Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Wiley and American Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Sociological Methodology
Kenneth A. Bollen
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
I wish to thank Barbara Entwisle, John Fox, Clifford Clogg, and the
anonymous referees for valuable comments on previous drafts of this paper.
37
Since its introduction into sociology, path analysis has been used
to decompose the influences of one variable on another into total,
direct, and indirect effects (Duncan 1966, 1975; Finney 1972; Alwin
and Hauser 1975; Greene 1977; Fox 1980). Several researchers have
generalized the decomposition procedures from observed variable mod-
els to structural equations with latent variables (Schmidt 1978; Graff
and Schmidt 1982; J6reskog and S6rbom 1981, 1982). This latter
development opens up new applications. For instance, the total effects
of a second-order factor on indicators can reveal which measures are
most closely related to it. Or, if a measure has a factor complexity of
two or more, an effect decomposition can show which latent variable
has the greatest effect on the measure, not just the largest direct effect.
The first purpose of this paper is to review the decomposition of effects
for these general models.
The second purpose is to clarify the definitions of total effects.
Some have defined total effects as sums of powers of the coefficient
matrices; these effects are defined only if certain stability conditions are
met (Bentler and Freeman 1983; Joreskog and S6rbom 1981). Others
have used the reduced-form coefficients to define total effects (Alwin
and Hauser 1975). Most researchers have used some combination of
these (e.g., Graff and Schmidt 1982). In this paper, I will explain the
relationship between both definitions.
Decompositions typically provide the total indirect effects, which
consist of all paths from one variable to another mediated by at least
one additional variable. Alwin and Hauser (1975), Greene (1977), and
Fox (1985) provide techniques to estimate specific indirect effects that
are transmitted by selected variables rather than by all variables.
Although they use the same term, their definitions of specific effects
differ both conceptually and operationally. As these techniques become
more widely used, this is sure to be a source of confusion, since
estimates of specific indirect effects will differ depending on the defini-
tion. The third purpose of this paper is to describe the alternative
meanings of specific indirect effects and the techniques for calculating
them.
DECOMPOSITION OF EFFECTS
,q = Bl + It + t, (1)
where ' is an m X 1 vector of latent endogenous variables, B is an
m x m matrix of the coefficients linking the q variables, t is an n X 1
vector of latent exogenous variables, F is an m X n matrix of coeffi-
cients relating t to q, and C is an m X 1 vector of errors in the equation
or disturbance terms. It is assumed that C is uncorrelated with i, that
E(r) is zero, that (I-B) is nonsingular,l and that q and t are deviated
from their means. The measurement equations are
x == Axt + X, (2)
_=AYll+?, (3)
where x and y denote observed variab
matrix relating x to i, Ay is a p X m coe
a on y. It is assumed that E(X) and E(?) equal zero, that X and ? are
uncorrelated with each other and with i, 1, and t, and that x and y
are written in deviation form.
1 Readers familiar with LISREL versions I-IV will note the different
definitions of B in versions V and VI. The new B matrix equals the m-order
identity matrix minus the old B: Bnew = (I - Bold).
T = E Bk. (4)
k== 1
[0 001
B= jA 0 0o (5)
L /2 33 0
OB /3 \/32
42 t J 45~ 43
[0 0 0 0 0 O (6)
=i 00 + 0 0 ( +0+
/32 3 0 '/1/3 0 0
Clearly, since all Bk for k 2 3 equal zero, the series converges and the
total effects are defined. The first term in the series represents the direct
effects of Tj on '. The second and higher-power terms represent the
indirect effects of varying lengths. In Figure 1, the only indirect effect
of length 2 is fi1fi3, the influence of q on iq mediated by 2. The zero
values for B3 and the higher-power terms indicate that all indirect
effects of length 3 or greater equal zero. Summing the right-hand side
of (6) gives
T7171 pi 0 0 . (7)
-#2 + PBA3 3 ?
In general, the indirect effects are the differences between the total
effects and the direct effects. Subtracting B from T. yields B2, the
indirect effects (In) for this model.
sl 82 4 I (la2
a3 84 4E3 (4E
B= 0 J2 (8)
B4=[:132
L o2P 2 ]1
E(1 2) E 2
T44= L Bk= i, ix-
Tq ox
j=l1= oo 10
00 0
Z (912) Z (1312) I
Eh (e12) i t2 s. Fr (12)
element is
00
Since 1/,31/21 is less than one, (/,31/2) goes to zero as i goes to infinity.
This leaves one on the right-hand side of (13). For the product on the
left-hand side to equal one, (1 + /1/2 + (/31/2)2 + * +(/1/2)l)
(1- /31/2<- as i xo. Thus,
00
E (0//2) = (15)
effects of i on l a
,q= Bq+rt+t
= B(B + rt + t) + rt + t
= B29 + (I +B)(r + t)
= B 2(Bq+ rt + t) + (I + B)(rt + t) (21)
=B3i + (I + B + B2)(rt+ t)
The total effects of t on i are in the coefficient matrix for t in the last
line of (21): (I + B + B2 + _.. +Bk-')F. The (I + B + B2 +
. . . + Bk- i) term is an infinite sum that converges to (I - B) -1 un
the same conditions stated above. That is, the absolute value or
modulus of the largest eigenvalue of B must be less than one. The T,,
matrix under this condition is
= AY(I- B)
Total and indirect effects are defined only under certain conditions,
i.e., when the absolute value or modulus of the eigenvalues of B is less
than one.4 The eigenvalues are not always readily available. However,
two shortcuts can identify convergent B. I have already discussed the
first: If B is a lower triangular matrix, then Bk is zero for k ? m. The
second applies to nonrecursive models: If the elements of B are positive
and the sum of the elements in each column is less than one, the
absolute values of the eigenvalues are less than one (Goldberg 1958,
pp. 237-38). This is a sufficient condition, but it is not necessary for
stability. Given its ease of calculation, it should prove useful in many
situations.
The preceding approach defines the total effects as infinite sums
of functions of the coefficient matrices, and it requires that stability
conditions be met for these effects to exist. A second strategy uses
reduced-form equations to identify total effects (Alwin and Hauser
1975; Fox 1980, p. 25; Graff and Schmidt 1982). In classical econo-
metric models, reduced form refers to solutions of structural equations i
which all endogenous variables are written as functions of only exoge-
nous (or predetermined) variables, structural coefficients, and dis-
turbances. My use of the concept of reduced forms is similar to Graff
and Schmidt's (1982). It differs from the classical econometric concept
in that i, the vector of exogenous variables, is a vector of latent
variables rather than directly observed variables.
3Joreskog and Sorbom (1981, p. 39; 1982, p. 409) incorrectly list the direct
effect of i on y as AyF and the indirect effects as AY(I - B)- l F - Ay) . Freeman
(1982), in his dissertation, also notes this error.
4 This condition is also necessary for the existence of T,7,, but it is not
necessary for the existence of T17, Ty,,, and T.7 (see Sobel 1986, p. 166). In
practice, we would rarely, if ever, be interested in these latter total effects if T,,, did
not exist.
,q= Br1 + Ft + t
(I - B),q = Ft + t (28)
In =(I -B) 'Ft+ (I -B)-
The reduced-form coefficients of t on a are (I - B) -T. They equal
T,t, derived above.
More steps are required to show the relationship between the
reduced-form coefficients and the total effects of q on q. First, the
effects of t on a are decomposed. To determine the total effects of t on
,, we return to equation (28). A largely unrecognized aspect of this
reduced-form equation is that (I - B) -1, the coefficient matrix of t,
contains the total effects of t on q. When equation (1), the structural
equation for -I, is slightly revised, the direct effects of t on a are
immediately apparent:
,q = Bq + Q + It) (29)
where I is an m X m identity matrix. In (29)
equal I. Since t directly affects only varia
indirect effects must be mediated by q. The in
all effects from a (the mediating variable) to
a to a are the total effects of a on q. Thus, the
equal the total effects of a on .
Equation (28) shows that the total effects of t on a are (I - B) 1.
Equation (29) shows that the direct effects of t on a equal I. The
indirect effects of t on a and the total effects of q on a both equal
(I - B)-1 -
Similarly, the total effects of t on y are equal to the r
coefficients for t. The reduced form of the measurement
are zero, and the indirect and total effects are equal. The indirect
effects of t on y are all the influences that j exerts on y; therefor
is A.(I - B)- 1. Thus, when the reduced-form and structural equa
are used, all the total and indirect effects can be identified.
Defining total effects as the sum of an infinite series and
defining them in terms of reduced-form coefficients appear to yield the
same results. However, there is one important difference. To illustrate,
consider T, . For the total effects Ex iBk to be defined, the conver-
gence condition for B must be met. To write the structural equation for
a in reduced form, (I - B) -1 must exist. The existence of (I - B) -1
need not imply the convergence condition. For example, specify B as
B=[ 0 ] (31)
(I-B)1=- [2 2] (32)
2 X2 03 [ + 821 (34)
and
Similarly, the total and indirect effects for the remaining variables can
be determined by substituting the B, r, and As in Figure 2 into the
appropriate decomposition formula derived above.
Table 1 summarizes the decomposition of effects for the general
structural equation model with latent variables. It is well known that
the classical econometric simultaneous equation model, confirmnatory
factor analysis, and the MIMIC model are special cases of the LISREL
model (Joreskog and Sorbom 1982; Joreskog and Goldberger 1975).
Thus, Table 1 can be applied to these models given the appropriate
substitutions. For example, if x were substituted for i, and y for 2, the
decomposition of effects in Table 1 would match those in Fox (1980),
except for a slight difference in notation.
TABLE 1
Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects of E and r on i, y, and x
Effects on:
Iq y x
Effects of t
Direct ro 0
Indirect (I - l- F- A(I- B)1- IF 0
Total (I - B)- I' Aj(I - B)-'F Ax
Effects of r
Direct B AY 0
Indirect (I-B)- -I-B AY(I-B) l-Ay 0
Total (I-B)-' -I Al(I-B)-1 0
SPECIFIC EFFECTS
The indirect effects comprise all the indirect paths from one
variable to another. Consequently, the contribution of particular
mediating variables can be obscured. Alwin and Hauser (1975), Greene
(1977), and Fox (1985) have proposed strategies to analyze specf/ic
zndirect effects, i.e., those effects transmitted by a particular variable or
group of variables. Their conceptions of specific indirect effects differ.
In this section, I contrast their definitions of these effects and their
procedures for calculating them.
Alwin and Hauser (1975, p. 42) define specific indirect effects as
those influences mediated by the variable in question and those after it.
They exclude from the definition those paths running through endoge-
nous variables that precede the variable of interest. Consider Figure 3
(also used by Alwin and Hauser), which depicts an exactly identified
recursive model with three exogenous variables (X1, X2, X3) and three
endogenous variables (Yl, Y2, Y3) According to Alwin and Hauser's
definition, the specific indirect effect of xl on y3 mediated by Y2 in this
model is the compound path xi -_ Y2 Y3 They exclude the indirect
path operating through y, and Y2 (i.e., xI ->YI __*Y2 7>Y3). The
specific indirect effects of xl on Y3 through y1 appear in two com-
pound paths: xl Yl '3 and x, Yil ' Y2 ->Y3. The second
path through y2 is included as part of the specific indirect effec
because in the causal sequence, Y2 comes after yl. Alwin and
affects another, its coefficient is listed in its row and in the column of
the variable it affects. To determine an exclusive specific effect, the
rows and columns corresponding to endogenous variables other than
those of interest are first removed, creating a new and smaller square
matrix. This new matrix is premultiplied by itself again and again
until the resulting matrix is null. When each matrix product, beginning
with the first, is summed, the end result is a matrix of the exclusive
specific effects.
To see how this procedure works, consider the matrix represen-
tation of Figure 3:
yil 0 0 Y 1 y Y2 73 XI 1
Y2 = I O 0 Y2 + 74 Y5 Y6 X2 + I. (38)
_L3 L82 /83 0[ _Y3 _[77 Ys8 Y
Following Greene's (1977) procedure, we form the matrix M, which
contains all the structural coefficients:
0 o 0 Yi 74 77
O 0 0 Y2 Y5 Y8
M= l 0 0 O Y, [0 J'] (39)
0 0 0 0 131 132 0 Bi 39
0 0 0 0 0 /3
0 0 0 00 0
Several characteristics of M sh
row variables from first to
columns are arranged in the same order from left to right. The
influences of one variable on other variables appear as the coefficients
in that variable's row. For instance, the effect of x2 on Y2 is 75. Second,
the matrix M will always have a (p + q) X q zero submatrix, where p
is the number of y variables and q is the number of x variables. In
(39), the zero submatrix is 6 x 3. The zero submatrix is created by the
assumption that the exogenous variables do not directly affect one
another and that the endogenous variables do not affect the exogenous
variables. Third, the upper right-hand corner of (39) is F', and the
lower right-hand corner is B'.
To find the specific indirect effects, Greene (1977) deletes row(s)
and column(s) in M that correspond to all endogenous variables except
0 0 0 Y1 y7
O 0 0 Y2 Y8
M*= 0 0 0 Y3 Y9 (40)
o o 0 0 /#2
0 o 0 0 Y12
0 0 0 0 Y2 32
M*2 = ? ?0 0 0 YA/32. (41)
0 0 00 0
0 0 00 0
7Fox also shows how Alwin and Hauser's incremental specific effects can
be computed with his procedure.
B(1l)=[0 P3 ?
(42)
0 00
(l2)= 74 75 Y6
Y7 s Ys9
(I-B)-B F-F=
0 ~~~~0 0
11Y1 131Y2 131Y3
L(2 + 919Y1 +/33y4 (232?
(43)
The indirect effects based on the B(/,) and F(12) of (42), in which those
paths into or out of y1 have been eliminated, are
[ 0 0 0Y Y2 73
B(1)= ,I O O I1) O 0 Of, (46)
_32 ? ? ? ? ?
0 0 0
(I - B(1l)) rF(2) -
P2Y] #2'Y2
As the first row of (47) sho
on Yi; all its effects are direct. The second row contains the specific
effects of x on Y2 exclusively through Yl, and the third row contains the
exclusive specific effects of x on y3. The procedure illustrated above
can be applied to other types of models and can be used to find the
exclusive specific effects of more than one endogenous variable at a
time.'
8Alwin and Hauser's (1975) incremental specific effects can also be calcu-
lated with this method. However, these effects are not clearly defined when a
nonrecursive model is analyzed because with a feedback or reciprocal relationship,
it is unclear which variable precedes or follows in the causal hierarchy.
B1=[j pl (48)
(I B()) -T B 1][0 02
_ } Y1 0 - (49)
- 1[ 1 72
The total effects of i on a are
When equation (49) is subtracted from (50), we get that part of the
total effects that is attributable to the direct influence of 'q2 on q 1:
2= 1n + t2
1~~~13~
Y2 C 2
0 .288 0
(.168) L.101 0
A .330 0 0 (.016)1
B= (.090) r= 0 .007 . (56)
.399 .535 0 [(.001)
(.139) (.201) 0 0
The standard errors are in parentheses. All coefficient estimates carry
the expected positive signs, and all are statistically significant (p < .05,
one-tailed test), though PI is barely significant. The goodness of fit of
the overall model is excellent (X2 = 0.27, df = 1, GFI = 1.00, AFGI =
.996).
path from 2 to I (i.e., PI). If the above ideas are correct, these new
specific indirect effects from q to q should be nonsignificant. Second,
estimate the indirect effects that do not cross the , path. If these are
significant, the idea that the largely nonsignificant Inn are due at leas
partially to the weak link from 2 to I would receive further support.
A A
Wi
tra
In (58), the "*" indicates that these are indirect effects sent over
particular paths -in this case, for / . When we compare I of (58) to
0 01
_ 0 0 0 .033 0
**= 0 0 I**= (.010) . (59)
[.177 0 0 .05 .03
SUMMARY
APPENDIX
dvcI (9 (Al)
do
d vecIly _
do VA = I- IA)@P) (A3)
+ V (I - B) 1F0Ip)
where
dB dB dB
VB = 1vec ~~ , vec ,..vec -,
V dOl do2 dO,
0 = Kronecker's product.
0 1 0 0 0 0
O 0 1 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
VB= 0 0 0 0 0 0 (A5)
O O 0 1 0 0
and
O O O 0 1 0
_ 0 00 000
0 0 0 0 0(A6)
vr= 0 (6
0 0
O O 0
O 0
O 0
0 0
1
REFERENCES
ALWIN, DUANE F., AND ROBERT M. HAUSER. 1975. "The Decomposition of Effects in
Path Analysis." American Sociological Review 40:37-47.
BEN-ISRAEL, A., AND T. N. E. GREVILLE. 1974. Generalized Inverses: Theory and
Applications. New York: Wiley.
BENTLER, PETER M., AND EDWARD H. FREEMAN. 1983. "Tests for Stability in Linear
Structural Equation Systems." Psychometrika 48:143-45.
BISHOP, YVONNE M. M., STEPHEN E. FIENBERG, AND PAUL W. HOLLAND. 1975. Discrete
GRAFF, J., AND P. SCHMIDT. 1982. "A General Model for Decomposition of Effects."
Pp. 131-48 in System Under Indirect Observation: Causality, Structure, and Prediction,
edited by Karl G. J6reskog and Herman Wold. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
GREENE, VERNON L. 1977. "An Algorithm for Total and Indirect Causal Effects."
Political Methodology 44:369-81.
J6RESKOG, KARL G. 1978. "Structural Analysis of Covariance and Correlation
Matrices." Psychometrika 43:443-77.
JORESKOG, KARL G., AND ARTHUR S. GOLDBERGER. 1975. "Estimation of a Model with
Multiple Indicators and Multiple Causes of a Single Latent Variable." Journal
of the American Statistical Association 70:631-39.
JORESKOG, KARL G., AND DAG S6RBOM. 1981. LISREL. Analysis of Linear Structural
Relationships by the Method of Maximum Likelihood. Version V. User's Guide. Chicago:
National Educational Resources.
KLUEGAL, JAMES R., ROYCE SINGLETON, JR., AND CHARLES E. STARNES. 1977. "Subjec-
SEARLE, SHAYLE R. 1982. Matrix Algebra Useful for Statistics. New York: Wiley.
SOBEL, MICHAEL. 1982. "Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in
Structural Equation Models." Pp. 290-312 in Sociological Methodology 1982,
edited by Samuel Leinhardt. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
. 1986. "Some New Results on Indirect Effects and their Stan-
dard Errors in Covariance Structure Models." Pp. 159-86 in Sociological Method-
ology 1986, edited by Nancy B. Tuma. Washington, DC: American Sociological
Association.