Cited by 12,583Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis

Open access
Zhao, Xinshu, Lynch, John G., Chen, Qimei·2010·Journal of Consumer Research

Abstract

Baron and Kenny’s procedure for determining if an independent variable affects a dependent variable through some mediator is so well known that it is used by authors and requested by reviewers almost reflexively. Many research projects have been terminated early in a research program or later in the review process because the data did not conform to Baron and Kenny’s criteria, impeding theoretical development. While the technical literature has disputed some of Baron and Kenny’s tests, this literature has not diffused to practicing researchers. We present a nontechnical summary of the flaws in the Baron and Kenny logic, some of which have not been previously noted. We provide a decision tree and a step-by-step procedure for testing mediation, classifying its type, and interpreting the implications of findings for theory building and future research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/651257

Cites

43 of 43 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
Venue
Journal of Consumer Research
Published
2010-08
Volume
37
Issue
2
Pages
197-206
ISSN
  • 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5277
OpenAlex
W2131568786
Cited by
12,583
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 1581 · 2025: 1236 · 2024: 1162 · 2023: 1227 · 2022: 1207 · 2021: 1156 · 2020: 944 · 2019: 743 · 2018: 637 · 2017: 574 · 2016: 544 · 2015: 439 · 2014: 435 · 2013: 345 · 2012: 225
FWCI
189.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Consumer Research (publishedVersion)
  • HKBU Institutional Repository (Hong Kong Baptist University) (submittedVersion)
  • DukeSpace (Duke University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Center for AIDS Research, University of Washington
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
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
mediation analysis, theory development, decision tree

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