Cited by 145Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

The “true” indirect effect won't (always) stand up: When and why reverse mediation testing fails

Lemmer, Gunnar, Gollwitzer, Mario·2017·Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.05.002

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • It is not possible to determine merely on a statistical basis which of the different models within the same set of three variables (a so-called equivalence class) is the most plausible.

    “However, several recent publications, such as Thoemmes (2015) and Lemmer and Gollwitzer (2017), showed that it is not possible to determine merely on a statistical basis which of the different models we could define within the same set of three variables (a so-called equivalence class) is the most plausible.”

    From Mindfulness, Interpretation Bias, and Levels of Anxiety and Depression: Two Mediation Studies (2019) · cites this paper as Lemmer and Gollwitzer (2017)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lemmer, G., & Gollwitzer, M.
Affiliations
Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Lemmer, Gunnar
Venue
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-03
Volume
69
Pages
144-149
ISSN
0022-1031 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2410274842
Cited by
145
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2
FWCI
13.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
indirect effects, mediation model, causal order, model comparison, measurement reliability, Monte Carlo simulation, mediation analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review