Third Variable Effects in Management Studies

• Authors: Kuźmińska Anna Olga

Title variants

PL

Efekty trzeciej zmiennej w naukach o zarządzaniu

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The article’s aim is to explain the third variable effects in management studies –mediation, suppression, and confounding. Examples of these three types of the third variable effects are based on the European Social Survey (2012) data. It is analyzed whether organizational power is directly related to job satisfaction (example of mediation effect), whether gender predicts a higher perceived social status (example of confounding), and whether job satisfaction increases with age (example of suppression). Consequences for organization and management studies are discussed.

PL

Celem artykułu jest wyjaśnienie wpływu trzeciej zmiennej w naukach o zarządzaniu – mediacji, supresji i zmiennej zakłócającej. Przykłady tych trzech rodzajów efektów bazują na danych pochodzących z Europejskiego Sondażu Społecznego (2012). Analizom poddany jest związek pomiędzy władzą w organizacji a satysfakcją z pracy (przykład efektu mediacji), płcią i postrzeganym statusem społecznym (przykład występowania zmiennej zakłócającej) oraz wiekiem i satysfakcją z pracy (przykład supresji). Dyskutowane są konsekwencje występowania omawianych efektów dla nauk o organizacji i zarządzaniu.

Keywords

EN

confounding, suppression; mediation; organization and management studies; European Social Survey

PL

zmienna zakłócająca; supresja; mediacja; nauki o organizacji i zarządzaniu; Europejski Sondaż Społeczny

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych
• Journal: Problemy Zarządzania
• Year: 2016
• Issue: 2/2016 (60), t.2
• Pages: 147-159

Dates

published

2016-06-30

Contributors

author

Kuźmińska Anna Olga

• The Robert B. Zajonc Instit ute for Social Studies

References

• Anderson, C. & Brion, S. (2014). Perspectives on power in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 67–97.
• Anderson, C. & Galinsky, A.D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511–536.
• Angner, E., Ghandhi, J., Purvis, K.W., Amante, D. & Allison, J. (2012). Daily Functioning, health status, and happiness in older adults. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 1563–1574, doi: 10.1007/s10902-012-9395-6.
• Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
• Bendahan, S., Zehnder, C., Pralong, F. & Antonakis, J. (2015). Leader corruption depends on power and testosterone. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 101–122, doi:10.26/j.leaqua.2014.07.010.
• Bernal, D., Snyder, D. & McDaniel, M. (1998). The age and job satisfaction relationship: Does its shape and strength still evade us? Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 3B, P287–P293.
• Blader, S.L. & Chen, Y.R. (2012). Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 994–1014.
• Cliff, N. & Earleywine, M. (1994). All predictors are ‘mediators’ unless the other predictor is a ‘suppressor’. Unpublished manuscript, University of Sauthern California.
• Davis, M.D. (1985). The logic of causal order. In: J.L. Sullivan & R.G. Niemi (Eds), Sage university paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Psychologiczne, 4, 2004, 5–25.
• Dearing, E. & Hamilton, L.C. (2006). Contemporary advances and classic advice for analyzing mediating and moderating variables. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 71, 88–104.
• DeCelles, K.A., DeRue, D.S., Margolis, J.D. & Ceranic, T.L. (2012). Does power corrupt or enable? When and why power facilitates self-interested behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 681–689.
• Dush, C.M.K. (2005). Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 607–627.
• Fast, N.J., Gruenfeld, D.H., Sivanathan, N. & Galinsky, A.D. (2009). Illusory control: A generative force behind power’s far-reaching effects. Psychological Science, 20, 502–508.
• Furnham, A., Eracleous, A. & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Personality, motivation and job satisfaction: Hertzberg meets the Big Five. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 765–779.
• Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford.
• Hayes, A.F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420.
• Herzog, A. & Rodgers, W. (1981). Age and Satisfaction. Research on Aging, 3, 142–165.
• Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D.H. & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.
• Ludlow, L. & Klein, K. (2014). Suppressor variables: The difference between “is” vesrus “acting as”. Journal of Statistics Education, 22, 1–28.
• 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.
• MacKinnon, D.P., Krull, J L. & Lockwood, C.M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173–181.
• Meinert, C.L. (1986). Clinical trials: Design, conduct, and analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Preacher, K.J. & Selig, J.P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6, 77–98.
• Shrout, P.E. & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.
• Sobel, M.E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structure. Sociological Methodology, 16, 159–186.
• Tzelgov, J. & Henik, A. (1991). Suppression situations in psychological research: Definitions, implications, and applications. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 524–536.
• Willer, R., Youngreen, R., Troyer, L. & Lovaglia, M.J. (2012). How do the powerful attain status? The roots of legitimate power inequalities. Managerial and Decision Economics, 33, 355–67.
• Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G., Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197-206.

Identifiers

ISSN

1644-9584

DOI

10.7172/1644-9584.60.9