-Stage-Chain-Reaction Design

In addition to the limitations stated by Spencer et al. (2005), Kennys four-step framework
demands that the researchers data meet the typical assumptions of ordinary least squares
regression: linearity, normality, equal variances, and independence. The normality and
equal variances assumptions will be violated if any of the dependent variables (i.e., Y or
Me) in a mediational model are measured on a categorical scale. In this case, Kenny
suggested the use of logistic regression for dichotomous dependent variables that follows
the same four-step procedures. The one complication of logistic regression is computing
the size of the mediation effect. In addition, the independence assumption may also be
violated if the experiment involves a within-subject design.
Collins et al. (1998) provided an alternative framework for mediation when the
dependent variable is categorical and is obtained through within-subject design. Their
approach emphasizes the intra-individual, time-ordered nature of mediation. They argued
that even though the notion of mediation clearly indicates that a mediator occurs after what
it mediates and before the outcome, mediation is frequently assessed in cross-sectional
studies, where temporal patterns cannot be documented.
They contended that mediation is a chain reaction. They described the mediation process as a line of dominos; the beginning independent variable affects a mediator that in turn
affects the dependent variable. The design requirement is that the same individuals go
through the temporal chain. No manipulation of the independent or the mediator is necessary, and the scale of measurement is categorical for all variables.
Analogous to the Kenny approach, Collin et al.s (1998) approach is data analytical in
nature; however, the statistical technique is based on probability. To demonstrate their
approach, Collins et al. used the drug abuse prevention example mentioned earlier. The
independent variable is the prevention program with two categories (i.e., treatment or
control), the mediator is the resistance to drug use with two categories (i.e., above or below
a threshold), and the dependent variable is the outcome of the drug offer with two categories (i.e., acceptance and refusal). They presented three conditions that are stage-sequenced for establishing a mediation effect.
Condition 1. The independent variable affects the probability of the sequence: no
mediator ? positive mediator ? positive outcome variable.
The probability of undergoing the sequence from the positive mediator stage to the
positive dependent stage, given that no mediation effect and outcome effect have occurred,
is greater than in the treatment group than in the control group. It is expected that for those
who have not acquired resistance skills and not used drugs, the probability of first acquiring
123
378
the resistance skill and then refusing a drug offer is greater for the treatment group than for
the control group.
Condition 2. The independent variable affects the probability of a transition into the
positive mediator stage.
The probability of a transition into the positive mediator stage for those who have never
acquired the resistance skills is greater for the treatment group than for the control group.
That is, participation in the prevention program increases the probability of a transition into
the above threshold resistance stage.
Condition 3. The mediator affects the probability of transition into the positive outcome
stage at every level of the independent variable.
For those who have not used drugs, being in the positive mediator stage increases the
probability of a transition to the positive outcome stage for both treatment and control
groups. That is, having above-threshold resistance makes an individual more likely to
refuse a drug offer regardless whether the individual is in the control or treatment group.
Unfortunately, Collins et al.s (1998) introduction was mostly at the conceptual level
and did not provide further details about how to conduct such probabilistic analyses, with
which many applied researchers are less familiar compared to the ordinary least squares
technique. Another design demand that makes it less feasible is the requirement that the
same participants must be observed across a minimum of three time points. In addition, the
minimum design control articulated by the authors is merely at the precedence level for all
the variables, irrespective of their role in the mediation model (although higher level
control is allowed). This may render the validity of causal claims less warranted, in spite of
the use of a within-subject design across stages. For instance, if the independent variable is
comprised of naturally occurring intact groups such as students in two different high
schools in different neighborhoods, precedence control in design cannot rule out the
possibility that it is actually the pre-existing difference in the students school or neighborhood characteristics that causes the participants to refuse or accept a drug offer.
Table 1 summarizes the minimum design requirement of the three mediation frameworks introduced so far. One can see that the most flexible design requirement articulated
by the authors is the Collins et al.s sequence-stage-chain reaction approach, and the most
rigid is the experimental-causal-chain approach. However, the flexibility of the sequencestage-chain-reaction approach does not preclude its causal inferential power; conversely, it
could hold tremendous power in making causal inference if the design allows the independent variable and the mediator to be manipulated or randomly assigned.
Table 1 Comparisons for the design requirement among three approaches to mediation
Mediation approach
Measurement-of-mediation
Minimum design requirement

IV
Me
DV
Metric of the mediator
Quantity
iv: Category; dv: Quantity
Category
The Kenny Approach

Experimental-causal-chain
Spencer et al. (2005)
Sequence-stage-chain-reaction
Collins et al. (1998)
Note. M indicates manipulation, O indicates observation, and P indicates precedence
123
379
4 Research Design and Data Analysis for Moderation Models

As described earlier, a moderator is a third variable that modifies the strength or direction
of a causal relationship (Rose et al. 2004). A moderator is characterized as an innate
attribute (i.e., gender or ethnicity), a relatively stable trait (i.e., personality types or disposition), or a relatively unchangeable background, environmental or contextual variable
(i.e., parents education level or neighborhood). As Messick (1989, p. 15) stated a trait is
a relatively stable characteristic of a personan attribute, enduring process, or dispositionwhich is consistently manifested to some degree when relevant, despite considerable
variation in the range of settings and circumstances. Such a variable can either be a
person characteristic variable, which tackles questions like For whom the treatment
works? or a situational variable, which tackles questions like Where or when does the
treatment work?
Contrary to a mediation effect, a moderation effect is often sought after when a
hypothesized causal relationship is weak or not found empirically (Baron and Kenny 1986;
Chaplin 1991; Frazier et al. 2004). The above statement does not imply that further
investigation of a moderation effect is exempted if a causal effect is significant, nor that
one will always find a moderation effect if an overall causal effect is not found.
One of the reasons that a true causal effect is not found or unexpectedly weak may be
that there is a hidden moderation effect. An overall causal effect may be non-significant
because the causal effect is true only for a small group of the sample, but not for the rest.
For instance, a new instructional method for mathematics that invokes high level reasoning
ability may be beneficial to a small number of children with exceptional reasoning ability
that is beyond the age norm but not for most of the children with age-appropriate reasoning
ability. As a result, an overall effect may not be found if the new program is delivered to all
students. A non-significant true causal effect could also happen if the causal relationship
for one subgroup is positive but negative for the other. In this case, the opposite causal
effects may cancel out the overall causal effect. For instance, a program intends to enhance
young childrens social behaviors by encouraging body contacts may have a positive social
outcomes for girls but negative social outcomes for boys.
Compared to mediation, the moderation effect is more familiar to many researchers,
because it is, in convention, characterized statistically as an interaction effect. Interaction
effects are extensively covered in textbooks for experimental design under the heading of,
for example, two-way factorial ANOVA (Cohen et al. 2003; Frazier et al. 2004). In
addition, the role of a moderator is easier to conceptualize than a mediator. As explained
earlier, mediators have dual rolesan outcome variable for the independent variable and
an independent variable. A moderator, in contrast, takes a single role as an independent
variable.
However, the function of a moderator is somewhat different from that of a mediator
when it functions as an independent variable. When a mediator is characterized as a cause
for the dependent variable, the design would prefer, at least, a manipulation control to
validate the causal role of the mediator. In contrast, a moderators job is to explain the
strength and direction of the causal effect of the focal independent variable (e.g., treatment)
on the dependent variable. In this sense, a moderator is characterized more as an auxiliary
variable to refine a hypothesized bivariate causal relationship, and less as a causal variable
responsible for the outcome effect.
The focal independent in a moderation model that is hypothesized to cause the change
in the dependent variable is, at least, expected to be manipulated if not randomly assigned.
123
380
In contrast, because a moderator is seen as an auxiliary variable to explain a causal

relationship, the demand for design control in manipulation is less a concern for moderators. For this reason, moderators are typically observed rather than manipulated.
It is important to note that a moderator does not change with the independent variable,
nor should it correlate with the independent variable (Kraemer et al. 2002). Moderators
occur prior to manipulation of an experiment (Kraemer et al. 2001, 2002; Rose et al. 2004).
To show that a variable is a moderator of treatment, the variable must be a baseline or pretreatment characteristic, and is uncorrelated with the treatment (Kraemer et al. 2002). Of
course, the observation of a moderator should also precede a dependent variable (Kramer
et al. 2002, 2001). At least, the demand for precedence control must be met for a variable
to be considered as a moderator.
The measurement of the moderator can be on a continuous scale (e.g., value of selfconfidence) or a categorical scale (e.g., gender) (West et al. 1996). When the moderator is a
categorical variable, the appropriate statistical technique is the familiar two-way factorial
ANOVA, and the moderation effect is indicated by a significant interaction effect (Baron
and Kenny 1986). The effect of an independent variable on the dependent variable for each
category of the moderator is then calculated and tested for significance. When the moderator is measured on a quantitative scale, a regression analysis is often a more appropriate
choice because it has superior statistical power than ANOVA where the continuous variable has to be collapsed into categories for the analysis to work (Cohen et al. 2003; Frazier
et al. 2004; Jaccard et al. 1990; MacCallum et al. 2002; West et al. 1996).
In cases of both categorical and continuous moderators, the moderation model can be
written as a multiple regression such that
Y i aX bMo cX Mo
where i is the regression intercept, a is the partial regression coefficient for the focal
independent variable X, b is the partial regression coefficient for the moderator, and c is the
partial regression coefficient for the product term X*Mo, which is the moderation effect.
Figure 4 illustrates a statistical path diagram [in contrast to Fig. 2 demonstrated in Baron
and Kenny (1986), which is conceptual in nature].
In this diagram, the dependent variable Y is predicted by three variables: X, Mo, and
X*Mo. Moderation is indicated by the significant effect of the product term X*Mo while X
and Mo are controlled. The effect c of X*Mo represents the unique synergistic effect of the
two variables working together, over and above their separate effects. Thus, two variables
Fig. 4 Statistical path diagram for moderation effect
123
381
X and Mo are said to interact in accounting for the variance in Y; that is, over and above
their separate effects, they have a joint effect.
Although the statistical technique for interaction and moderation is identical as shown
in Fig. 4, there is a subtle difference in the intention of interpretation. The general interpretation of an interaction regression is often that both X1 and X2 are seen as focal
explanatory variables, and the interaction effect X1*X2 is seen as a non-linear effect
created by the interaction between X1 and X2. In a moderation model, the focus of the
intended interpretation is somewhat different. The focal variable X has a primary role as
the cause for the dependent variable; the moderator, on the other hand, is seen as a third
variable that alters the causal effect of the focal independent variable on the dependent
variable. In this sense, a mediator has a secondary role in refining a causal effect.
It is highly recommended that a continuous moderator be centered before creating a
cross-product term and entering the regression analysis (Cohen et al. 2003; Frazier et al.
2004; Rose et al. 2004). The reason for centering is that, unless the moderator has a
meaningful zero point, the interpretations of the main effects, a and b, are meaningless.
Centering is accomplished by subtracting the sample mean from each individuals score on
the continuous moderator. Centering produces two straightforward and meaningful interpretations of the main effects coefficients: (1) the effect of individual cause at the mean of
the sample, and (2) average effect of each individual predictor across the range of the other
variables. In addition, centering eliminates the problems of non-essential multicollinearity
between the two independent variables, X and Mo, with the product term X*Mo (Cohen
et al. 2003). Centering does not alter the significance of the moderation test, nor does it
alter the value of the regression coefficient c. Note that centering a continuous dependent
variable is unnecessary; in fact, keeping the metric of the dependent variable helps the
interpretation consistent with the original metric of the data.
Moderation effects are best detected when the causal effect is substantial (Chaplin 1991;
Frazier et al. 2004; Jaccard et al. 1990). However, as mentioned before, the moderation
effect is often examined when there are unexpectedly weak or no causal relations (Baron
and Kenny 1986; Chaplin 1991). Aguinis et al. (2001) showed that the typical power of ttest for detecting a moderation effect ranges from .20 to .34, which is much lower than the
recommended level of .80 (Cohen 1988). In addition, the effect size for moderation is
generally small (Chaplin 1991). For this reason, it is crucial to conduct a power analysis
and estimate the required sample size prior to the data collection for a true moderation
effect to be detected (Frazier et al. 2004). To do so, the effect size of the moderation effect
should be estimated. The effect size for moderation is often indexed as the change in R2
value as a result of including the synergistic moderation effect X*Mo over and above the
two main effects (Frazier et al. 2004).
If a theory predicts that the XY causal effect varies with the moderator, understanding
and interpreting the causal effect would focus on how the moderator impacts the XY
causal relationship. This is achieved by plotting the regression of Y on X at each level of a
categorical moderator called simple main effects (i.e., difference in group means) or at
meaningful cut-off points (e.g., 1*SD) of a continuous moderator, called simple
regression slopes (Cohen et al. 2003; Holmbeck 2002). Figure 5 demonstrates a hypothetical example for a moderation effect using the instructional method example described
earlier. Parental involvement at home moderates the effect of a new instructional method
on students learning outcomes. First the new instructional method should be shown to
uncorrelated with parental involvement. It was observed that, at the baseline, children with
high parental involvement performed 4 points better than children with medium and low
parental involvement. In addition, the new instructional method is most effective among
123
382
Fig. 5 Simple main effects

(simple regression slopes) of a
moderation model
children with high parental involvement at home. The new instructional method is also
beneficial to children with medium parental involvement, although less so compared to
children with high parental involvement. Unfortunately, the new instructional method does
not improve the childrens learning outcome at all for children whose parents do not get
involved in their learning. Examining moderation effects helps to identify the disadvantaged group of individuals that are excluded from the expected benefit of some intervention
programs.
After plotting the simple main effects or simple regression slopes, post hoc comparisons
of difference in group means or slopes (i.e., means of childrens learning outcome at each
level of parental involvement) are then conducted to test statistical significance. Detailed
account of analysis of moderation effect can be found in Cohen et al. (2003), Holmbeck
(2002), and Frazier et al. (2004). The UCLA Academic Technology Service provides the
step-by-step procedures and syntax for testing simple main effects and simple regression
slopes at the website: http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/spss/faq/sme.htm.
5 Distinction between Mediators and Moderators

Table 2 summarizes the distinction between mediation and moderation as described so far.
To assist in understanding, an example accompanies Table 2 wherein the independent
variable test difficulty is hypothesized to cause test anxiety, the dependent variable.
Note that the text describing the examples is highlighted in italic. This summarized
comparison is useful to theorists and applied researchers for three reasons. For researchers
who are formulating their hypothesis around a third variable for a causal relationship, this
discussion helps them to choose appropriate variables for potential mediators or moderators. For those who are designing a research plan to test their already postulated theories, it
provides the researchers with some guidelines for checking whether the postulated model
meets the theoretical and conceptual logic of mediation and moderation as well as whether
their design is appropriate for answering their questions around mediation and moderation.
For those who have failed to find the hypothesized third variable effect on a causal
relationship, it provides a checklist for detecting some plausible flaws in the previous
theory or research design.
In the case where a critical third variable has no clear characteristics of either a mediator
or moderator, the researchers substantive definition, theory of the third variable, and the
research question would have to determine the role of the third variable (Frazier et al.
2004; Kraemer et al. 2002; Rose et al. 2004). For example, an examinees perceived ability
123
383
Table 2 Distinction between mediators and moderators

Concepts/design
Mediator
Moderator
Nature of the
variable
A mediator is a state, which is a temporary A moderator is a trait, which is a relatively

stable characteristic, innate attribute,
condition of mentality or mood,
enduring process, or disposition. It can
transitory level of arousal or drive, and
also be a background or contextual
currently evoked activities, behavior, or
variable
process
Emotionality (i.e., physiological reaction)
Subject of the test (e.g., Math) or gender
Function in a
causal
relationship
A third variable that links a cause and an

effect
A third variable that modifies a causal

effect
Test difficulty affects emotionality and, in

turn, emotionality affects test anxiety
The effect of test difficulty on test anxiety

depends on the subject of the test.
Type of
questions
How and why cause leads to effect
For whom and when cause and effect

occurs
Analogy
Dominos
Dimmer switch for lighting
When to model
it?
When causal effect is found
When causal effect is found or not found
Role in a causal
relationship
Dual roles: dependent variable for X,

independent variable for Y
When the causal relationship between test When the causal relationship between test
difficulty and test anxiety is found
difficulty and test anxiety is not
homogeneous for the whole population
Single role: auxiliary independent variable
for Y
Emotionality is the dependent variable for Subject of the test is an auxiliary

independent variable modifying the
test difficulty and the independent
effect of test difficulty on test anxiety
variable for test anxiety
Sequence of
operation
Follow independent variable and precedes Precedes both independent variable and
dependent variable
dependent variable
Test difficulty precedes emotionality, which Subject of the test precedes test difficulty
precedes test anxiety
and test anxiety
Relationship
with the
independent
variable
Correlated with the independent variable
Uncorrelated with the independent variable
Emotionality is correlated with test

difficulty
The subject of test is not correlated with

test difficulty (i.e., designing the tests to
be equally difficult for math and science
before the experiment)
Design control
Manipulated or observed
Typically observed
There is no need to manipulate the subject

Emotionality can be either measured or
of the test, the subject of the test is simply
manipulated depending on the role and
observed
design
Note. Independent variable is test difficulty and the dependent variable is test anxiety
to cope may function as a mediator between test difficulty and test anxiety because it can
be seen as an examinees cognitive response after receiving a difficult test, which in turn
affects the examinees level of anxiety. Perceived ability to cope may also function as a
moderator because it can be seen as stable and long-term skills that an examinee learned
before receiving a test. It is the researchers responsibility to define their meaning of
perceived ability to cope and hypothesized its role in refining the casual relationship. Once
the researcher defines the role of perceived ability to cope, the design of the third variable
should follow accordingly as described in Table 2. In case there is no theory to guide the
potential role of the critical third variable, then the goal of the experiment should be set to
explore the role of the third variable by empirical data. Finally, readers should be
warned that Table 2 is far from exhaustive. The purpose of this summary is to provide
123
384
some supplementary guidelines for theorists and applied researchers in refining their own
well thought-through theories and design.
6 Mediated Moderation and Moderated Mediation

Both mediated moderation and moderated mediation models involve at least four variables
that function as: (1) an independent variable X, (2) a dependent variable Y, (3) a mediator,
Me, and (4) a moderator, Mo. Recall that early in the paper we stressed the frequently
neglected fact that mediation and moderation are, by nature, causal hypotheses.
Researchers should also bear in mind that this causal nature remains true with these more
elaborated models, mediated moderation and moderated mediation. Hence, all the theoretical considerations and design specifications outlined earlier regarding causal models
apply to mediated moderation and moderated mediation models as well.
6.1 Moderated Mediation

The moderated mediation model hypothesizes that the mediation effect, which is
responsible for producing the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable
depends on the value or level of the moderator (Rose et al. 2004; Wegener and Fabrigar
2000). Such a model is primarily mediational at its foundation, and the moderator has a
secondary role in explaining the mediation effect. That is, for this type of hypothesis to
make sense, a mediation effect must have been shown to occur. For example, after the
mediational pathway drug abuse prevention ? resistance to drug ? refusal to a drug
offer is established, a researcher may further investigate whether such a mediational
effect is consistent across genders (Mo) in terms of the strength and direction. In other
words, moderated mediation is present if the strength or direction of the mediation effect,
ab or cc, demonstrated in Fig. 1 depends on the level of the moderator.
Moderated mediation may be more clearly conceptualized through a path diagram.
Figure 6 illustrates a moderated mediation model. In this path diagram, the foundational
mediation model is illustrated in lighter print. The mediation effect connecting through
paths a and b is moderated by the fourth variable, Mo, which is illustrated in darker print.
Same as before, the moderated effects on a and b, are demonstrated by the gradient shading
in both the arrows going from X to Me and going from Me to Y, respectively.
Fig. 6 Conceptual path diagram of moderated mediation effect
123
385
There are alternative ways to specify a moderated mediation effect; the model shown in
Fig. 6 is one of the simplest forms. The alternative models can be specified by varying
which hypothesized mediational path the moderator has an effect upon (i.e., a, b, or both a
and b). In Fig. 6, both mediational paths are hypothesized to be moderated. It is also
possible to hypothesize that only one of the paths is moderated. In addition, alternative
models can be specified by varying the hypothesis about the number of moderators invoked. In Fig. 6, the same moderator is hypothesized to moderate both pathways. It is
likely that two distinct moderators are necessary for each individual path a and b.
Due to the space limitations, we are unable to give a detailed account of the complex
data analytic strategies for modeling moderated mediation. These data analytic strategies
can be found in Preacher et al. (in press). A variety of alternative moderated mediation
models described above can also be found in Preacher et al. (in press). In addition, the
SPSS macros for moderated mediation are available at http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/
ahayes/SPSS%20programs/modmed.htm.
6.2 Mediated Moderation

As implied in the terminology, a mediated moderation model hypothesized that a moderation effect is mediated by the fourth variable (Baron and Kenny 1986; James and Brett
1984; Muller et al. 2005; Rose et al. 2004; Wegener and Fabrigar 2000). Such a model is
primarily moderational at its foundation, and the mediator has a secondary role in
explaining the process of the moderation effect. That is, for this type of hypothesis to make
sense, a moderated treatment effect must have been shown to occur. The mediator then is
incorporated to explain the intermediary process by which such moderated treatment effect
occurs. For example, the effect of a new instruction method (X) is shown to be more
effective for children with high parental involvement at home (Mo), such synergistic effect
then leads to more collaboration between teachers and parents (Me), which in turn, causes a
better learning outcome (Y).
Figure 7 illustrates the path diagram of a mediated moderation effect. The foundational
moderation model is illustrated in lighter print. The moderation effect indicated by the
product term X*Mo (instruction method * parental involvement) is hypothesized to have
an effect on the Me (parentsteacher collaboration), denoted as d. Subsequently, Me is
Fig. 7 Path diagram of mediated moderation effect
123
386
hypothesized to have an effect on Y (learning outcomes), denoted as e. The product of term

de, indicates the hypothesized mediated moderation effect. The mediated moderation effect
is illustrated in dark print in Fig. 7. Note that one can also hypothesize that the two main
effects of X and Mo are mediated by Me; however, for illustrative simplicity, these paths
are not shown in Fig. 7. A detailed account of the research design and data analytic
strategies for modeling mediated moderation can be found in Mogan-Lopes and MacKinnon (2006) and Muller et al. (2005).
Like simple mediation and moderation models, it is the researchers substantive theories
that grant the justification of choice of model. The success in empirical confirmation of
these more elaborate models would largely rely upon the careful considerations in the
research designs summarized in Table 2 of each of the individual variables without
overburdening the subjects (Frazier et al. 2004).
7 Structural Equation Models for Mediation and Moderation:

Covariance Structure Models
All the mediation, moderation or more elaborate models using regression analysis assume
that there is no measurement error in the scores of measured variables; that is, they are all
measured with perfect reliability (Frazier et al. 2004; Jaccard and Wan 1995). Undoubtedly, measurement of educational and psychological phenomena always imports some
error of measurement into the scores. As a result, the univariate regression approaches
using regression analyses or path analysis for mediation and moderation are conducted
with measurement errors. It is well known that measurement errors attenuate the strength
of association. In addition, measurement error is likely to result in an overestimate of the
effect of the independent variable on dependent variable and underestimate of the effect of
a mediator on a dependent variable (Judd and Kenny 1981).
The common solution to this measurement error (i.e., unreliability of measurement) is to
create latent variables, which are commonly believed to be measurement error free. This is
accomplished by incorporating multiple observed indicators to represent the underlying
latent variable using structural equation modeling1 (SEM) (Baron and Kenny 1986; Frazier
et al. 2004; Holmbeck 1997; Jaccard and Wan 1995, 1996). When any of the variables in a
mediation or moderation model are represented by a latent variable, the employment of
SEM as an analytic tool is necessary.
The other advantage of the SEM approach is its great flexibility in incorporating
multiple causes, mediators, and moderators in one single model (MacKinnon et al. 2002).
Although a simple mediation and moderation account is often a valuable step in understanding a bivariate causal relationship, many psychological phenomena necessitate networking accounts that are beyond a third variable span (i.e., nomological network,
Cronbach and Meehl 1955). As the number of causes and third variables increase, the
univariate regression approach quickly becomes unwieldy, because it invokes numerous
complex equations (Wegener and Fabrigar 2000).
1
Path analysis and factor analysis are special cases of SEM. A path analysis is a type of SEM in which each
variable has only one indicator and the relationship among the variables are specified. Hence, a path analysis
approach to mediation and moderation does not deal with the problem of measurement errors, however, it,
can deal with multiple univariate regression analyses in one model. A factor analysis is a type of SEM in
which each latent variable has multiple indicators hence deals with the measurement error problem, but
there are no relationship specified among the latent variables. A full SEM incorporates and integrates path
analysis and factor analysis; the latent variables have multiple indicators and their relationships are modeled.
123
387
Another advantage of SEM in testing mediation and moderation in one single model is
that it provides goodness-of-fit indices to assist in assessing the viability of the hypothesized model by indicating the extent to which the model fits the data at hand. However, it is
important to note that a good model fit does not prove that the postulated model is correct.
Model data fit, at best, indicates that one fails to falsify the hypothesized model. Potential
alternative models that involve the same variables (or different variables), however, different patterns of relationships, could fit the data as well, if not better (Baron and Kenny
1986; Frazier et al. 2004; Hershberger 2006; MacCallum et al. 1993). It is the researchers
responsibility to refute the feasibility and viability of the alternative models in order to
espouse their own.
The desirable features of SEM do not come without a price. Because a considerably
larger number of parameters are to be estimated, SEM entails an extra large sample size in
addition to that already required for obtaining enough power to detect mediation and
moderation effects, which are typically small in size (Frazier 2004). When a large sample
size is unfeasible, such as clinical or some applied research settings, SEM approaches
should be employed with particular caution.
One important warning is that the underlying data being analyzed in SEM is the
covariance structure of the observed data, which is correlational in nature. That is, the
maximum design control achieved by the SEM data is often observational. This does not
imply that experimental data cannot be employed in SEM. Rather, the point to highlight
here is that, as mentioned before, simple observational data provides little justification for
making a causal hypothesis and inferences (Shrout and Bolger 2002; Sobel 1990; Wegener
and Fabrigar 2000). When SEM is used to model mediation and moderation, which are
causal in nature, drawing directional arrows from one construct to another does not render
the power to make causal claims.
Some researchers argue for the legitimacy for making causal claims on the basis of
precedence control for SEM models. However, Holmbeck (1997) stressed the importance
in distinguishing between a causal model and a temporal model when data is analyzed by
SEM. Pathways that are temporal in nature do not automatically warrant the causal sequence of events. Unfortunately, graphical illustration of a temporal model is identical to
that of a causal model. The causal validity relies even more heavily on the researchers
cautious and contemplated specification of the relationships prior to the data collection as
well as an eye toward falsifying alternative models after the postulated models shown to fit
the data. Also, the concept and design summarized in Table 2 would tremendously help the
formulation of the causal relationship in mediation and moderation. Ultimately, if the SEM
approach is adopted, three of the criteria should be met before a causal meditation and
moderation inference can be concluded (Bollen 1989; Kenny 1979; Hoyle and Smith 1994;
Sobel 1990).
1. There is a true population association between two variables.
2. The association is not spurious; that is, the association is not due to a third variable that
is irrelevant to the postulated theory or that may be relevant to theory yet unmodeled
or uncontrolled.
3. The occurrence of cause precedes the effect in time.
The use of SEM to model mediators is discussed extensively in Brown (1997), Cole and
Maxwell (2003), Holbert and Stephenson (2003), and Kenny and Judd (1984). Discussions
on the SEM to model moderators can be found in Algina and Moulder (2001), Bollen and
Paxton (1998), Jacard and Wen (1995), Kenny and Judd (1984), Marsh et al. (2004),
123
388
Moulder and Algina (2002), Ping (1996), Schermelleh-Engel et al. (1998), Schumacker
(2002) and Schumacker and Marcoulides (1998).
8 Model Misspecification
Carefully postulated and tested mediators and moderators are powerful tools to refine
researchers theories or to improve practitioners delivery of intervention effects. This
paper has reviewed and compared the concept, the design demand, and the data analysis
regarding mediation and moderation. This description includes the basic and more elaborate models for mediation and moderation in the context of both experimental and
observational data.
In this section, the problem with model misspecification is brought to light. A model is
misspecified if the variables included in the model, the specification of the relationships
among the variables, and/or the functional form (e.g., linear or quadratic) of the relationships depart from the population model. Correct model specification cannot be
explicitly tested because it is a theoretical property of the population. At best, it may be
indirectly and empirically indexed by the data-model fit and statistical diagnostics.
One of the sources of misspecification in a mediation and moderation models is the
incorrect functional form of the causal relationship. Note that all the modeling techniques
for continuous dependent variable assume linear casual relationship among the independent variable, mediators, moderators, and dependent variable. Seldom have we seen the
mediation and moderation literature admit the necessity of checking whether this
assumption holds. It is not unreasonable to hypothesize non-linear causal relationship
among educational and psychological phenomena; however, notions and methods for nonlinear mediational and moderational paradigm are hardly discussed in the literature.
Model misspecification is also related to the often-neglected phenomenon of alternative
models. As mentioned earlier, even if the researchers hypothesized model and design
meet all the conditions specified by either experimental or correlational analytic techniques, there are alternative models that fit the data equally well (Baron and Kenny 1986;
Frazier et al. 2004). Unfortunately, these potentially viable models are often neglected,
especially when SEM approaches is used and fit indices indicate a good fit. MacCallum
et al. (1993) and Hershberger (2006) showed that for any given model, there are alternative
models, with different patterns of relationships among the variables, that fit the data
equally well as the chosen model. However, seldom do we see efforts in examining the
viability of the alternative models.
A model can also be misspecified if the hypothesized causal direction is, in fact, not true
in the population. The cause-and-effect types of language frequently slip into the research
reports in which the data are correlational in nature, and no further efforts of argument or
justification are provided for the explicit causal claims. Non-experimental data is prevalent
in educational and psychology literature. James and Brett (1984) reminded researchers of
attending to all conditions necessary for establishing causation, for either experimental or
correlational designs, before conducting empirical tests to support causal inferences. In
particular, if data is correlational, researchers, should, at least, evaluate their hypothesized
model and design against the three criteria for causality listed in the last section.
Model misspecification could also occur if the population variable is omitted from the
hypothesized model (Cole and Maxwell 2003). Omitting important variables could bias
estimates of the mediation and moderation effects and result in incorrect conclusions about
123
389
the postulated model (Cole and Maxwell 2003; Frazier et al. 2004). If either the problems
of causal direction or variable omission are present, the statistical procedures should be
regarded as exploratory procedures and the interpretation should be in correlational terms,
such that the correlation between the independent variable and dependent variable decreases if a third variable is incorporated, or the strength of correlation between two
variables is dependent on a third variable.
Finally, there are some concerns surrounding mediation and moderation that are
emerging concurrently. For example, the conditional independence assumed by regression
and SEM statistical techniques would likely be violated if the data are collected through
complex sampling design such as hierarchical or longitudinal data (Rose et al. 2004).
Modeling approaches to combat these types of designs are beginning to emerge. For
example, multilevel models have been proposed to solve these types of problems (Bauer
et al. 2006; Kenny et al. 2003; Shrout and Bolger 2002). Undoubtedly, these advances
would further refine and extend our understanding of modeling mediation and moderation
in the near future.
9 Take Home Messages

The investigation of mediation and moderation effects demands an integrated research plan
from articulating the theoretical rationale, choosing a research design, analyzing data, to
drawing conclusions. This article intends to deliver four key messages, and hopefully
clarifies some of the misconceptions and misapplications in the literature.
1. Mediation and moderation models are theoretical formulations for causal relationships
rather than mere data analytic techniquesas often mistreated in the research
literature.
2. Mediators and moderators are used to refine causal models: (a) mediators typically are
psychological states or activities and behaviors that occur after the cause, and (b)
whereas moderators are typically innate characteristics, traits or background variables
that occur before the cause.
3. Third, empirical testing of causal models such as mediation and moderation effects
require causal design and arguments to rule out alternative hypotheses.
4. Because mediators and moderators are distinct in concept and design, it is non-sensical
to test an operationalized variable for both mediation and moderation effects.
In closing, the information summarized in Table 2 is critical because in planning
research studies it provides principal guidelines for formulating researchers theoretical
model and design for a research program; whereas in retrospect, when reading extant
literature, Table 2 provides evaluative criteria for scrutinizing the quality of the existing
literature on mediation and moderation.
References
Aguinis, H., Boik, R. J., & Pierce, C. A. (2001). A generalized solution for approximating the power to
detect effect of categorical moderator variables using multiple regression. Organizational Research
Methods, 4, 291323.
Algina, J., & Moulder, B. C. (2001). Note on estimating the Joreskog-Yang model for latent variable
interaction using LISREL 8.3. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 4052.
123
390
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182.
Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and
moderated mediation in multilevel models: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological
Methods, 11, 142163.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Bollen, K. A., & Paxton, P. (1998). Interactions of latent variables in structural equation models. Structural
Equation Modeling, 5, 267293.
Brown, R. L. (1997). Assessing specific mediational effect in complex theoretical models. Structural
Equation Modeling, 4, 142156.
Chaplin, W. F. (1991). The next generation in moderation research in personality psychology. Journal of
Personality, 59, 143178.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. P., Cohen, S. G., West, L. S., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: questions and tips
in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 4, 558577.
Collins, L. M., Graham, J. W., & Flaherty, B. P. (1998). An alternative framework for defining mediation.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 295313.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52,
281302.
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Baron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counselling
psychology. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 51, 115134.
Hershberger, S. L. (2006). The problem of equivalent structural models. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Muller
(Eds.), Structural equation modeling: a second course (pp. 1341). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.
Holbert, R. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2003). The importance of indirect effects in media effects research:
testing for mediation in structural equation modeling. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media,
47, 556572.
Holland, P. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 945
960.
Holmbeck G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators
and moderators: examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of
Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 65, 599610.
Holmbeck, G. N. (2002). Post-hoc probing of significant moderational and mediational effects in studies of
pediatric populations. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27, 8796.
Hoyle, R. H., & Kenny, D. A. (1999). Statistical power and tests of mediation. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.),
Statistical strategies for small sample research. Newbury Park: Sage.
Hoyle, R. H., & Robinson, J. I. (2003). Mediated and moderated effects in social psychological research:
measurement, design, analysis issues. In C. Sansone, C. Morf, & A. T. Panter (Eds.), Handbook of
methods in social psychology (pp. 213233). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hoyle, R. H., & Smith, G. T. (1994). Formulating clinical research hypothesis as structural models: a
conceptual overview. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 429440.
Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wan, C. K. (1990). Interaction effects in multiple regression. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1995). Measurement error in the analysis of interaction effects between continuous predictors using multiple regression: multiple indicator and structural equation approaches.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 348357.
Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1996). LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multiple regression. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and test for mediation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69, 307321.
Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: estimating mediation in treatment evaluation.
Evaluation Review, 5, 602619.
Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley.
Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (1984). Estimating the linear and interative effects of latent variable. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 361373.
123
391
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske,
& G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, 4th ed., pp. 233265). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Kenny, D. A., Korchmaros, J. D., & Bolger, N. (2003). Lower level mediation in multilevel models,
Psychological Methods, 8, 115128.
Kraemer, H. C., Stice, E., Kazdin, A, Offord, D., & Kupfer, D. (2001). How do risk factors work together?
Mediators, moderators, and independent, overlapping, and proxy risk factors. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 158, 848856.
Kraemer, H. C., Wilson, G T., Fairburn, C. G., & Agras, W. S. (2002). Mediators and moderators of
treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59, 877883.
MacCallum, R. C., Wegener, D. T., Uchino, B. N., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1993). The problem of equivalent
models in applications of covariance structure analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 185199.
MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of
quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 1940.
MacCorquodale, K., & Meehl, P. E. (1948). On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychological Review, 55, 95107.
MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of mediation, confounding, and
suppression effect. Prevention Sciences, 1, 173181.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparisons of
methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83104.
MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). A simulation study of mediated effect measures.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 4162.
Mallinckrodt, B., Abraham, W. T., Wei, M., & Russell, D. W. (2006). Advances in testing the statistical
significance of mediation effects. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 53, 372378.
Marsh, H. W., Wen, Z., & Hau, K. T. (2004). Structural equation models of latent interactions: evaluation of
alternative estimation strategies and indicator construction. Psychological Methods, 9, 275299.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13103).
New York: American Council of Education & Macmillan.
Mogan-Lopes, A. A., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2006). Demonstration and evaluation of methods for assessing
mediated moderation. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 7787.
Moulder, B. B., & Algina, J. (2002). Comparison of methods for estimating and testing latent variable
interactions. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 119.
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated mediation is moderated.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852863.
Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: models reasoning, and inference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ping, R. A. Jr. (1996). Latent variable interaction and quadratic effect estimation: a two-step technique using
structural equation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 166175.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple
mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717731.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (in press). Addressing moderated mediation hypothesis:
theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research.
Rogosa, D. (1987). Causal models do not support scientific conclusions: a comment in support of Freedman.
Journal of Educational Statistics, 12, 185195.
Rose, B. M., Holmbeck, G. N., Coakley, R. M., & Franks, E. A. (2004). Mediator and moderator effects in
developmental and behavioral pediatric research. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 25, 58
67.
Rosenbaum, P. R. (1984). From association to causation on observational studies: the role of tests of
strongly ignorable treatment assignment. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 4148.
Rozeboom, W. W. (1956). Mediation variable in scientific theory. Psychological Review, 63, 249264.
Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and non-randomized studies.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688701.
Rubin, D. (1986). Comment: which ifs have causal answers? Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 81, 961962.
Saunders, D. R. (1956). Moderator variables in prediction. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
16, 209222.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Klein, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (1998). Estimating nonlinear effects using a Latent
Moderated Structural Equations Approach. In R. E. Schumacker & G. A. Marcoulides (Eds.), Interaction and nonlinear effects in structural equation modeling (pp. 203238). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schumacker, R. E. (2002). Latent variable interaction modeling. Structural Equation Modelling, 9, 4054.
123
392
Schumacker, R., & Marcoulides, G. (Eds.) (1998). Interaction and nonlinear effects in structural equation
modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for
generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures
and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 4, 422445.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S.
Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290312). Washington, DC: American Sociological
Association.
Sobel, M. E. (1988) Direct and indirect effects in structural equation models. In J. S. Long (Ed.), Common
problems/proper solutions: avoiding error in quantitative research (pp. 4664). Beverly Hill, CA:
Sage.
Sobel, M. E. (1990). Effect analysis and causation in linear structural equation models. Psychometrika, 55,
495515.
Sobel, M. E. (1995). Causal inference in social and behavioral sciences. In G. Arminger, C. C. Clog, & M.
E. Sobel (Eds.), Handbook of statistical modeling for the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 132).
New York: Plenum Press.
Sobel, M. E. (2005) Discussion: the scientific model of causality. Sociological Methodology, 35, 99133.
Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: why experiments are often
more effective than mediational analysis in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 89, 845851.
Wegener, D., & Fabrigar, L. (2000). Analysis and design for nonexperimental data addressing causal and
noncausal hypothesis. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and
personality psychology (pp. 412450). New York: Cambridge University Press.
West, S. G., Aiken, L. S., & Krull, J. L. (1996). Experimental personality design: analyzing categorical by
continuous variable interactions. Journal of Personality, 64, 149.
Woodworth, R. S. (1928). Dynamic psychology. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Psychology of 1925. Worcester,
MA: Clark University Press.
123

Understanding and Using Mediators and Moderators PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding and Using Mediators and Moderators PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

Understanding and Using

Available from: Bruno D Zumbo

Soc Indic Res (2008) 87:367392

Understanding and Using Mediators and Moderators

Accepted: 14 May 2007 / Published online: 6 June 2007

1 Conceptualization: What are Mediators and Moderators?

Mediators and Moderators

eration is often overlooked or simply misunderstood hence, leading to misapplication and

Fig. 1 Path diagram for mediation effect

Mediators and Moderators

Fig. 2 Conceptual path diagram for moderation effect

2 Control over Causal Design

Mediators and Moderators

3 Research Design and Data Analysis for Mediation Models

3.1 The Kenny Approach

Mediators and Moderators

3.2 Experimental-Causal-Chain Design

Fig. 3 Experimental-causal-chain design for mediation

Mediators and Moderators

3.3 Sequence-Stage-Chain-Reaction Design

Minimum design requirement

Metric of the mediator

iv: Category; dv: Quantity

The Kenny Approach

Mediators and Moderators

4 Research Design and Data Analysis for Moderation Models

In contrast, because a moderator is seen as an auxiliary variable to explain a causal

Fig. 4 Statistical path diagram for moderation effect

Mediators and Moderators

Fig. 5 Simple main effects

5 Distinction between Mediators and Moderators

Mediators and Moderators

Table 2 Distinction between mediators and moderators

A mediator is a state, which is a temporary A moderator is a trait, which is a relatively

Subject of the test (e.g., Math) or gender

A third variable that links a cause and an

A third variable that modifies a causal

Test difficulty affects emotionality and, in

The effect of test difficulty on test anxiety

How and why cause leads to effect

For whom and when cause and effect

Dimmer switch for lighting

When causal effect is found

When causal effect is found or not found

Dual roles: dependent variable for X,

Emotionality is the dependent variable for Subject of the test is an auxiliary

Correlated with the independent variable

Uncorrelated with the independent variable

Emotionality is correlated with test

The subject of test is not correlated with

There is no need to manipulate the subject

6 Mediated Moderation and Moderated Mediation

6.1 Moderated Mediation

Fig. 6 Conceptual path diagram of moderated mediation effect

Mediators and Moderators

6.2 Mediated Moderation

Fig. 7 Path diagram of mediated moderation effect

hypothesized to have an effect on Y (learning outcomes), denoted as e. The product of term

7 Structural Equation Models for Mediation and Moderation:

Mediators and Moderators

Mediators and Moderators