10/12/13

Three segments
•  Moderation Example 1
Statistics One •  Centering predictors
•  Moderation Example 2
Lecture 13
Moderation

1 2

Moderation & Mediation

•  Moderation and Mediation may sound
Lecture 13 ~ Segment 1 alike but they are quite different
–  Moderation (Lecture 13)
–  Mediation (Lecture 14)
Moderation Example 1
–  Both demonstrated in R (Lab 7)

3 4

1

 10/12/13

Moderation Mediation
Mediator

5 6

An example Moderation
•  X: Experimental manipulation •  A moderator variable (Z) will enhance a
–  Stereotype threat regression model if the relationship
•  Y: Behavioral outcome between X and Y varies as a function of Z
–  IQ test score
•  Z: Moderator
–  Working memory capacity (WMC)

7 8

2

 10/12/13

Moderation Moderation
•  Experimental research •  Correlational research
–  The manipulation of an IV (X) causes change –  Assume a correlaton between X and Y
in a DV (Y) –  A moderator variable (Z) implies that the
–  A moderator variable (Z) implies that the correlation between X and Y is NOT
effect of the IV on the DV (X on Y) is NOT consistent across the distribution of Z
consistent across the distribution of Z

9 10

Moderation Moderation model

•  If X and Y are correlated then we can use •  If both X and Z are continuous
regression to predict Y from X
•  Y = B0 + B1X + e –  Y = B0 + B1X + B2Z + B3(X*Z) + e
•  CAUTION!
•  If there is a moderator, Z, then B1 will NOT be
representative across all Z
–  The relationship between X and Y is different at different
levels of Z
11 12

3

 10/12/13

Moderation model How to test for moderation

•  If X is categorical* and Z is continuous •  If both X and Z are continuous
–  Model 1: No moderation
–  Y = B0 + B1(D1) + B2(D2) + B3Z + •  Y = B0 + B1X + B2Z + e
B4(D1*Z) + B5(D2*Z) e –  Model 2: Moderation
•  Y = B0 + B1X + B2Z + B3(X*Z) + e
*3 levels of X

13 14

How to test for moderation How to test for moderation

•  If X is categorical* and Z is continuous
–  Model 1: No moderation
•  Y = B0 + B1(D1) + B2(D2) + B3Z + e
–  Model 2: Moderation
•  Y = B0 + B1(D1) + B2(D2) + B3Z +
B4(D1*Z) + B5(D2*Z) + e
15
•  Compare Model 1 and Model 2 in terms of
overall variance explained, that is, R2
–  NHST available for this comparison
•  Evaluate B values for predictors
associated with the moderation effect
–  (X*Z)
–  (D1*Z) and (D2*Z)
16

4

 10/12/13

Back to the example Simulated experiment & data

•  X: Experimental manipulation •  Students completed a working memory
–  Stereotype threat task
•  Y: Behavioral outcome •  Students then randomly assigned to one of
–  IQ test score three experimental conditions
•  Z: Moderator –  Explicit threat (n = 50)
–  Implicit threat (n = 50)
–  Working memory capacity (WMC) –  Control (n = 50)
17
•  Students then completed an IQ test 18

Simulated experiment & data Results: Summary statistics

•  Experimental condition is categorical so
dummy coding is required
–  Let the Control group be the referent
–  Let D1 = Explicit threat
–  Let D2 = Implicit threat

19 20

5

 10/12/13

Results: Summary statistics Results: Model 1

21 22

Results: Model 2 Results: Model comparison

23 24

6

 10/12/13

Results: Scatterplot
•  Next slide depicts moderation visually

25 26

END SEGMENT Lecture 13 ~ Segment 2

Centering predictors

27 28

7

 10/12/13

Centering predictors Centering predictors

•  To center means to put in deviation form •  Conceptual reason
•  XC = X - M –  Suppose
•  Why center? •  Y = child’s verbal ability
–  Two reasons •  X = mother’s vocabulary
•  Conceptual •  Z = child’s age
•  Statistical

Centering predictors Centering predictors

•  Conceptual reason
–  The intercept, B0, is the predicted score on Y when
all predictors (X, Z) are zero
–  If X = zero or Z = zero is meaningless, or
impossible, then B0 will be difficult to interpret
–  In contrast, if X = zero and Z = zero, are the
average then B0 is easy to interpret
•  Conceptual reason
–  The regression coefficient B1 is the slope for X
assuming an average score on Z
–  No moderation effect implies that B1 is consistent
across the entire distribution of Z

8

 10/12/13

Centering predictors Uncentered, Additive

Ý = 2 +.6(X) + .2(Z)
•  Conceptual reason
–  In contrast, a moderation effect implies that B1 is
NOT consistent across the entire distribution of Z
–  Where in the distribution of Z is B1 most 50 2
representative of the relationship between X & Y? 40 4
6
–  Let’s look at this graphically… Ý
30
10 8
10
20 8
6
10 4
0
2 Z
10 8 6 4 2 0
X

Centered, Additive Uncentered, Moderation

Ý = 6 +.6(X) + .2(Z) Ý = 2 +.6(X) + .2(Z) + .4(X*Z)

50 2
50 -3
40 4
40 -1 6
1 30 8
10
Ý 30
5 3 Ý 20 8 10
20 3 5 6
10 -1
1
Z
10
2
4 Z
0
-3 10 8 6 4 2 0
0
5 3 1 -1 -3 -5
X X

9

 10/12/13

Centered, Moderation Centering predictors

Ý = 16 + 2.6(X) + 2.2(Z) + .4(X*Z)
•  Statistical reason
–  The predictors, X and Z, can become highly
50 -3
correlated with the product, (X*Z)
40 -1
1
•  Multicolinearity: when two predictor variables in a
Ý
30
5 3
5
GLM are so highly correlated that they are
20 3
1 essentially redundant and it becomes difficult to
10 -1 Z
0
-3 estimate B values associated with each predictor
5 3 1 -1 -3 -5
X

Segment Summary
•  Centering predictors
–  Convert raw scores to deviation scores
•  XC = X – M END SEGMENT
•  Reasons for centering
–  Conceptual
•  Regression constant will be more meaningful
–  Statistical
•  Avoid multicolinearity
40

10

 10/12/13

Back to the example

•  X: Experimental manipulation
–  Stereotype threat
Lecture 13 ~ Segment 3
•  Y: Behavioral outcome
Moderation Example 2 –  IQ test score
•  Z: Moderator
–  Working memory capacity (WMC)

41 42

How to test for moderation WAIT! Center continuous predictor

•  If X is categorical* and Z is continuous
–  Model 1: No moderation
•  Y = B0 + B1(D1) + B2(D2) + B3Z + e
–  Model 2: Moderation
•  Y = B0 + B1(D1) + B2(D2) + B3Z +
B4(D1*Z) + B5(D2*Z) + e
•  If X is categorical* and Z is continuous
–  Model 1: No moderation
•  Y = B0 + B1(D1) + B2(D2) + B3Z.center + e
–  Model 2: Moderation
•  Y = B0 + B1(D1) + B2(D2) + B3Z.center +
B4(D1*Z.center) + B5(D2*Z.center) + e

43 44

11



Simulated experiment & data
•  Students completed a working memory
task
•  Students then randomly assigned to one of
three experimental conditions
–  Explicit threat (n = 50)
–  Implicit threat (n = 50)
–  Control (n = 50)
•  Students performed an IQ test 45
Results: Model 1
47
10/12/13
Simulated data
•  Experimental condition is categorical so
dummy coding is required
–  Let the Control group be the referent
–  Let D1 = Explicit threat
–  Let D2 = Implicit threat
46
Results: Model 1, Centered
48
12
 10/12/13

Results: Model 2 Results: Model 2, Centered

49 50

Results: Model comparison,

Results: Model comparison Centered

51 52

13

 10/12/13

END SEGMENT END LECTURE 13

53 54

14