Research and design methodologies in applied contexts

¶ … MEDIATOR & MODERATOR EFFECTS

Applied Statistics

There are several goals of the article "Testing Moderator and Mediator Effects in Counseling Psychology Research." (Frazier et al., 2004) One of the primary goals of the piece is clear delineation of each term and clear explanation of the differences (and similarities) between the two. Another goal of the authors' research is to reveal to researchers and professionals the potential depth and precision their research could achieve with knowledge and application of mediators and moderators in their studies. With awareness and tracking of mediators and moderators, researchers can make more precise predictions, compile richer data, and provide more insightful analyses & conclusions after the study.

Interaction effects are not only important for intervention studies, however. There are many other instances in which researchers are interested in whether relations between predictor and outcome variables are stronger for some people than for others. The identification of important moderators of relations between predictors and outcomes indicates the maturity and sophistication of a field of inquiry (Aguinis, Boik, & Pierce, 2001; Judd, McClelland, & Culhane, 1995) and is at the heart of theory in social science (Cohen et al., 2003). (Frazier et al., Testing Moderator and Mediator Effects, 2004)

These authors, through their research and explanations of mediators and moderators, are at heart concerned with the nature of cause and effect. Mediators and moderators expand and enhance the gap and/or the connection between a cause and the effect -- between a stimulus and a response. They contend and demonstrate how mediators and moderators have their own effects, which are distinctive yet connected to the overall causal relationship studied in whatever the research may be. This article is a sort of tutorial in methodology or a proposal in methodology and methods expansion.

Research that shows the value of delineation of terms is always valuable. It is a danger in the research, professional, and academic worlds to use language loosely and imprecisely because most peers are experts. Term confusion occurs in most fields of study, and in research generally; therefore on a basis level, this article serves a necessary function. A greater appreciation for this article can be gained within the context of the other two background articles, especially the Baron and Kenny piece (1986). Baron and Kenny have a similar aim, to clear distinguish the terms mediator and moderator for similar reasons as Frazier et al.:

We focus particularly on the differential implications for choice of experimental design, research operations, and plan of statistical analysis. We also claim that there are conceptual implications of the failure to appreciate the moderator-mediator distinction. Among the issues we will discuss in this regard are missed opportunities to probe more deeply into the nature of causal mechanisms and integrate seemingly irreconcilable theoretical positions. For example, it is possible that in some problem areas disagreements about mediators can be resolved by treating certain variable as moderators. (Baron & Kenny, The Moderator-Mediator Distinction, 1986)

There task for such distinction is still incomplete as the Frazier piece is written eighteen years later and the distinction still has not been made -- and they introduce considering these terms on three levels: conceptual, strategic, and statistical. (2004) Considering mediators and moderators in the ways proposed by Frazier et al. (2004) on the levels proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) marks the intersection among mediators, moderators, and applications in management. This is yet another way the article by Frazier et al. demonstrates value to readers and researchers.