Abstract
This paper intends to remind communication scientists that the indirect effect as estimated in mediation analyses is a statistical synonym for omitted variable bias (i.e. confounding or suppression). This simple fact questions the interpretability of statistically significant ‘indirect effects’ when using observational data: in social reality, all variables correlate with each other to some extent – the so-called ‘crud factor’ – which means that omitted variable bias and ‘indirect effects’ at the population level are virtually guaranteed regardless of the actual variables involved in the statistical mediation model. As a result, there can be no inferential link between the observation of a significant indirect effect and a theoretical claim of mediation. Through this argument, the paper hopes to add to the existing warnings on mediation analyses and cultivate a more critical interpretation of ‘indirect effects’ in communication science.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 02673231221082244 |
| Pages (from-to) | 679-688 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | European Journal of Communication |
| Volume | 37 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| Early online date | 1 Mar 2022 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Dec 2022 |
Keywords
- Mediation analysis
- indirect effect
- omitted variable bias
- significance
- statistical inference