Cited by 17,383Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models

Open access
Preacher, Kristopher J., Hayes, Andrew F.·2004·Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers

Abstract

Researchers often conduct mediation analysis in order to indirectly assess the effect of a proposed cause on some outcome through a proposed mediator. The utility of mediation analysis stems from its ability to go beyond the merely descriptive to a more functional understanding of the relationships among variables. A necessary component of mediation is a statistically and practically significant indirect effect. Although mediation hypotheses are frequently explored in psychological research, formal significance tests of indirect effects are rarely conducted. After a brief overview of mediation, we argue the importance of directly testing the significance of indirect effects and provide SPSS and SAS macros that facilitate estimation of the indirect effect with a normal theory approach and a bootstrap approach to obtaining confidence intervals, as well as the traditional approach advocated by Baron and Kenny (1986). We hope that this discussion and the macros will enhance the frequency of formal mediation tests in the psychology literature. Electronic copies of these macros may be downloaded from the Psychonomic Society's Web archive at www.psychonomic.org/archive/.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/bf03206553

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 41 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Arbuckle, J. L., &Wothke, W. (1999).AMOS 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS.
  2. Bentler, P. M. (1997).EQS for Windows (Version 5.6) [Computer software]. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
  3. Lockwood, C. M., &MacKinnon, D. P. (1998). Bootstrapping the standard error of the mediated effect.Proceedings of the 23rd annual meeting of SAS Users Group International (pp. 997–1002). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–600 of 1,368

Metadata

Authors
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
Preacher, Kristopher J.
Venue
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers
Published
2004-11
Volume
36
Issue
4
Pages
717-731
ISSN
  • 0743-3808 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5970
OpenAlex
W1995031937
Cited by
17,383
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 642 · 2025: 893 · 2024: 965 · 2023: 974 · 2022: 1187 · 2021: 1157 · 2020: 1100 · 2019: 1104 · 2018: 1149 · 2017: 1053 · 2016: 1089 · 2015: 1089 · 2014: 1063 · 2013: 988 · 2012: 840
FWCI
84.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KU ScholarWorks (University of Kansas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
mediation analysis, indirect effects, bootstrap confidence intervals, SAS macro
MeSH terms
Humans, Models, Psychological, Psychology

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