Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Guidelines for the Investigation of Mediating Variables in Business Research

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Business theories often specify the mediating mechanisms by which a predictor variable affects an outcome variable. In the last 30 years, investigations of mediating processes have become more widespread with corresponding developments in statistical methods to conduct these tests. The purpose of this article is to provide guidelines for mediation studies by focusing on decisions made prior to the research study that affect the clarity of conclusions from a mediation study, the statistical models for mediation analysis, and methods to improve interpretation of mediation results after the research study. Throughout this article, the importance of a program of experimental and observational research for investigating mediating mechanisms is emphasized.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alwin, D. F., & Hauser, R. M. (1975). The decomposition of effects in path analysis. American Sociological Review, 40, 37–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aroian, L. A. (1947). The probability function of the product of two normally distributed variables. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18, 265–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, W. R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R., & Heatherton, T. (1994). A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self-esteem. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 35–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Begg, C. B., & Leung, D. H. Y. (2000). On the use of surrogate end points in randomized trials. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series A—Statistics in Society), 163, 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H. T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. C., & Chiu, S. F. (2008). An integrative model linking supervisor support and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 23, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheong, J. (2002). Investigation of a method to evaluate mediating mechanisms to reduce adolescent DUI in a school-based prevention program (Doctoral Dissertation). Arizona State University; Tempe, AZ.

  • Cheong, J., MacKinnon, D. P., & Khoo, S. T. (2003). Investigation of mediational processes using parallel process latent growth curve modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10, 238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiaburu, D. S., & Byrne, Z. S. (2009). Predicting OCB role definitions: Exchanges with the organization and psychological attachment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 201–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coffman, D. L. (2011). Estimating causal effects in mediation analysis using propensity scores. Structural Equation Modeling, 18, 357–369.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 558–577.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, L., Graham, J., & Flaherty, B. (1998). An alternative framework for defining mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 295–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, C. C. (1936). On the frequency function of xy. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 7, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairchild, A. J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). A general model for testing mediation and moderation effects. Prevention Science, 10, 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frangakis, C. E., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics, 58, 21–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, K. A. (2000). Impact of a confounding variable on a regression coefficient. Sociological Methods & Research, 29, 147–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18, 233–239.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Geiser, C., & Lockhart, G. L. (under review). A comparison of four approaches to account for method effects in latent state-trait models.

  • Gollob, H. F., & Reichardt, C. S. (1991). Interpreting and estimating indirect effects assuming time lags really matter. In L. M. Collins & J. L. Horn (Eds.), Best methods for the analysis of change: Recent advances, unanswered questions, future directions (pp. 243–259). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Greenland, S., & Morgenstern, H. (2001). Confounding in health research. Annual Review of Public Health, 22, 189–212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, A. (1965). The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58, 295–300.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, P. W. (1988). Causal inference, path analysis, and recursive structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 18, 449–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599–610.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle, R. H., & Kenny, D. A. (1999). Sample size, reliability, and tests of statistical mediation. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample research (pp. 195–222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hung, T.-K., Chi, N. W., & Lu, W. L. (2009). Exploring the relationships between perceived coworker loafing and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating role of a revenge motive. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 257–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imai, K., Keele, L., & Tingley, D. (2010). A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological Methods, 15, 309–334.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 307–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (2006). A tale of two methods. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 233–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jo, B. (2008). Causal inference in randomized experiments with mediational processes. Psychological Methods, 13, 314–336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jo, B., Stuart, E. A., MacKinnon, D. P., & Vinokur, A. D. (2011). The use of propensity scores in mediation analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 3, 425–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Chang, C. (2011). To aggregate or not to aggregate: Steps for developing and validating higher-order multidimensional constructs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 241–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis. Evaluation Review, 5, 602–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klesges, R. C., Vasey, M. M., & Glasgow, R. E. (1986). A worksite smoking modification competition: Potential for public health impact. American Journal of Public Health, 76, 198–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kraemer, H. C., Wilson, G. T., Fairburn, C. G., & Agras, W. S. (2002). Mediators and moderators of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59, 877–884.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Interpretation of statistical relations as a research operation. In P. F. Lazardsfeld & M. Rosenberg (Eds.), The language of social research: A reader in the methodology of social research (pp. 115–125). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, D. J., Rogelberg, S. G., Warr, P. B., & Burnfield, J. L. (2009). Perceived meeting effectiveness: The role of design characteristics. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., Bienias, J. L., & Bennett, D. A. (2007). Confounding in the estimation of mediation effects. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 51, 3173–3186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, D. Y., Psaty, B. M., & Kronmal, R. A. (1998). Assessing the sensitivity of regression results to unmeasured confounders in observational studies. Biometrics, 54, 948–963.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W. (1993). Theory as method: Small theories of treatments. In L. B. Sechrest & A. G. Scott (Eds.), Understanding causes and generalizing about them: New directions for program evaluation (pp. 5–38). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockhart, G., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2010). Test of an instrumental variable approach to mediation analysis. In D. P. MacKinnon & G. Lockhart (Discussants), New directions in mediating variable analysis.  Poster symposium  presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, Denver, CO.

  • Lockwood, C. M., & MacKinnon, D. P. (1998). Bootstrapping the standard error of the mediated effect. In Proceedings of the twenty-third annual SAS users group international conference (pp. 997-1002), Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

  • Lynch, K. G., Cary, M., Gallop, R., & Ten Have, T. R. (2008). Causal mediation analyses for randomized trials. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 8, 57–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mackinnon, D. P. (1994). Analysis of mediating variables in prevention and intervention research. In A. Cazares & L. A. Beatty (Eds.), Scientific methods for prevention/intervention research (NIDA Research Monograph Series 139, DHHS Publication No. 94-3631, pp. 127–153). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

  • MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). Integrating mediators and moderators in research design. Research on Social Work Practice, 21, 675–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. (2007). Distribution of the product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 384–389.

    Article  PubMed  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., & Pirlott, A. (2011). The unbearable lightness of b: Approaches to improving causal inference in mediation studies (submitted).

  • Maxwell, J. A., Bashook, P. G., & Sandlow, L. J. (1986). Combining ethnographic and experimental methods in educational evaluation: A case study. In D. M. Fetterman & M. A. Pittman (Eds.), Educational evaluation: Ethnography in theory, practice, and politics (pp. 121–143). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12, 23–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. P. (1997). Haldane’s lungs: A case study in path analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. (2001). Building better theory: Time and the specification of when things happen. Academy of Management Review, 25, 530–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, S. A., van der Laan, M. J., & Robins, J. M. (2001). Marginal mean models for dynamic regimes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96, 1410–1423.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., Young, S. A., Huff, J. W., Altmann, R. A., Lacost, H. A., et al. (2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 389–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, J. (2009). Graphs, causality, and structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 27, 226–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, J. (2010). The foundations of causal inference. Sociological Methodology, 40, 75–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, J. (in press). The mediation formula: A guide to the assessment of causal pathways for direct and indirect effects. Prevention Science.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robins, J. M., & Greenland, S. (1992). Identifiabilty and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology, 3, 143–155.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robins, J. M., Mark, S. D., & Newey, W. K. (1992). Estimating exposure effects by modelling the expectation of exposure conditional on confounders. Biometrics, 48, 479–495.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. R. (2002). Covariance adjustment in randomized experiments and observational studies. Statistical Science, 17, 286–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D. B. (2004). Direct and indirect causal effects via potential outcomes. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 31, 161–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanock, L. R., Baran, B. E., Gentry, W. A., Pattison, S. C., & Heggestad, E. D. (2010). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 543–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shipley, B. (2000). A new inferential test for path models based on directed acyclic graphs. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 206–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidani, S., & Sechrest, L. (1999). Putting program theory into operation. American Journal of Evaluation, 20, 227–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J. D., & Willet, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. E. (1998). Causal inference in statistical models of the process of socioeconomic achievement: A Case study. Sociological Methods and Research, 27, 318–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. E. (2008). Identification of causal parameters in randomized studies with mediating variables. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 33, 230–251.

    Article  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stone-Romero, E. F., & Rosopa, P. J. (2011). Experimental tests of mediation: Prospects, problems, and some solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 631–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tein, J., Sandler, I. N., MacKinnon, D. P., & Wolchik, S. A. (2004). How did it work? Who did it work for? Mediation in the context of a moderated prevention effect for children of divorce. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 617–624.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • ten Have, T. R. T., Joffe, M. M., Lynch, K. G., Brown, G. K., Maisto, S. A., & Beck, A. T. (2007). Causal mediation analyses with rank preserving models. Biometrics, 63, 926–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thoemmes, F., MacKinnon, D. P., & Reiser, M. R. (2010). Power analysis for complex mediational designs using Monte Carlo methods. Structural Equation Modeling, 17, 510–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tofighi, D., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence intevals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 692–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Relative importance analysis: A useful supplement to regression analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanderWeele, T. J. (2008). Simple relations between principal stratification and direct and indirect effects. Statistics and Probability Letters, 78, 2957–2962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanderWeele, T. J. (2010). Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology, 21, 540–551.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wald, A. (1943). Tests of statistical hypotheses concerning several parameters when the number of observations is large. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 54, 426–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winship, C., & Morgan, S. L. (1999). The estimation of causal effects from observational data. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 659–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodworth, R. S. (1928). Dynamic psychology. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Psychologies of 1925 (pp. 111–126). Worcester, MA: Clark Universal Academy Press, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This article was supported in part by Public Health Service Grant DA09757 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287-1104, USA

    David P. MacKinnon, Stefany Coxe & Amanda N. Baraldi

Authors
  1. David P. MacKinnon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefany Coxe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amanda N. Baraldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David P. MacKinnon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

MacKinnon, D.P., Coxe, S. & Baraldi, A.N. Guidelines for the Investigation of Mediating Variables in Business Research. J Bus Psychol 27, 1–14 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9248-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9248-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation