A key aim of social psychology is to understand the psychological processes through which independent variables affect dependent variables in the social domain. This objective has given rise to statistical methods for mediation analysis. In mediation analysis, the significance of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables has been integral in theory testing, being used as a basis to determine (1) whether to proceed with analyses of mediation and (2) whether one or several proposed mediator(s) fully or partially accounts for an effect. Synthesizing past research and offering new arguments, we suggest that the collective evidence raises considerable concern that the focus on the significance between the independent and dependent variables, both before and after mediation tests, is unjustified and can impair theory development and testing. To expand theory involving social psychological processes, we argue that attention in mediation analysis should be shifted towards assessing the magnitude and significance of indirect effects.

References

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millenium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420.
10.1080/03637750903310360
Web of Science®Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 307–321.
10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.307
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5, 602–619.
10.1177/0193841X8100500502
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Leonardelli, G., & Tormala, Z. L. (2003). The negative impact of perceiving discrimination on collective well-being: The mediating role of perceived ingroup status. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 507–514.
10.1002/ejsp.159
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Little, T. D., Card, N. A., Bovaird, J. A., Preacher, K. J., & Crandall, C. S. (2007). Structural equation modeling of mediation and moderation with contextual factors. In T. D. Little, J. A. Bovaird & N. A. Card (Eds.), Modeling Contextual Effects in Longitudinal Studies (pp. 207–230). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10.4324/9780203936825
Google Scholar
MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Google Scholar
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614.
10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding, and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173–181.
10.1023/A:1026595011371
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104.
10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
McFatter, R. M. (1979). The use of structural equation models in interpreting regression equations including suppressor and enhancer variables. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 123–135.
10.1177/014662167900300113
Google Scholar
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852–863.
10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Petty, R. E. (2006). The research script: One researcher’s view. In F. T. Leong & J. M. Austin (Eds.), The Psychology Research Handbook: A Guide for Graduate Students and Research Assistants (2nd edn., pp. 465–480). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
10.4135/9781412976626.n33
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., & Tormala, Z. L. (2002). Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 722–741.
10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.722
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New York: Academic Press.
Google Scholar
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.
10.3758/BF03206553
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (forthcoming). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods.
Google Scholar
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). ssessing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.
10.1080/00273170701341316
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195–202.
10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.195
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.
10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–313.
10.2307/270723
Google Scholar
Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845–851.
10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Tormala, Z. L., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2007). Multiple roles for source credibility under high elaboration: It’s all in the timing. Social Cognition, 25, 536–552.
10.1521/soco.2007.25.4.536
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Tormala, Z. L., Falces, C., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2007). Ease of retrieval effects in social judgment: The role of unrequested cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 143–157.
10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.143
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Tormala, Z. L., Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2002). Ease of retrieval effects in persuasion: A self- validation analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1700–1712.
10.1177/014616702237651
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr, & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197–206.
10.1086/651257
Web of Science®Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume5, Issue6

June 2011

Pages 359-371

Mediation Analysis in Social Psychology: Current Practices and New Recommendations

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Mediation Analysis in Social Psychology: Current Practices and New Recommendations

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information