Marketing, consumer, and organizational behavior researchers interested in studying the mechanisms by which effects operate and the conditions that enhance or inhibit such effects often rely on statistical mediation and conditional process analysis (also known as the analysis of “moderated mediation”). Model estimation is typically undertaken with ordinary least squares regression-based path analysis, such as implemented in the popular PROCESS macro for SPSS and SAS ( Hayes, 2013 ), or using a structural equation modeling program. In this paper we answer a few frequently-asked questions about the difference between PROCESS and structural equation modeling and show by way of example that, for observed variable models, the choice of which to use is inconsequential, as the results are largely identical. We end by discussing considerations to ponder when making the choice between PROCESS and structural equation modeling.

Women obtain more than half of U.S. undergraduate degrees in biology, chemistry, and mathematics, yet they earn less than 20% of computer science, engineering, and physics undergraduate degrees (National Science Foundation, 2014a). Gender differences in interest in computer science, engineering, and physics appear even before college. Why are women represented in some science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields more than others? We conduct a critical review of the most commonly cited factors explaining gender disparities in STEM participation and investigate whether these factors explain differential gender participation across STEM fields. Math performance and discrimination influence who enters STEM, but there is little evidence to date that these factors explain why women's underrepresentation is relatively worse in some STEM fields. We introduce a model with three overarching factors to explain the larger gender gaps in participation in computer science, engineering, and physics than in biology, chemistry, and mathematics: (a) masculine cultures that signal a lower sense of belonging to women than men, (b) a lack of sufficient early experience with computer science, engineering, and physics, and (c) gender gaps in self-efficacy. Efforts to increase women's participation in computer science, engineering, and physics may benefit from changing masculine cultures and providing students with early experiences that signal equally to both girls and boys that they belong and can succeed in these fields. (PsycINFO Database Record

Researchers interested in testing mediation often use designs where participants are measured on a dependent variable Y and a mediator M in both of 2 different circumstances. The dominant approach to assessing mediation in such a design, proposed by Judd, Kenny, and McClelland (2001), relies on a series of hypothesis tests about components of the mediation model and is not based on an estimate of or formal inference about the indirect effect. In this article we recast Judd et al.'s approach in the path-analytic framework that is now commonly used in between-participant mediation analysis. By so doing, it is apparent how to estimate the indirect effect of a within-participant manipulation on some outcome through a mediator as the product of paths of influence. This path-analytic approach eliminates the need for discrete hypothesis tests about components of the model to support a claim of mediation, as Judd et al.'s method requires, because it relies only on an inference about the product of paths-the indirect effect. We generalize methods of inference for the indirect effect widely used in between-participant designs to this within-participant version of mediation analysis, including bootstrap confidence intervals and Monte Carlo confidence intervals. Using this path-analytic approach, we extend the method to models with multiple mediators operating in parallel and serially and discuss the comparison of indirect effects in these more complex models. We offer macros and code for SPSS, SAS, and Mplus that conduct these analyses. (PsycINFO Database Record

No abstract

Moderation hypotheses appear in every area of psychological science, but the methods for testing and probing moderation in two-instance repeated measures designs are incomplete. This article begins with a short overview of testing and probing interactions in between-participant designs. Next I review the methods outlined in Judd, McClelland, and Smith (Psychological Methods 1; 366–378, 1996) and Judd, Kenny, and McClelland (Psychological Methods 6; 115–134, 2001) for estimating and conducting inference on an interaction between a repeated measures factor and a single between-participant moderator using linear regression. I extend these methods in two ways: First, the article shows how to probe interactions in a two-instance repeated measures design using both the pick-a-point approach and the Johnson–Neyman procedure. Second, I extend the models described by Judd et al. (1996) to multiple-moderator models, including additive and multiplicative moderation. Worked examples with a published dataset are included, to demonstrate the methods described throughout the article. Additionally, I demonstrate how to use Mplus and MEMORE (Mediation and Moderation for Repeated Measures; available at http://akmontoya.com), an easy-to-use tool available for SPSS and SAS, to estimate and probe interactions when the focal predictor is a within-participant factor, reducing the computational burden for researchers. I describe some alternative methods of analysis, including structural equation models and multilevel models. The conclusion touches on some extensions of the methods described in the article and potentially fruitful areas of further research.