Skip to main content
Log in

Equivalence of the Mediation, Confounding and Suppression Effect

  • Published:
Prevention Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper describes the statistical similarities among mediation, confounding, and suppression. Each is quantified by measuring the change in the relationship between an independent and a dependent variable after adding a third variable to the analysis. Mediation and confounding are identical statistically and can be distinguished only on conceptual grounds. Methods to determine the confidence intervals for confounding and suppression effects are proposed based on methods developed for mediated effects. Although the statistical estimation of effects and standard errors is the same, there are important conceptual differences among the three types of effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alwin, D. F., & Hauser, R. M. (1975). The decomposition of effects in path analysis. American Sociological Review, 40, 37–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aroian, L. A. (1944). The probability function of the product of two normally distributed variables. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18, 265–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobko, P., & Rieck, A. (1980). Large sample estimators for standard errors of functions of correlation coefficients. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4, 385–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breslow, N. E., & Day, N. E. (1980). Statistical methods in cancer research. Volume I–The Analysis of Case-Control Studies.Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC Scientific Publications No. 32).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cliff, N., & Earleywine, M. (1994). All predictors are ''mediators'' unless the other predictor is a ''suppressor.'' Unpublished manuscript.

  • Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conger, A. J. (1974). A revised definition for suppressor variables: A guide to their identification and interpretation. Educational Psychological Measurement, 34, 35–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. D. (1985). The logic of causal order. In J. L. Sullivan and R. G. Niemi (Eds.), Sage university paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, L. S., Graubard, B. I. & Schatzkin, A. (1992). Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Statistics in Medicine, 11, 167–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L., Elliot, D., Clarke, G. N., MacKinnon, D. P., Moe, E., Zoref, L., Green, C., Wolf, S. L., Greffrath, E., Miller, D. J., & Lapin, A. (1996). Effects of a multidimensional anabolic steroid prevention intervention: The adolescents training and learning to avoid steroids (ATLAS) program. Journal of the American Medical Association, 276, 1555–1562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, L. A. (1960). On the exact variance of products. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 55, 708–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. (1987). Sometimes R2 > r 2y1 + r 2y2 . American Statistician, 41, 129–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, W. B. (1992). School-based substance abuse prevention: A review of the state-of-the-art in curriculum, 1980–1990.Health Education Research: Theory and Practice, 7, 403–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlow, L. L., Mulaik, S. A., & Steiger, J. H. (Eds.). (1997). What if there were no significance tests? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, P. W. (1988). Causal inference, path analysis, and recursive structural equations models Sociological Methodology, 18, 449–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horst, P. (1941). The role of predictor variables which are independent of the criterion. Social Science Research Council Bulletin, 48, 431–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 307–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981a). Process Analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5(5), 602–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981b). Estimating the effects of social interventions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krantz, D. H. (1999). The null hypothesis testing controversy in psychology. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 44, 1372–1381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Last, J. M. (1988).Adictionary of epidemiology. NewYork: Oxford Unversity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Interpretation of statistical relations as a research operation. In P. F. Lazardsfeld, & M. Rosenberg (Eds.), The language of social research:Areader in the methodology of social research (pp. 115–125). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M., & Novick, R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, R. C., Wegener, D. T., Uchino, B. N., & Fabrigar, L.R. (1993). The problem of equivalent models in applications of covariance structure analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 185–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., & Dwyer, J. H. (1993). Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Evaluation Review, 17(2), 144–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). A simulation study of mediated effect measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30(1), 41–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, L. (1996 Spring). Confounding, mediation, and intermediate outcomes in prevention research. Paper presented at the 1996 Prevention Science and Methodology Meeting, Tempe, AZ.

  • McFatter, R. M. (1979). The use of structural equation models in interpreting regression equations including suppressor and enhancer variables. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 123–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuigan, K., & Langholtz, B. (1988). A note on testing mediation paths using ordinary least squares regression. Unpublished note.

  • Meinert, C. L. (1986). Clinical trials: Design, conduct, and analysis.New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olkin, I. & Finn, J. D. (1995). Correlations redux. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 155–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robins, J. M. (1989). The control of confounding by intermediate variables. Statistics in Medicine, 8, 679–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robins, J. M. & Greenland, S. (1992). Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology, 3, 143–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selvin, S. (1991). Statistical analysis of epidemiologic data. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, N. R., & Roberts, R. A. (1997). The relationship among sums of squares, correlation coefficients, and suppression. The American Statistician, 51, 46–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology, (pp. 290–312). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structure models. In N. Tuma (Ed.), Sociological methodology, (pp. 159–186). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. E. (1990). Effect analysis and causation in linear structural equation models. Psychometrika, 55(3), 495–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (1993). Causality, prediction and search. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stelzl, I. (1986). Changing a causal hypothesis without changing the fit. Some rules for generating equivalent path models.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 21, 309–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susser, M. (1973). Causal thinking in the health sciences: Concepts and strategies of epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzelgov, J., & Henik, A. (1991). Suppression situations in psychological research: Definitions, implications, and applications.Psychological Bulletin, 109, 524–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velicer, W. F. (1978). Suppressor variables and the semipartial correlation coefficient. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 953–958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

MacKinnon, D.P., Krull, J.L. & Lockwood, C.M. Equivalence of the Mediation, Confounding and Suppression Effect. Prev Sci 1, 173–181 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026595011371

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026595011371

Navigation