The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Spotlights, Floodlights, and the Magic Number Zero: Simple Effects Tests in Moderated Regression
Abstract
It is common for researchers discovering a significant interaction of a measured variable X with a manipulated variable Z to examine simple effects of Z at different levels of X. These “spotlight” tests are often misunderstood even in the simplest cases, and it appears that consumer researchers are unsure how to extend them to more complex designs. The authors explain the general principles of spotlight tests, show that they rely on familiar regression techniques, and provide a tutorial demonstrating how to apply these tests across an array of experimental designs. Rather than following the common practice of reporting spotlight tests at one standard deviation above and below the mean of X, it is recommended that when X has focal values, researchers should report spotlight tests at those focal values. When X does not have focal values, it is recommended that researchers report ranges of significance using a version of Johnson and Neyman's test the authors term a “floodlight.”
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs
Churchill, G. A. (1979) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224377901600110 · Cited by 16,549
On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables.
MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.19 · Cited by 3,538 · cited 2×
“…is a substantial loss of statistical power from dichotomizing a single predictor variable (e.g., Irwin and McClelland 2001, 2003; Jaccard et al. 2006; MacCallum et al. 2002), and dichotomizing in multiple predictor models creates spurious effects (Maxwell and Delaney 1993; Vargha et al. 1996).”
Cited by
Hayes, A. F., & Rockwood, N. J. (2017) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2016.11.001 · Cited by 2,350
Resistance to Medical Artificial Intelligence
Longoni, C., Bonezzi, A., & Morewedge, C. K. (2019) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucz013 · Cited by 2,015
Netemeyer, R. G., Warmath, D., Fernandes, D., & Lynch, J. G. (2018) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucx109 · Cited by 842
Self-citationArtificial Intelligence in Utilitarian vs. Hedonic Contexts: The “Word-of-Machine” Effect
Longoni, C., & Cian, L. (2022) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/0022242920957347 · Cited by 831
Exploring relationship development with social chatbots: A mixed-method study of replika
Pentina, I., Hancock, T., & Xie, T. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107600 · Cited by 522
Akpinar, E., & Berger, J. (2017) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmr.13.0350 · Cited by 267
Planning and Conducting Experimental Advertising Research and Questionnaire Design
Geuens, M., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2017) · Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/00913367.2016.1225233 · Cited by 234
Bias Blind Spot: Structure, Measurement, and Consequences
Scopelliti, I., Morewedge, C. K., McCormick, E., Min, H. L., Lebrecht, S., & Kassam, K. S. (2015) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2096 · Cited by 183
Amatulli, C., De Angelis, M., Korschun, D., & Romani, S. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.111 · Cited by 174
Touré-Tillery, M., & McGill, A. L. (2015) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jm.12.0166 · Cited by 167
The psychological roots of intellectual humility: The role of intelligence and cognitive flexibility
Zmigrod, L., Zmigrod, S., Rentfrow, P. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2019) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2019.01.016 · Cited by 142
Zheng, X., Baskin, E., & Peng, S. (2018) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.04.041 · Cited by 139
How the intention to share can undermine enjoyment: photo-taking goals and evaluation of experiences
Barasch, A., Zauberman, G., & Diehl, K. (2018) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucx112 · Cited by 128
Jin, L., & Huang, Y. (2014) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2013.08.005 · Cited by 122
Religiosity and special food consumption: The explanatory effects of moral priorities
Minton, E. A., Johnson, K. A., & Liu, R. L. (2019) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.041 · Cited by 88
Zvolensky, M. J., Jardin, C., Garey, L., Robles, Z., & Sharp, C. (2016) · Cognitive Behaviour Therapy · doi:10.1080/16506073.2016.1205658 · Cited by 66
Known Unknowns: A Critical Determinant of Confidence and Calibration
Walters, D. J., Fernbach, P. M., Fox, C. R., & Sloman, S. A. (2017) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2016.2580 · Cited by 62
Akbar, P., & Hoffmann, S. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.010 · Cited by 63
Why Prosocial Referral Incentives Work: The Interplay of Reputational Benefits and Action Costs
Gershon, R., Cryder, C., & John, L. K. (2020) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/0022243719888440 · Cited by 60
When Robot (Vs. Human) Employees Say “Sorry” Following Service Failure
Wang, X., Hwang, Y., & Guchait, P. (2023) · International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration · doi:10.1080/15256480.2021.2017812 · Cited by 60
The mere deadline effect: why more time might sabotage goal pursuit.
Zhu, M., Bagchi, R., & Hock, S. J. (2019) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucy030 · Cited by 60
Jachimowicz, J. M., To, C., Agasi, S., Côté, S., & Galinsky, A. D. (2019) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.06.002 · Cited by 58
The objectivity illusion and voter polarization in the 2016 presidential election
Schwalbe, M. C., Cohen, G. L., & Ross, L. D. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1912301117 · Cited by 54
Zegel, M., Tran, J. K., & Vujanovic, A. A. (2019) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112633 · Cited by 48
How power distance belief, self-construal, and relationship norms impact conspicuous consumption
Park, S., Kim, C., & Park, J. (2023) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103518 · Cited by 22
Internal states and interoception along a spectrum of eating disorder symptomology
Datta, N., Bidopia, T., Datta, S., Mittal, G., Alphin, F., Herbert, B. M., Marsh, E. J., Fitzsimons, G. J., Strauman, T. J., & Zucker, N. L. (2021) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2020.113307 · Cited by 18
Self-citationBecker, F., Wirzberger, M., Pammer-Schindler, V., Srinivas, S., & Lieder, F. (2023) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/jdm.2023.16 · Cited by 6
Protzko, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1025214 · Cited by 4
Cooper, M. J., Pullig, C., & Dickens, C. (2016) · Journal of Psychology and Theology · doi:10.1177/009164711604400104 · Cited by 4
Why Prosocial Referral Incentives Work: The Interplay of Reputational Benefits and Action Costs
Gershon, R., Cryder, C., & John, L. K. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3176019
Metadata
- Authors
- Spiller, S. A., Fitzsimons, G. J., Lynch, J. G., & Mcclelland, G. H.
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-04
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 277-288
- ISSN
- 0022-2437 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-7193
- OpenAlex
- W1985666788
- Cited by
- 1,818
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 69.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
