Moderator and mediator effects in dyadic research: Two extensions of the actor-partner interdependence model;Moderator- Und mediatoreffekte bei dyadischen daten: Zwei erweiterungen des akteur-partner-interdependenz-modells

Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 27-40

  Ledermann, Thomas ^a   Bodenmann, Guy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FRIBOURG   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Actor effect; Marriage; Mediation; Moderation; Partner effect

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645675799     PISSN: 00443514     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1024/0044-3514.37.1.27     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Aiken, L.S. & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions, Newbury, CA: Sage.
2. Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderation-mediation variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
3. Beck, A.T., Ward, C.H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J. & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561-571.
4. Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
5. Bodenmann, G. (2000). Stress und Coping bei Paaren. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
6. Bollen, K. A. & Stine, R. A. (1992). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 205-229.
7. Browne, M. W. (1982). Covariance structures. In D.M. Hawkins (Ed.), Topics in applied multivariate analysis (pp. 72-141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9. Campbell, L., Simpson, J.A., Kashy, D.A. & Rholes, W.S. (2001). Attachment orientations, dependence, and behavior in a stressful situation: An application of the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 821-843.
10. Campbell, L. & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A user-friendly guide. Personal Relationships, 9, 327-342.
11. Cohen, J. (1978). Partialed products are interactions; partialed vectors are curve components. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 858-866.
12. Cohen, J. (1983). The costs of dichotomization. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 249-253.
13. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. & Aiken, L.S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Collins, L.M., Graham, J.W. & Flaherty, B.P. (1998). An alternative framework for defining mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 295-312.
15. Cook, W.L. (1998). Integrating models of interdependence with treatment evaluation in marital therapy research. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 529-542.
16. Cook, W. L. & Snyder, D. K. (2005). Analyzing nonindependent outcomes in couple therapy using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 133-141.
17. Efron, B. & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
18. Fan, X. (2003). Using commonly available software for bootstrapping in both substantive and measurement analyses. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 24-50.
19. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
20. Gonzalez, R. & Griffin, D. (1997). On the statistics of interdependence: Treating dyadic data with respect. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (2nd ed., pp. 271-302). New York: Wiley.
21. Gonzalez, R. & Griffin, D. (1999). The correlational analysis of dyadic-level data in the distinguishable case. Personal Relationships, 6, 449-469.
22. Grzywacz, J.G. & Marks, N.F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111-126.
23. Hahlweg, K. (1996). Fragebogen zur Partnerschaftsdiagnostik (FPD). Handanweisung. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
24. Hautzinger, M., Bailer, M., Worall, H. & Keller, F. (1995). Beck-Depressions-Inventar (BDI). Testhandbuch (2. Aufl.). Bern: Huber.
25. Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for the fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
26. Jaccard, J. & Turrisi, R. (2003). Interaction effects in multiple regression (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. James, L.R. & Brett, J.M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 307-321.
28. Judd, C.M. & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5, 602-619.
29. Judd, C.M., Kenny, D. A. & McClelland, G.H. (2001). Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-subject designs. Psychological Methods, 6, 115-134.
30. Kanner, A.D., Coyne, J.C., Schaefer, C. & Lazarus, R.S. (1981). Comparison of two modes of stress measurements: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 1-39.
31. Kashy, D.A. & Kenny, D.A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 451-477). New York: Cambridge University Press.
32. Kelley, H.H. & Thibaut, J.W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.
33. Kenny, D.A. (1996). Models of non-independence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 279-294.
34. Kenny, D. A. & Cook, W. L. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal Relationships, 6, 433-448.
35. Kenny, D. A. & Judd, C. M. (1984). Estimating the nonlinear and interactive effects of latent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 602-619.
36. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D.A. & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert & S.T. Fiske (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 233-265). New York: McGraw-Hill.
37. Ledermann, T. & Bodenmann, G. (2005, Januar). Der Einfluss von Alltagsstress auf die Partnerschaft und die Sexualität. Vortrag gehalten im Rahmen des Gästekolloquiums des Lehrstuhls Gerontopsychologie der Universität Zürich, Schweiz.
38. Ledermann, T. & Schaie, K.W. (2005, Juli). Familienklima und kognitive Fähigkeiten im Erwachsenenalter: Eine Untersuchung mit Daten der Seattle Longitudinal Study. Poster prä sentiert an der 4. Münchner Tagung für Familienpsychologie: «Familienkompetenzen stärken», München, Deutschland.
39. Loehlin, J. C. (1998). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. MacCallum, R.C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K.J. & Rucker, D.D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 19-40.
41. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G. & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.
42. McClelland, G.H. & Judd, C.M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376-390.
43. Mulaik, S.A., James, L.R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S. & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430-445.
44. Nevitt, J. & Hancock, G. R. (2001). Performance of bootstrapping approaches to model test statistics and parameter standard er ror estimation in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 353-377.
45. Neyer, F. J. (1998). Zum Umgang mit dyadischen Daten: Neue Methoden für die Sozialpsychologie. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 29, 291-306.
46. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23-74.
47. Shrout, P. E. & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445.
48. Steiger, J.H. & Lind, J.C. (1980, May). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the Psychometric Society Annual Meeting, Iowa City, IA.
49. Tanaka, J. S. (1993). Multifaceted conceptions of fit structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 1-39). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
50. Thompson, B. (1999, April). Common methodology mistakes in educational research, revisited, along with a primer on both effect size and the bootstrap. Invited address presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 429 110).
51. West, S.G., Finch, J.F. & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52. Whisman, M. A. & McClelland, G. H. (2005). Designing, testing, and interpreting interactions and moderator effects in family research. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 111-120.
53. Woodworth, R. S. (1928). Dynamic psychology. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Psychologies of 1925. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
54. Woody, E. & Sadler, P. (2005). Structural equation models for interchangeable dyads: Being the same makes a difference. Psychological Methods, 10, 139-158.