Professional Documents
Culture Documents
0.08 0.50
2. Normative information
a
2.00 0.82 0.07 0.16
0.05 0.16
0.16
0.03 0.39
6. LGO-3 5.95 0.70 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.44
0.55
7. Self-efcacy-1 5.07 1.04 0.47
0.17
0.38
0.09 0.17
0.12
8. Self-efcacy-2 4.94 1.17 0.50
0.16
0.38
0.09 0.14
0.11 0.96
9. Self-efcacy-3 5.46 1.19 0.49
0.14
0.39
0.09 0.15
p <0.05.
a
Coded: 1 Low, 2 Moderate, 3 High.
Notes: Lower diagonal contains indicator correlations, upper diagonal contains latent variable correlations.
LLGOLatent learning goal orientation, LSELatent self-efcacy
N201.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 10311056 (2006)
1046 J. E. MATHIEU AND S. R. TAYLOR
Collectively, these results indicate that the measurement properties t quite well and there is sufcient
covariance among the latent variables to warrant examining the different intervening effects. We should
also highlight that the t of the ve-factor CFA is equivalent to a saturated structural modelor one
that includes direct paths from all antecedents to both the mediator (i.e., self-efcacy) and to the
criterion (i.e., performance). This saturated model provides a useful comparison against which to gauge
the t of other models.
Structural models
Below we t different structural models to test the three different types of intervening effects that were
hypothesized. In effect, we isolate the direct and indirect effects for each of the three antecedents.
However, we rst t only directs and no directs models to serve as additional bases of comparison.
The only directs model estimates direct relationships from all antecedents to performance, with no
paths leading to or stemming from the self-efcacy mediator (although self-efcacy remains as a latent
variable in the model). This model exhibited decient t indices [x
2
(24) 96.36, p <0.001;
GFI 0.92; CFI 0.94; SRMSR0.170] and differed signicantly from the CFA model
[Dx
2
(4) 77.32, p <0.001]. This indicates that at least one of the antecedents has a signicant
direct effect with self-efcacy, or efcacy related signicantly with performance. In other words, these
results attest to the importance of the mediator variable. In the context of this model, both normative
information (b
yx
0.12, p <0.05) and baseline performance (b
yx
0.48, p <0.01) related signicantly
to performance, whereas learning goal orientation (b
yx
0.02, n.s.) did not. These ndings are
consistent with the anticipated forms of intervening effects.
The no direct effects model estimated paths from each of the antecedents to self-efcacy, and from
efcacy to performance, but contained no direct effects from the antecedents to performance. This
model exhibited acceptable t indices [x
2
(23) 51.32, p <0.01; GFI 0.95; CFI 0.98;
SRMSR0.052] but did differ signicantly from the CFA model [Dx
2
(3) 32.28, p <0.001]. This
lack of t indicates that one or more of the antecedents has a signicant direct effect with performance.
In the context of this model, all three antecedents related signicantly with self-efcacy (learning goal
orientation b
mx
0.22, p <0.05; normative information b
mx
0.14, p <0.05; and baseline
performance b
mx
0.51, p <0.01), and self-efcacy exhibited a signicant relationship with
performance (b
ym
0.19, p <0.05). Therefore, the X!M relationship (b
mx
) is evident for all three
intervening effects, and the M!Y relationship holds, at least when considered alone. Notably, self-
efcacy retained its signicant relationship with performance in all models that we examined. In
Table 2. Summary of structural equation modeling analyses
Models
Fit indices
DF x
2
GFI CFI SRMSR
Saturated model 20 19.04 0.98 1.00 0.019
Learning goal direct 22 48.79
p <0.01.
a
Coded: 1 Low, 2 Moderate, 3 High.
Notes: N201.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 10311056 (2006)
MEDIATIONAL INFERENCES 1047
addition, the indirect effects of all the antecedents to performance via self-efcacy (b
mx
b
ym
) were
signicant in this model: learning goal orientation: b0.09, Sobel 4.70, SE1.69, p <0.05;
normative information b0.05, Sobel 2.14, SE0.99, p <0.05; and baseline performance
b 0.20, Sobel 0.21, SE0.04, p <0.01.
In summary, these two base models provide us with valuable information about the signicance of
the parameters associated with the different intervening effects. From the only directs model we
ascertained that the mediator variable plays an important role in the context of our model. From the no
directs model we learned that the indirect effect of each antecedent with performance was signicant,
as transmitted through the self-efcacy mediator. We now turn to additional models that complete the
picture for the three different relationships that were hypothesized.
Indirect effect
Recall that learning goal orientation was hypothesized to have only an indirect effect with performance
via self-efcacy. As shown in the upper triangle of Table 1, the correlation (i.e., total effect, b
yx
)
between the latent learning goal orientation variable and performance was not signicant (r 0.03,
ns), as anticipated. Using the no directs model as a base, we next t a learning goal direct model by
adding a path from learning goal orientation to performance. Although this model exhibited excellent
t indices, [x
2
(22) 48.79, p <0.01; GFI 0.95; CFI 0.98; SRMSR0.047], it was not a
signicant improvement over the no direct model [Dx
2
(1) 2.53, n.s.] and it differed signicantly from
the saturated model [Dx
2
(2) 29.75, p <0.001]. This implies that the direct effect of learning goal
orientation to performance was not signicant, and indeed it was not (b
ym.x
0.12, n.s.). In contrast,
the indirect effect of learning goal orientation to performance via self-efcacy was signicant in this
model (b
mx
b
ym.x
0.09, Sobel 5.18, SE1.83, p <0.05). In summary, the indirect effect
(b
mx
b
ym
) was signicant in this model, whereas the direct X!Y relationship (b
yx.m
) was not. Given
that the total (b
yx
) was also not signicant, these results are consistent with the hypothesis of an indirect
effect.
Fully mediated effect
We hypothesized that the inuence of the normative information manipulation on performance would
be fully mediated by self-efcacy. As illustrated in the upper triangle of Table 1, the correlation
between the normative information manipulation and performance was signicant (r 0.16, p <0.05),
as anticipated. Therefore, the total (b
yx
) condition was fullled. Next, again using the no directs model
as a base, next t a normative information direct model by adding a path from normative information
to performance. This model also exhibited excellent t indices, [x
2
(22) 49.20, p <0.01; GFI 0.95;
CFI 0.98; SRMSR0.050], but was also not a signicant improvement over the no direct model
[Dx
2
(1) 2.12, n.s.], and differed signicantly from the saturated model [Dx
2
(2) 30.16, p <0.001].
Thus, the direct effect of normative information to performance was not signicant (b
yx.m
0.10, n.s.)
although the indirect effect was (b
mx
b
ym.x
0.05, Sobel 2.04, SE0.95, p <0.05). In summary,
the results of this model indicate that normative information has a direct effect on the self-efcacy
mediator (b
mx
), self-efcacy has a signicant relationship with performance (b
ym
), and that the direct
effect of normative information to performance (b
yx.m
) is no longer signicant. Given the earlier
signicant total X!Y effect (b
yx
), these results are consistent with the hypothesis of a full mediation.
Partially mediated effect
Last, we hypothesized that the inuence of the baseline performance on the experimental trial
performance would be partially mediated by self-efcacy. Accordingly, using the no directs model
again as a base, we t a baseline performance direct model by adding a path from baseline
performance to performance. This model exhibited excellent t indices [x
2
(22) 21.90, n.s.;
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 10311056 (2006)
1048 J. E. MATHIEU AND S. R. TAYLOR
GFI 0.98; CFI 1.00; SRMSR0.024], was a signicant improvement over the no directs model
[Dx
2
(1) 29.42, p <0.01], and did not differ signicantly from the saturated model [Dx
2
(2) 2.86,
n.s.]. This implies that the direct effect of baseline performance to performance was signicant, and in
fact it was (b
yx.m
0.40, p <0.01), as was the indirect effect via self-efcacy (b
mx
b
ym.x
0.10,
Sobel 0.10, SE0.04, p <0.01). Moreover, baseline performance evidenced a signicant direct
effect with the self-efcacy mediator (b
mx
), and self-efcacy had a signicant relationship with
performance (b
ym.x
). These ndings are consistent with the hypothesis of a partially mediated effect.
The results of this model, which in effect constitutes the hypothesized model when all three intervening
hypotheses are considered together, are presented in Figure 4.
Summary
The series of model tests illustrated the chain of evidence required for different types of intervening
effects. It is noteworthy that the overall t indices were excellent for all but the directs only, no
directs, and the null latent models. The series of tests made clear that the lack of t stemmed from
signicant relationships between: (1) all three antecedents and the self-efcacy mediator; (2) the
efcacy mediator and the performance outcome; and (3) baseline performance and the performance
outcome, directly. Inclusion of these relations fully accounted for the covariance among the latent
variables. It is also worth noting that the indirect effects tests were signicant for all three antecedents
in both the no directs model, as well as when considered individually in the direct effects models.
Discussion
The purpose of this paper was to revisit the popular question of how do you test mediated
relationships? We submitted that researchers should consider issues related to the theory that they are
testing, the research design that they are employing, and the construct validity of the measures that they
collect. We argued that mediational inferences hinge on the ability of researchers to: (1) justify the
causal order of variables; (2) reasonably exclude the inuence of outside factors; (3) demonstrate
acceptable construct validity of their measures; (4) articulate, a priori, the nature of the intervening
effects that they anticipate; and (5) obtain a pattern of effects that are consistent with their anticipated
relationships while also disconrming alternative hypotheses.
Figure 4. Model results of different intervening effects
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 10311056 (2006)
MEDIATIONAL INFERENCES 1049
Research design factors are paramount for reasonable mediational inferences to be drawn. If the
causal order of variables is compromised, then it matters little how well the measures perform or the
covariances are partitioned. Because no analytic technique can discern the true causal order of
variables, establishing the internal validity of a study is critical. Adequately ruling out the inuence of
alternative explanations is also vital for drawing mediational inferences. Randomized eld experiments
afford the greatest control over such concerns, yet they may not be feasible for a number of reasons.
Nevertheless, they remain the gold standard and should be pursued whenever possible. Quasi-
experimental designs offer reasonable fall back options, but as Campbell and Stanley (1966) long ago
warned, are fraught with threats to internal validity. Lacking the ability to perform any type of
experiment, temporal precedence, and strong theory offer some bases for specifying causal order, but
they are certainly not the strongest positions to defend. In the end, journal editors, reviewers, and
consumers of research will no doubt have greater condence in studies that leverage strong theory and
experimental design features, reasonable exclusion of alternative explanations for effects, measures
that have good construct validity and were gathered in the proper temporal precedence, and results that
were consistent with the hypothesized relationships.
In our empirical illustration, we justied the causal order of variables using a combination of
techniques. First, an individual difference variable (learning goal orientation) was collected before the
experiment was even introduced. Second, participants completed a practice exercise to familiarize
themselves with the task and to establish a baseline. Third, we then randomly assigned participants to
normative information experimental conditions, after which we assessed their self-efcacy before they
completed the performance trial. We reported conrmatory factor analysis results that supported the
measurement properties of the scales we employed, and then described a series of competing structural
models that homed in on the parameters of interest for different intervening relationships. Given the
strong theoretical foundation concerning self-efcacy, the combination of experimental design
features, temporal precedence, measurement quality, and focused analyses represents a fairly strong
position from which to draw mediational inferences.
We also sought to differentiate indirect effects, partial mediation, and full mediation. Clearly they are
similar in the sense that they all describe an intervening process linking antecedents with an outcome.
However, we submitted that there are important, albeit subtle, differences between the nature of the
relationship that they each advance. Moreover, we argued that different types of conrmatory and
disconrming evidence are warranted for each type of relationships. Most importantly, we argued that
researchers should articulate a priori hypotheses concerning the nature of the relationship(s) that they
anticipate. This underscores the importance of adopting a conrmatory approach toward tests of
intervening effects. As illustrated in the panels of Figure 2, the base model(s) that one chooses presents
important guidelines for the evidential basis of different types of inferences. Moreover, when
considered collectively in a larger structural model, which parameters are included has implications
for tests of indirect and mediated relations. For example, a close examination of the results we reported
will reveal that the magnitude of any given direct and indirect effect varied as a function of what other
parameters were being modeled. In practice, it could well be that the signicance of a given parameter
will change depending on the nature of the entire network of model relations. Therefore, we encourage
researchers to articulate an a priori model (including any potential co-variates of interest), and to report
the parameter estimates for that model. Naturally, a revised model may be suggested by the data; in
which case it is informative to report the parameter estimates from that context as well. Of course,
revised models need to be validated on a new sample.
We provided an empirical illustration of the three types of intervening relationships. In so doing, we
outlined how a series of structural equation models could be employed to test the relevant parameters
for each relationship. This could have just as easily been done using standard multiple regression
techniques. However, SEM techniques offer three critical advantages over multiple regression
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 10311056 (2006)
1050 J. E. MATHIEU AND S. R. TAYLOR
approaches. First, using a two-stage SEM approach, researchers explicitly address the measurement
properties of the variables that they have collected before the consideration of the more substantive
relations. Whereas SEM does not absolve researchers from the importance of using valid and reliable
measures, it does explicitly account for howmeasurement properties inuence substantive conclusions.
Second, SEM techniques explicitly consider the potential inuence of constrained parameters. In other
words, SEM model t indices hinge on the veracity relationships thought not to exist. For example, a
hypothesis of full mediation rests not only on the signicance of X!M and M!Y parameters, but
also on whether X fails to relate signicantly to Yonce M has been considered. The third strength of
SEM analyses derives from the nested model comparisons. Whereas sample size and related factors
determine the power of tests of whether a parameter of interest differs signicantly from zero, these are
held relatively constant in the context of nested model tests. In other words, the SEM nested model
comparisons allow one to home in on the specic parameters of interest and to contrast a given pattern
of effects against viable alternatives. Clearly substantive considerations should guide the selection of
alternative models (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988), yet we believe the three types of intervening effects
we described will likely represent fairly viable alternatives for any hypothesis of interest.
While we are clearly echoing previous calls for greater use of SEM techniques in mediational
analyses (Baron & Kenny, 1986; James & Brett, 1984), they are not panaceas. Researchers must still
attend to the preconditions for tests of mediation that we reviewed. Furthermore, the various
comparison models that we advanced are not all directly comparable. Model contrasts are only valuable
if competing models are nested. In other words, models are nested if one represents a more restrictive
version of the other. Whereas both the saturated model and null latent models provide valuable
universal benchmarks, the directs only and no directs models are only useful for limited comparisons.
Nevertheless, the series of model comparisons enable researchers to test all the relevant parameters
related to intervening effects. We should add that simpler approaches such as regression may well be
applied in circumstances where the assumptions of SEMtechniques have not been met (e.g., reasonable
sample sizes).
Extensions
Moderated relationships
Thus far we have been concerned with strictly main effect or linear relationships associated with
various intervening effects. However, interactions or moderator relationships can also be incorporated
into this framework. Both James and Brett (1984) and Baron and Kenny (1986) discussed procedures
for testing both mediators and moderators simultaneously. James and Brett (1984), and more recently,
Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt (2005), further differentiated different forms that combinations of mediators
and moderators may take. First, they described mediated moderation as the situation where an
interaction between two antecedents, as related to a criterion variable, passes through a mediator. In
effect, this implies that the moderator inuences the X!M link of a mediated relationship. For
example, the inuence of normative information on individuals self-efcacy might be contingent on
the extent to which participants identify with the normative group. In other words, normative
performance information about people just like me is likely to inuence a persons self-efcacy far
more than is information about people much different than me. Tests of this moderation, whether they
be conducted using moderated regression or more sophisticated SEM techniques (Cortina, Chen, &
Dunlap, 2001), would follow the analytic approach that we outlined earlier, while also considering
interactions involving the antecedent variable(s) and the moderator.
The other combination of variables is referred to as moderated mediation (James & Brett, 1984). In
this case, the moderator exerts its inuence on the M!Y path in the X!M!Y sequence. For
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 10311056 (2006)
MEDIATIONAL INFERENCES 1051
example, individuals self-efcacy is likely to have a stronger relationship with their performance in
weak or unconstrained environments, whereas strong environments or ones with abundant situational
constraints would likely attenuate self-efcacy !performance relations. Here again, the standard
evidential basis for establishing mediated relations is followed; only the moderators inuence on tests
including the M!Y combination is also considered. In short, the difference between the two types of
combinations follows from whether the moderator exerts its inuence on the X!M link (mediated
moderation) or on the M!Y link (moderated mediation) in the X!M!Y sequence.
Multiple mediators
To this point we have been discussing relationships between antecedents and an outcome via a single
mediator. However, there are many circumstances where multiple mediators may be in operation.
There are two different varieties of multiple mediation. The rst instance of multiple mediation simply
involves a longer causal chain such as X!M1 !M2 !Y. For example, self-set goals have long been
considered as a mediating mechanism linking self-efcacy in performance (Bandura & Locke, 2003).
Consequently, the fully mediated relationship between normative information and performance that we
illustrated would be transmitted through a self-efcacy !self-set goals !performance chain.
Whether the relationship between self-efcacy and performance is partially or fully mediated by goals
must be hypothesized and analyzed accordingly, as does the normative information !self-
efcacy !self-set goals sequence. Analytic techniques to address the relative contribution of some
X variable on some distal Y variable as transmitted by two (or more) sequential mediators are still
evolving (see Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Nevertheless, the preconditions for testing mediational type
inferences that we outlined would apply.
The second form of multiple mediation concerns two or more stacked mediators. For example,
Kohler and Mathieu (1993) advanced a model whereby individual resource variables and work related
perceptions where associated with different forms of absenteeism as mediated by three work attitudes
(e.g., job satisfaction) and three forms of work stress (e.g., somatic tensions). These authors considered
the work attitudes and stresses as co-occurring in the sense that they advanced no causal sequence
among them. Kohler and Mathieu (1993) tested mediational relations using a block of mediators
considered together as a set. More recently, Preacher and Hayes (2005) have advanced techniques to
not only assess the extent to which blocks of such mediators convey indirect effects, but also enable
researchers to differentiate the extent to which the collective indirect effects are attributable to each of
the mediators considered.
Multi-level approaches
Throughout this paper we have assumed that all variables of interest were indexed at the same level of
analysis. However, mediational inferences can also be considered in the context of multi-level designs.
Generally, multi-level designs come in two varieties: (1) nested entities; and (2) longitudinal
approaches. In nested entity designs, some focal level-1 of analysis (e.g., individuals) is considered in
the context of higher level-2 units (e.g., teams). In these designs, antecedents and mediators may
emanate from different levels of analysis and combine to inuence a lower-level criterion (see Mathieu
& Taylor, in press). For example, team characteristics (X) may inuence members individual
performances as mediated by level-2 team processes (M) or perhaps by their level-1 identication with
the team.
A second type of multi-level design is commonly referred to as within-subject (Judd, Kenny, &
McClelland, 2001), growth-curve modeling (e.g., Bliese & Polyhart, 2002), or repeated measures (e.g.,
Moskowitz & Hershberger, 2002) designs. In these designs, the lower level-1 variables are represented
as repeated observations of the same unit of analysis (e.g., individual) over time. For example, one
might consider the inuence of level-2 individuals personality traits (X) on their individual level-1
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 10311056 (2006)
1052 J. E. MATHIEU AND S. R. TAYLOR
performance overtime (Y), as mediated by their work attitudes. Mediators (M) in this context could be
relatively stable level-2 work attitudes (e.g., organizational commitment) assessed at a single point in
time, or temporally changing level-1 variables (e.g., moods) assessed using time sampling techniques.
Plenty of good work is currently being advanced along these lines (e.g., Judd et al., 2001; Kenny,
Korchmaros, & Bolger, 2003). In summary, multi-level designs expand the scope of mediational
inferences to incorporate relationships that reside within levels of analysis, traverse levels of analysis,
and unfold over time.
Conclusion
Our goal for this paper was to revisit issues related to the validity of mediational inferences in
organizational behavior. We sought to emphasize the inextricable ties between theory, design,
measurement, and analysis related to such inferences. We also argued that indirect effects, partial
mediation, and full mediation represent slightly different forms of intervening effects. We submitted
that researchers should specify which they anticipate a priori, as each relies on slightly different types
of statistical evidence. Our hope is that this paper provides a framework for future investigations. We
also believe that this approach should provide a foundation upon which to expand and incorporate
moderated relationships, more complex multiple mediation applications, and multi-level designs.
Acknowledgements
We thank Gilad Chen, Jodi Goodman, Kris Preacher, Jack Veiga, and Zeki Simsek for their helpful
comments on an earlier version of this paper.
Author biographies
John E. Mathieu (John.Mathieu@business.uconn.edu) is a Professor and Cizik Chair of Management
at the University of Connecticut. He received his PhD in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from
Old Dominion University. He is a member of the Academy of Management and a Fellow of the Society
of Industrial Organizational Psychology, and the American Psychological Association. His current
research interests include models of team and multi-team processes, and cross-level models of
organizational behavior.
Scott R. Taylor (Scott.Taylor@business.uconn.edu) is a PhD candidate in organizational behavior at
the University of Connecticut. He received his MBA from the University of Virginia. He is a student
member of the Academy of Management and Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology. His
current research interests include team leadership and inuence, multi-level models of organizational
behavior, and multi-team systems.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 10311056 (2006)
MEDIATIONAL INFERENCES 1053
References
Alwin, D. F., & Hauser, R. M. (1975). The decomposition of effects in path analysis, American Sociological
Review, 40, 3747.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended
two step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411423.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative Self-efcacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 8799.
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 Psychlology,
51, 11731182.
Beauducel, A., & Wittmann, W. (2005). Simulation study on t indices in conrmatory factor analysis based on
data with slightly distorted simple structure. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 4175.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative t indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238246.
Bliese, P. D., &Ployhart, R. E. (2002). Growth modeling using randomcoefcient models: Model building, testing,
and illustrations. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 362387.
Bollen, K. A. (1987). Total direct and indirect effects in structural equation models. In C. C. Clogg (Ed.),
Sociological methodology (pp. 3769). Washington DC: American Sociological Association.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Oxford, England: Wiley.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multi-
variate Behavioral Research, 24, 445455.
Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and
empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 2648.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Chen, G., Gully, S., Whiteman, J.-A., & Kilcullen, R. (2000). Examination of relationships among trait-like
individual differences, state-like individual differences, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 85, 835847.
Claessens, B. J. C., Eerde, W. V., Rutte, C. G., & Roe, R. A. (2004). Planning behavior and perceived control of
time at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 937950.
Collins, L. M., Graham, J. W., & Flaherty, B. P. (1998). An alternative framework for dening mediation.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 295312.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for eld settings.
Boston: Houghton Mifin.
Cortina, J. M., Chen, G., & Dunlap, W. P. (2001). Testing interaction effects in LISREL: Examination and
illustration of available procedures. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 324360.
Diefendorff, J. M. (2004). Examination of the roles of action-state orientation and goal orientation in the goal-
setting and performance process. Human Performance, 17, 375395.
Fan, X., & Sivo, S. A. (2005). Sensitivity of t indices to misspecied structural or measurement model
components: Rationale of two-index strategy revisited. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 343367.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology
research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115134.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldman, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hagtvet, K. A., & Nasser, F. M. (2004). How well do item parcels represent conceptually dened latent constructs?
A two-facet approach. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 168193.
Hall, R. J., Snell, A. F., & Foust, M. S. (1999). Item parceling strategies in SEM: Investigating the subtle effects of
unmodeled secondary constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 233256.
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, 599610.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 10311056 (2006)
1054 J. E. MATHIEU AND S. R. TAYLOR
Hom, P. W., & Kinicki, A. J. (2001). Toward a greater understanding of how dissatisfaction drives employee
turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 975987.
Hoyle, R. H., & Kenny, D. A. (1999). Statistical power and tests of mediation. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical
strategies for small sample research. Newbury Park: Sage.
Hu, L., &Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for t indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155.
James, L. R. (1980). The unmeasured variable problem in path analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 415
421.
James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied
Psychlology, 69, 307321.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models and data. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage .
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (2006). A tale of two methods. Organizational Research Methods, 9(2),
233244.
Joreskog, K., Sorbom, D., du Toit, S., & du Toit, M. (2000). LISREL 8: New statistical features. Lincolnwood, IL:
Scientic Software International.
Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process Analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation
review, 5, 602619.
Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A., & McClelland, G. H. (2001). Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in
within-subjects designs. Psychological Methods, 6, 115134.
Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In S. F. D. Gilbert, &
G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4 ed., Vol. 1). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Kenny, D. A., Korchmaros, J. D., & Bolger, N. (2003). Lower-level mediation in multilevel models. Psychological
Methods, 8, 115128.
Kohler, S. S., & Mathieu, J. E. (1993). Individual characteristics, work perceptions, and affective reactions
inuences on differentiated absence criteria. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 515530.
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming composites measures in
structural equations models. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 186207.
Lewin, K. (1943). Dening the eld at a given time. Psychological Review, 50, 292310.
MacCallum, R. C., Wegener, D. T., Uchino, B. N., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1993). The problem of equivalent models in
applications of covariance structure analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 185199.
MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding, and
suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173181.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods
to test the signicance of the mediated effect. Psychological Methods, 7, 83104.
Marsh, H. W., Kit-Tai, H., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on Hypothesis-Testing
Approaches to setting cutoff values for t indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentlers (1999)
ndings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320341.
Mathieu, J. E. (1991). A cross-level nonrecursive model of the antecedents of organizational commitment and
satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 617618.
Mathieu, J. E., & Button, S. B. (1992). An examination of the relative impact of normative information and self-
efcacy on personal goals and performance over time. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 17581775.
Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the
employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 874888.
Mitchell, T. R. (1985). An evaluation of the validity of correlational research conducted in organizations. Academy
of Management Review, 2, 192205.
Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. (2001). Building better theory: Time and the specication of when things happen.
Academy of Management Review, 26, 530547.
Moskowitz, D. S., Hershberger, S. L. (2002). Modeling intraindividual variability with repeated measures data:
Methods and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852863.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning and inference. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in
the self efcacy and goal setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 792802.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 10311056 (2006)
MEDIATIONAL INFERENCES 1055
Potosky, D. (2002). A eld study of computer efcacy beliefs as an outcome of training: The role of computer
playfulness, computer knowledge, and performance during training. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 241
255.
Potosky, D., & Ramakrishna, H. V. (2002). The moderating role of updating climate perceptions in the
relationship between goal orientation, self-efcacy, and job performance. Human Performance, 15(3), 275
297.
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, 717731.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2005). SPSS and SAS macros for estimating and comparing indirect effects in
multiple mediator models, 717731 (Under review).
Saks, A. M. (1995). Longitudinal-eld investigation of the moderating and mediating effects of self-efcacy on the
relationship between training and newcomer adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 211225.
Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2000). Research methodology in management: Current Practices, trends, and
implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 12481264.
Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 2, 343.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for
generalized causal inference. Houghton-Miin, Boston: Houghton-Miin.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and
recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422445.
Smith, E. R. (1982). Beliefs, attributions, and evaluations: Nonhierarchical models of mediation in social
cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 248259.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic condence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In
S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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, 845851.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efcacy and work related performance: A meta-analysis. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 124, 240261.
Stezl, I. (1986). Changing the causal hypothesis without changing the t: Some rules for generating equivalent path
models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 21, 309331.
Stone-Romero, E. F., & Rosopa, P. (2004). Inference problems with hierarchical multiple regression-based tests of
mediating effects In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 23,
pp. 249290). Greenwich, CT: Elsevier.
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administration Science Quarterly, 40, 371384.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention and turnover:
Path analysis based on meta-analytic ndings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259293.
Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Rakestraw, T. L. (1999). Inuence of modeling on self-set goals: Direct and mediated
effects. Human Performance 12, 89114.
West, S. G., Biesanz, J. C., &Pitts, S. C. (2000). Causal inference and generalization in eld settings: Experimental
and quasi-experimental designs. In H. T. Reis, &C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and
personality psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14, 490495.
Wood, R. E., Goodman, J. S., Cook, A., & Beckman, N. (in press). Mediation testing in management research: A
review and proposals. Organizational Research Methods.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 10311056 (2006)
1056 J. E. MATHIEU AND S. R. TAYLOR