Should Moderated Regressions Include or Exclude Quadratic Terms? Present Both! Then Apply Our Linear Algebraic Analysis to Identify the Preferable Specification

IF 8.9 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Organizational Research Methods Pub Date : 2022-10-11 DOI:10.1177/10944281221124945
A. Kalnins
{"title":"Should Moderated Regressions Include or Exclude Quadratic Terms? Present Both! Then Apply Our Linear Algebraic Analysis to Identify the Preferable Specification","authors":"A. Kalnins","doi":"10.1177/10944281221124945","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Organizational research increasingly tests moderated relationships using multiple regression with interaction terms. Most research does so with little concern regarding curvilinear relationships. But methodologists have established that omitting quadratic terms of correlated primary variables may create false interaction positives (type 1 errors). If dependent variables are generated by the canonical process where fully specified regressions satisfy the Gauss-Markov assumptions, including quadratics solves the problem. But our empirical analysis of published organizational research suggests that dependent variables are often generated by processes where, even with quadratics included, regression analyses will remain Gauss-Markov non-compliant. In such cases, our linear algebraic analysis demonstrates that including quadratics—even those motivated by compelling theory—may exacerbate rather than mitigate the incidence of false interaction positives. The interaction coefficient may substantially change its magnitude and even flip sign once quadratics are included, and not necessarily for the better. We encourage researchers to present two full sets of results when testing moderating hypotheses—one with, and one without, quadratic terms. Researchers should then answer five questions developed here in order to determine the preferable set of results.","PeriodicalId":19689,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Research Methods","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281221124945","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Organizational research increasingly tests moderated relationships using multiple regression with interaction terms. Most research does so with little concern regarding curvilinear relationships. But methodologists have established that omitting quadratic terms of correlated primary variables may create false interaction positives (type 1 errors). If dependent variables are generated by the canonical process where fully specified regressions satisfy the Gauss-Markov assumptions, including quadratics solves the problem. But our empirical analysis of published organizational research suggests that dependent variables are often generated by processes where, even with quadratics included, regression analyses will remain Gauss-Markov non-compliant. In such cases, our linear algebraic analysis demonstrates that including quadratics—even those motivated by compelling theory—may exacerbate rather than mitigate the incidence of false interaction positives. The interaction coefficient may substantially change its magnitude and even flip sign once quadratics are included, and not necessarily for the better. We encourage researchers to present two full sets of results when testing moderating hypotheses—one with, and one without, quadratic terms. Researchers should then answer five questions developed here in order to determine the preferable set of results.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
适度回归应该包括还是排除二次项?同时出示!然后应用我们的线性代数分析来识别优选规范
组织研究越来越多地使用交互项的多元回归来测试调节关系。大多数研究都很少关注曲线关系。但方法论者已经证实,省略相关主变量的二次项可能会产生假交互阳性(1型错误)。如果因变量是由正则过程生成的,其中完全指定的回归满足高斯-马尔可夫假设,包括二次方可以解决问题。但我们对已发表的组织研究的实证分析表明,因变量通常是由过程产生的,即使包括二次方,回归分析也将保持高斯-马尔可夫不符合。在这种情况下,我们的线性代数分析表明,包括象限——即使是那些受令人信服的理论驱动的象限——可能会加剧而不是减轻虚假交互阳性的发生率。一旦包括象限,相互作用系数可能会显著改变其大小,甚至翻转符号,而不一定是为了更好。我们鼓励研究人员在测试调节假设时提出两组完整的结果——一组有二次项,另一组没有二次项。然后,研究人员应该回答这里提出的五个问题,以确定一组更可取的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
23.20
自引率
3.20%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Organizational Research Methods (ORM) was founded with the aim of introducing pertinent methodological advancements to researchers in organizational sciences. The objective of ORM is to promote the application of current and emerging methodologies to advance both theory and research practices. Articles are expected to be comprehensible to readers with a background consistent with the methodological and statistical training provided in contemporary organizational sciences doctoral programs. The text should be presented in a manner that facilitates accessibility. For instance, highly technical content should be placed in appendices, and authors are encouraged to include example data and computer code when relevant. Additionally, authors should explicitly outline how their contribution has the potential to advance organizational theory and research practice.
期刊最新文献
The Internet Never Forgets: A Four-Step Scraping Tutorial, Codebase, and Database for Longitudinal Organizational Website Data One Size Does Not Fit All: Unraveling Item Response Process Heterogeneity Using the Mixture Dominance-Unfolding Model (MixDUM) Taking It Easy: Off-the-Shelf Versus Fine-Tuned Supervised Modeling of Performance Appraisal Text Hello World! Building Computational Models to Represent Social and Organizational Theory The Effects of the Training Sample Size, Ground Truth Reliability, and NLP Method on Language-Based Automatic Interview Scores’ Psychometric Properties
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1