Hi, I have a question with regards to full mediation.
Let's say that I stablished one hypothesis that says: X positively influences Y, and then I analyse other variables (M) to assess whether there is a mediation effect between that relationship: X and Y. My results indicate that there is a full mediation since the total effect of X on Y is significant, but the direct effect of X on Y is not. Then, it is the significant indirect effect of M what explains that relationship between X and Y (if I am not wrong).
How would you explain the first hypothesis (i.e., X positively influences Y)?
a) It is supported because the total effect is significant.
b) It is partially supported because the total effect is significant, but the direct effect (when the mediator variable is considered) is not.
Thank you so much in advance!
It is supported but the effect can be explained by the mediator. That is what mediators do... They explain why (a story about the process) an effect of X on Y occurs.
Cultura de paz y prácticas asertivas para la solución de conflictos
As Paul F Burke mentioned, that is what moderators do, they establish effects we did not know existed. Can your theory explain why there is no direct effect between X and Y? Normally I'd start there, it has to make theoretical sense. Then the introduction of M normally strengthens the link over and above X to Y through M (the indirect effect).
I think you meant to say mediator rather than moderator @isabel?
Moderators are more useful in cases to see if the impact of X on Y is amplified under certain conditions or for certain groups eg age as a moderator.
- Badges
- Science topic