바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

ISSN : 1229-067X

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.33 No.2

Citation Share

Effects of skewness of the third variable on estimation of the mediation effect in the moderating mediator model

Korean Journal of Psychology: General / Korean Journal of Psychology: General, (P)1229-067X; (E)2734-1127
2014, v.33 no.2, pp.491-506


& (2014). Effects of skewness of the third variable on estimation of the mediation effect in the moderating mediator model. Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 33(2), 491-506.

Abstract

A model with a third variable that has both mediation and moderation effects, i.e., the moderating mediator model, can be used to determine whether the third variable has mediation effect, moderation effect, or both in a causal relationship between two variables. Because this model is analyzed base on a moderation model, nonessential collinearity between the third variable and the interaction term may increase the standard error of estimation for the second path of the mediation effect and the increased standard error generates underestimation of statistical significance of mediation effect over and beyond the moderation effect of the third variable. Although researchers may use mean-centering on the predictor and the third variable to decrease the collinearity, degree of the decrease depends on the bivariate normality of the explanatory variables. The current study investigated how much nonessential collinearity and standard error of the estimation for the second path of the mediation effect increased as the amount of deviation from bivariate normality of the explanatory variables increased by manipulating skewness of the third variable. We found that high skewness of the third variable produced substantial amount of nonessential collinearity even with mean-centered variables, which negatively influenced on the estimation of the mediation effect in the moderating mediator model. We also found that increase in sample size attenuated the negative effects. The results suggest that a large number of samples are required in applications of the moderating mediator model with a highly skewed third variable.

keywords
moderating mediator model, mean centering, collinearity, skewness, moderation model, 조절매개변인 모형, 평균중심화, 공선성, 왜도, 조절모형

Reference

1.

김미례 (2007). 기혼여성의 생활스트레스와 우울의 관계에서 자아존중감의 매개효과및 조절효과 검증. 한국심리학회지: 건강, 12(4), 761-777.

2.

이재식, 김혜진, 김비아 (2012). 조직구성원의문화성향에 따른 조직시민행동의 차이:조직지원인식의 조절효과와 매개효과. 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직, 25(2), 265-297.

3.

조 하, 신희천 (2009). 생활사건 스트레스가자살사고에 미치는 영향: 삶의 의미의 매개효과와 조절효과. 한국심리학회지: 상담및 심리치료, 21(4), 1011-1026.

4.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

5.

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(6), 1173-1182.

6.

Bisconti, T. L., & Bergeman, C. S. (1999). Perceived social control as a mediator of the relationships among social support, psychological well-being, and perceived health. The Gerontologist, 39(1), 94-104.

7.

Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Goldberger, A. S. (1969). On the exact covariance of products of random variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 64, 1439-1442.

8.

Bradley, R. A., & Srivastava, S. S. (1979). Correlation in polynomial regression. The American Statistician, 33, 11-14.

9.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.

10.

Connor-Smith, J. K., & Compas, B. E. (2002). Vulnerability to social stress: Coping as a mediator or moderator of sociotropy and symptoms of anxiety and depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26(1), 39-55.

11.

Dalal, D. K., & Zickar, M. J. (2012). Some common myths about centering predictor variables in moderated multiple regression and polynomial regression. Organizational Research Methods, 15(3), 339-362.

12.

Fan, X., Sivo, S., & Keenan, S. (2002). SAS for Monte Carlo studies: A guide for quantitative researchers. NC: SAS Institute.

13.

Fleishman, A. I. (1978). A method for simulating non-normal distributions. Psychometrika, 43(4), 521-532.

14.

Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115-134.

15.

Ferguson, Y. L., Kasser, T., & Jahng, S. (2011). Differences in life satisfaction and school satisfaction among adolescents from three nations: The role of perceived autonomy support. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(3), 649-661.

16.

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS STATISTICS (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

17.

Green, S. G., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Attributional processes of leaders in leadermember interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 429-458.

18.

Headrick, T. C., & Kowalchuk, R. K. (2007). The power method transformation: Its probability density function, distribution function, and its further use for fitting data. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 77(3), 229-249.

19.

Headrick, T. C., & Sawilowsky, S. S. (1999). Simulating correlated multivariate nonnormal distributions: Extending the Fleishman power method. Psychometrika, 64(1), 25-35.

20.

Ilgen, D. R., & Knowlton, W. A Jr. (1980). Performance attributional effects on feedback from superiors. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 441-456.

21.

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

22.

Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5, 602-619.

23.

Knowlton, W. A Jr, & Mitchell, T. R. (1980). Effects of causal attributions on a supervisor's evaluation of subordinate performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 459-466.

24.

Lambert, A. J., Keith Payne, B., Jacoby, L. L., Shaffer, L. M., Chasteen, A. L., & Khan, S. R. (2003). Stereotypes as dominant responses:On the “social facilitation” of prejudice in anticipated public contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 277-295.

25.

Marquardt, D. W. (1980). A critique of some ridge regression methods: Comment. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75, 87-91.

26.

Marquardt, D. W., & Snee, R. D. (1975). Ridge regression in practice. The American Statistician, 29, 3-20.

27.

Meehl, P. E., & Yonce, L. J. (1994). Taxometric analysis: I. Detecting taxonicity with two quantitative indicators using means above and below a sliding cut (MAMBAC procedure). Psychological Reports. 74(3). 1059-1274.

28.

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. E. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185-227.

29.

Ruscio, J., Ruscio, A. M., & Meron, M. (2007). Applying the bootstrap to taxometric analysis:Generating empirical sampling distributions to help interpret results. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(2), 349-386.

30.

Smith, K. W., & Sasaki, M. S. (1979). Decreasing multicollinearity: A method for models with multiplicative functions. Sociological Methods &Research, 8(1), 35-56.

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

e-Submission OA Policy