What mediation analysis can (not) do |
| |
Authors: | Klaus Fiedler Malte Schott Thorsten Meiser |
| |
Affiliation: | aUniversity of Heidelberg, Germany;bUniversity of Mannheim, Germany |
| |
Abstract: | The present article is concerned with a common misunderstanding in the interpretation of statistical mediation analyses. These procedures can be sensibly used to examine the degree to which a third variable (Z) accounts for the influence of an independent (X) on a dependent variable (Y) conditional on the assumption that Z actually is a mediator. However, conversely, a significant mediation analysis result does not prove that Z is a mediator. This obvious but often neglected insight is substantiated in a simulation study. Using different causal models for generating Z (genuine mediator, spurious mediator, correlate of the dependent measure, manipulation check) it is shown that significant mediation tests do not allow researchers to identify unique mediators, or to distinguish between alternative causal models. This basic insight, although well understood by experts in statistics, is persistently ignored in the empirical literature and in the reviewing process of even the most selective journals. |
| |
Keywords: | Causal model Spurious mediator Sobel test Attitude change |
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录! |
|