Mediation and Multi-group Analyses

Lyytinen & Gaskin

 Mediation
In an intervening variable model, variable X, is
postulated to exert an effect on an outcome
variable, Y, through one or more intervening
variables called mediators (M)
“mediational models advance an X → M → Y
causal sequence, and seek to illustrate the
mechanisms through which X and Y are related.”
(Mathieu & Taylor)

X M Y

2
 Why Mediation?
Seeking a more accurate explanation of the causal
effect the antecedent (predictor) has on the DV
(criterion , outcome) – focus on mechanisms that make
causal chain possible
Missing variables in the causal chain
Intelligence  Performance
Intelligence  Work Effectiveness  Performance

3
 Conditions for mediation
(1) justify the causal order of variables including
temporal precedence;
(2) reasonably exclude the influence of outside factors;
(3) demonstrate acceptable construct validity of their
measures;
(4) articulate, a priori, the nature of the intervening
effects that they anticipate; and
(5) obtain a pattern of effects that are consistent with their
anticipated relationships while also disconfirming
alternative hypotheses through statistical tests.

4
 Conditions for mediation
Inferences of mediation are founded first and foremost in terms of
theory, research design, and the construct validity of measures
employed, and second in terms of statistical evidence of
relationships.
Mediation analysis requires:
1) inferences concerning mediational X MY relationships
hinge on the validity of the assertion that the relationships
depicted unfold in that sequence (Stone-Romero & Rosopa,
2004). As with SEM, multiple qualitatively different models can
be fit equally well to the same covariance matrix. Using the exact
same data, one could as easily ‘confirm’ a YMX mediational
chain as one can an XMY sequence (MacCallum, Wegener,
Uchino, & Fabrigar, 1993).

5
 Conditions for mediation
2) experimental designs is to isolate and test, as best as possible, XY
relationships from competing sources of influence. In mediational designs,
however, this focus is extended to a three phase XMY causal sequence
requiring random assignments to both X and M and related treatments
“Because researchers may not be able to randomly assign participants to conditions, the
causal sequence of XMY is vulnerable to any selection related threats to internal
validity (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Shadish et al., 2002). To the extent that individuals’
status on a mediator or criterion variable may alter their likelihood of experiencing a
treatment, the implied causal sequence may also be compromised. For example, consider a
typical: trainingself-efficacyperformance, mediational chain. If participation in
training is voluntary, and more efficacious people are more likely to seek training, then the
true sequence of events may well be
self-efficacytrainingperformance. If higher performing employees develop greater
self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986), then the sequence could actually be
performanceefficacytraining. If efficacy and performance levels remain fairly
stable over time, one could easily misconstrue and find substantial support for the
trainingefficacyperformance sequence when the very reverse is actually occurring.”
(Mathieu and Taylor 2006)
6
 Conditions of mediation
It is a hallmark of good theories that they articulate the how and why variables
are ordered in a particular way (e.g., Sutton & Staw, 1995; Whetten, 1989).
This is perhaps the only basis for advancing a particular causal order in non-
experimental studies with simultaneous measurement of the antecedent,
mediator, and criterion variables (i.e., classic cross-sectional designs).
Implicitly, mediational designs advance a time-based model of events whereby
X occurs before M which in turn occurs before Y. It is the temporal
relationships of the underlying phenomena that are at issue, not necessarily the
timing of measurements
In other words, in mediation analyses, omitted variables represent a
significant threat to validity of the XM relationship if they are related both
to the antecedent and to the mediator, and have a unique influence on the
mediator. Likewise omitted variables (and related paths) may lead to
conclude falsely that no direct effect XY exists, while in fact it holds in the
population

7
 Importance of theory –
Cause and effect
Training Self-efficacy Performance

Training Performance Self-efficacy

Performance Self-efficacy Training

Self-efficacy Training Performance

8
 Significant Path
Types of Mediation Insignificant Path

Indirect Effect
X Y

Partial Mediation
X Y

Full Mediation
X Y
9
 More complex mediation structures
Chain Model

X M1 M2 M3 Y

M1

X M2 Y

M3

Parallel Model
10
 Hypothesizing Mediation
All types of mediation need to be explicitly and with good
theoretical reasons and logic hypothesized before testing
them
Indirect Effect
You still need to assume and test that X has an indirect effect
on Y, though there is no effect in path XY
“X has an indirect, positive effect on Y, through M.”
Partial or Full
“M partially/fully mediates the effect of X on Y.”
“The effect of X on Y is partially/fully mediated by M.”
“The effect of X on Y is partially/fully mediated by M 1, M2, &
M3.”
11
 Statistical evidence of relationships.
Each type of mediation needs to be backed by appropriate statistical
analysis
Sometimes the analysis can be based on OLS, but in most cases it
needs to be backed by SEM based path analysis
There are four types of analyses to detect presence of mediation
relationships
1. Causal steps approach (Baron-Kenny 1986) (tests for significance of
different paths)
2. Difference in coefficients (evaluates the changes in betas/coefficients
and their significance when new paths are added to the model)
3. Product of effect approach (tests for indirect effects a*b’- this always
needs to be tested or evaluated using bootstrapping)
4. Sometimes evaluating differences in R squares

12
 Statistical evidence of relationships
Convergent validity is critical for mediation tests as this forms the basis
for reliability – especially poor reliability of mediator as “to the extent
that a mediator is measured with less than perfect reliability, the MY
relationship would likely be underestimated, whereas the XY would
likely be overestimated when the antecedent and mediator are considered
simultaneously” (see Baron & Kenny 1986)
Discriminant validity must be gauged in the context of the larger
nomological network within which the relationships being considered
are believed to reside. Discriminant validity does not imply that
measures of different constructs are uncorrelated – the issue is whether
measures of different variables are so highly correlated as to raise
questions about whether they are assessing different constructs. It is
incumbent on researchers to demonstrate that their measures of X, M,
and Y evidence acceptable discriminant validity before any mediational
tests are justified.
13
 Statistical evidence of relationships

14
 Statistical evidence of the relationships
In simple partial mediation βmx is the coefficient for X for
predicting M, and βym.x and βyx.m are the coefficients predicting Y
from both M and X, respectively. Here βyx.m is the direct effect of
X, whereas the product βmx*βym quantifies the indirect effect of X
on Y through M. If all variables are observed then βyx = βyx.m +
βmx*βym or βmx*βym = βyx - βyx.m
Indirect effect is the amount by which two cases who differ by
one unit of X are expected to differ on Y through X’s effects on
M, which in turn affects Y
Direct effect part of the effect of X on Y that is independent of the
pathway through M
Similar logic can be applied to more complex situations

15
 What would be the paths here?

16
 Statistical analysis
The testing of the existence of the mediational effect
depends on the type of indirect effect
The lack of direct effect XY (βyx is either zero or not
significant) is not a demonstration of the lack of mediated
effect
Therefore three different situations prevail (in this order)
1. The presence of a indirect effect (βmx*βym is significant)
2. The presence of full mediation (βyx is significant but βyx.m is
not)
3. The presence of partial mediation (βyx is significant and
βyx.m is non zero and significant)

17
 Testing for indirect effect

18
 Testing for full mediation

19
 Testing for partial mediation

20
 Observations of statistical analysis
The key is to test for the presence of a significant indirect effect –
just demonstrating the significant of paths βyx, βyx.m,βmx.y, and βmx
is not enough
One reason is that Type I testing of statistical significance of
paths is not based on inferences on indirect effects as products of
effects and their quantities
Can be done either using Sobel test (see e.g. www.quantpsy.org)
or bootstrapping
Sobel tests assumes normality of product terms and relatively large
sample sizes (>200)
Lacks power with small sample sizes or if the distribution is not
normal

21
 Bootstrapping
Bootstrapping (available in most statistical packages, or there is additional
code to accomplish it for most software packages)
Samples the distribution of the indirect effect by treating the obtained sample
of size n as a representation of the population as a minitiature – and then
resampling randomly the sample with replacement so that a sample size n is
built by sampling cases from the original sample by allowing any case once
drawn to be thrown back to be redrawn as the resample of size n is constructed
βmx and βym and their product is estimated for each sample recorded
The process is repeated for k times where k is large (>1000)
Hence we have k estimates of the indirect effect and the distribution functions
as an empirical approximation of the sampling distribution of the indirect effect
when taking the sample of size n from the original population
Specific upper and lower bound for confidence intervals are established to find
ith lowest and jst largest value in the ordered rank of value estimates to reject the
null hypothesis that the indirect effect is zero with e.g. 95 level of confidence
22
 Observations of statistical analysis
In full and partial mediation bivariate XY (assessed via correlation rYX or
coefficient βyx) must be nonzero in the population if the effects of X on Y are
mediated by M
Hence establishing a significant bivariate is conditional on sample size
For example Assume that N=100 and sample correlations rXM=.30 and rMY =.30
and both would be significant at p<.05. However sample correlation rXY =.09
would not!
Hence tests for full mediation can be precluded if this is the true model in the
population
This point become even more challenging when complex mediations
XM1M2M3Y are present.
Hence many times full mediations are not detected due to underpowered designs;
the same holds for interactions or suppression variables; in fact four step Baron
Kenny has power of .52 with a sample size of 200 to detect medium effect!
This can be overcome by bootstrapping

23
 Observations of statistical analysis
Testing for full mediation requires that βyx.m is zero.
When βyx.m does not drop zero the evidence supports
partial mediation. This requires researchers to make a
priori hypotheses concerning full or partial mediation
and transforms confirmatory tests to exploratory data
mining
What counts as significant reduction in βyx vs. βyx.m is
not clear (c.f. from .15 to .05 vs. .75 to .65)
Typically the baseline model for mediation is partial
mediation while theoretical clarity and Ockam’s razor
would speak for full mediation
24
 Testing for Mediation in AMOS
Direct Effects First

Regression Weights Estimate S.E. C.R. P

loylong <--- ctrust .282 .048 5.812 ***
loylong <--- atrust .184 .048 3.850 ***
25
 Testing for Mediation in AMOS
Add Mediator

Regression Weights Estimate S.E. C.R. P

value <--- atrust .210 .048 4.400 ***
value <--- ctrust .602 .048 12.452 ***
loylong <--- ctrust .089 .056 1.592 .111
loylong <--- atrust .123 .047 2.638 .008
loylong <--- value .312 .052 5.935 ***
26
 Testing significance of partially mediated
paths – Sobel Test
Use for partially mediated relationships.
Use the Sobel Test online calculator
Assumes normal distribution
and sufficiently large sample
http://www.danielsoper.co
m/statcalc/calc31.aspx
Regression Weights Estimate S.E. C.R. P
value <--- atrust .210 .048 4.400 ***
value <--- ctrust .602 .048 12.452 ***
loylong <--- ctrust .089 .056 1.592 .111
loylong <--- atrust .123 .047 2.638 .008
loylong <--- value .312 .052 5.935 ***
27
 Testing significance of indirect effects–
Bootstrapping At least 1000

No Missing Values Allowed!

28
 Testing significance of indirect effects–
Bootstrapping

p- values

29
 Direct Effects - Two Tailed Significance
  wu wf aut burnm burnc
No Mediation burnm 0.003 0.033 0.026 ... ...
• If Indirect is > burnc 0.004 0.969 0.435 ... ...
0.05 satc 0.845 0.026 0.260 0.016 0.007
satw 0.004 0.836 0.020 0.011 0.009
Full Mediation
• Given the direct Indirect Effects - Two Tailed Significance
effects were   wu wf aut burnm burnc
burnm ... ... ... ... ...
significant prior to burnc ... ... ... ... ...
adding the satc 0.005 0.546 0.016 ... ...
mediator satw 0.003 0.115 0.016 ... ...
• If Indirect < 0.05
Total Effects - Two Tailed Significance
and Direct is >   wu wf aut burnm burnc
0.05 burnm 0.003 0.033 0.026 ... ...
Partial Mediation burnc 0.004 0.969 0.435 ... ...
• If Direct & satc 0.033 0.024 0.026 0.016 0.007
satw 0.003 0.174 0.020 0.011 0.009
Indirect < 0.05,
30 check Total.
 Findings
Partial Mediation
.23***
.37***
.20**

.17*
.08

Full Mediation

WORDING
Overall value partially mediates the effect of trust in agent on
loyalty for longterm (p < 0.000).
Overall value fully mediates the effect of trust in company on
loyalty for longterm (p < 0.000).
31
 Using AMOS for testing chain models and
parallel models

32
 Moderation concept
Based on the observation that independent-dependent
variable relationship is affected by another
independent variable
This situation is called moderator effect which occurs
when a moderator variable, a second independent
variable changes the form of the relationship between
another independent variable and the DV
Can be expanded to a situation where the mediated
relationship is moderated

33
 Moderation: affecting the effect
Moderating variables must be chosen with strong
theoretical support (Hair et al 2010)
The causality of the moderator cannot be tested directly
Becomes potentially confounded as moderator becomes
correlated with either of the variables in the relationship
Testing easiest when moderator has no significant
relationship with other constructs
This assumption is important in distinguishing
moderator from mediators which (by definition) are
related to both constructs of the mediated relationship

34
 Moderation: Multi-group
Non-Metric moderators: categorical variables are
hypothesized as moderators (gender, age, turbulence
vs. non-turbulence, non customer vs. customer)
For non-metric variables a multi-group analysis is
applied i.e. data is split for separate groups for analysis
based on variable values and tested for statistical
difference (both for measurement and structural
model)

35
 Multi-group example

Weight
Exercise
Loss

Weight
Low Exercise
Loss
Protein

High
Protein
36
 Moderator vs. Mediator
Mediator: the means by which IV affects DV

A M B
K E
C

Moderator: a variable that influences the magnitude of the

effect an IV has on a DV
M

K E

37
 Mediation vs. Moderation Example

Notice that the mediator and the moderator can be the same!
Can a mediator also be used as a moderator?
Yes - see Baron and Kenny 1986 for a complex example
38
 Some Theory-based Criteria
(i.e., arguments for mediation and moderation are based on theory first, rather than
statistical correlations)

Mediator
Logical effect of IV
Logical cause of DV
Moderator
Not logically correlated to IV or DV (if categorical)
Holistic/multiplicative effect (interaction)
Varying effect for different categorical values (multi-
group)

39
 Either,
Driving home the point: Neither, One
Moderator or Mediator? or the Other?
Caloric intake Exercise partner
Positive reinforcement Exercise IQ
Gender Activity level
Age Protein intake
Heredity Attitude

Exercise M M

Weight Weight
Exercise
Loss Loss
40
 Koufteros & Marcoulides 2006

41