Article contents
A simple solution to a complex problem: Manipulate the mediator!
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 December 2021
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Commentaries
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
References
Breaugh, J. A., & Colihan, J. P. (1994). Measuring facets of job ambiguity: Construct validity evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2), 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Highhouse, S., & Schmitt, N. (2013). A snapshot in time: Industrial and organizational psychology today. In Schmitt, N. & Highhouse, S. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Volume 12: Industrial and Organizational, pp. 3–13). Wiley.Google Scholar
Highhouse, S., Zickar, M., & Melick, S. (2020). Prestige and relevance of the scholarly journals: Impressions of SIOP members. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 13(3), 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, K., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2013). Experimental designs for identifying causal mechanisms. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A(Statistics in Society), 176(1), 5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y. J., Johnson, K. A., Cohen, A. B., Williams, M. J., Knowles, E. D., & Chen, Z. (2012). Fundamental(ist) attribution error: Protestants are dispositionally focused. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2), 281–290.10.1037/a0026294CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, J. P., & Gellatly, I. R. (1988). Perceived performance norm as a mediator in the effect of assigned goal on personal goal and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 410–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K. R. (2021). In praise of table 1: The importance of making better use of descriptive statistics. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 14(4), 461–477.Google Scholar
Nolan, K. P., & Highhouse, S. (2014). Need for autonomy and resistance to standardized employee selection practices. Human Performance, 27(4), 328–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pirlott, A. G., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2016). Design approaches to experimental mediation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 29–38.10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2019). Experimental designs in management and leadership research: Strengths, limitations, and recommendations for improving publishability. Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 11–33.10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton-Mifflin.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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stone-Romero, E. F., & Rosopa, P. J. (2008). The relative validity of inferences about mediation as a function of research design characteristics. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 326–352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300342
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, K., & Guest, O. (2020). #bropenscience is broken science: Kirstie Whitaker and Olivia Guest ask how open “open science” really is. Psychologist, 33, 34–37.Google Scholar
- 6
- Cited by