TY - JOUR
T1 - What does a population-level mediation reveal about individual people?
AU - Bogdan, Paul C.
AU - Cervantes, Víctor H.
AU - Regenwetter, Michel
N1 - This project came about initially as a class project by P.\u00A0Bogdan in M.\u00A0Regenwetter\u2019s course on \u201CModeling Heterogeneity.\u201D Regenwetter coordinated the ensuing three-person collaboration. P.\u00A0Bogdan and M.\u00A0Regenwetter roughly equally shared most of the writing of the main manuscript, with V.\u00A0Cervantes providing the technical results and some writing support. V.\u00A0Cervantes contributed nearly all mathematical findings (with P.\u00A0Bogdan independently simulating most results on a computer), contributed nearly all of the writing for the Appendix, and developed nearly every aspect of our open-access shinyapp. P.\u00A0Bogdan carried out much of this work while supported by a Thomas and Margaret Huang Graduate Fellowship provided by the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology and a Dissertation Completion Fellowship provided by the University of Illinois. V.\u00A0Cervantes carried out most of this work as an Illinois Distinguished Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The authors are not aware of any conflicts of interest. Regenwetter has previously presented this work in colloquium talks at the Universit\u00E4t zu K\u00F6ln, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Uppsala University. The authors are grateful to Aaron Benjamin, Aron Barbey, Meichai Chen, Brittney Currie, Klaus Fiedler, Daniel Heck, Emily Neu Line, Julia Radu, Maria Robinson, David Trafimow, Haley V.\u00A0West, as well as the colloquium audiences at the Universit\u00E4t zu K\u00F6ln and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and the workshop attendees at Uppsala University for feedback on earlier drafts and presentations. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the University of Illinois.
PY - 2024/9
Y1 - 2024/9
N2 - Mediation analysis investigates the covariation of variables in a population of interest. In contrast, the resolution level of psychological theory, at its core, aims to reach all the way to the behaviors, mental processes, and relationships of individual persons. It would be a logical error to presume that the population-level pattern of behavior revealed by a mediation analysis directly describes all, or even many, individual members of the population. Instead, to reconcile collective covariation with theoretical claims about individual behavior, one needs to look beyond abstract aggregate trends. Taking data quality as a given and a mediation model’s estimated parameters as accurate population-level depictions, what can one say about the number of people properly described by the linkages in that mediation analysis? How many individuals are exceptions to that pattern or pathway? How can we bridge the gap between psychological theory and analytic method? We provide a simple framework for understanding how many people actually align with the pattern of relationships revealed by a population-level mediation. Additionally, for those individuals who are exceptions to that pattern, we tabulate how many people mismatch which features of the mediation pattern. Consistent with the person-oriented research paradigm, understanding the distribution of alignment and mismatches goes beyond the realm of traditional variable-level mediation analysis. Yet, such a tabulation is key to designing potential interventions. It provides the basis for predicting how many people stand to either benefit from, or be disadvantaged by, which type of intervention.
AB - Mediation analysis investigates the covariation of variables in a population of interest. In contrast, the resolution level of psychological theory, at its core, aims to reach all the way to the behaviors, mental processes, and relationships of individual persons. It would be a logical error to presume that the population-level pattern of behavior revealed by a mediation analysis directly describes all, or even many, individual members of the population. Instead, to reconcile collective covariation with theoretical claims about individual behavior, one needs to look beyond abstract aggregate trends. Taking data quality as a given and a mediation model’s estimated parameters as accurate population-level depictions, what can one say about the number of people properly described by the linkages in that mediation analysis? How many individuals are exceptions to that pattern or pathway? How can we bridge the gap between psychological theory and analytic method? We provide a simple framework for understanding how many people actually align with the pattern of relationships revealed by a population-level mediation. Additionally, for those individuals who are exceptions to that pattern, we tabulate how many people mismatch which features of the mediation pattern. Consistent with the person-oriented research paradigm, understanding the distribution of alignment and mismatches goes beyond the realm of traditional variable-level mediation analysis. Yet, such a tabulation is key to designing potential interventions. It provides the basis for predicting how many people stand to either benefit from, or be disadvantaged by, which type of intervention.
KW - Individual differences
KW - Mediation
KW - Scientific reasoning fallacies
KW - Theoretical scope
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85180873808&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85180873808&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3758/s13428-023-02298-9
DO - 10.3758/s13428-023-02298-9
M3 - Article
C2 - 38158553
AN - SCOPUS:85180873808
SN - 1554-351X
VL - 56
SP - 5667
EP - 5692
JO - Behavior Research Methods
JF - Behavior Research Methods
IS - 6
ER -