00:35 G*Power 3:23 Centring 5:16 Missing data 6:52 outliers 20:10 multicollinearity 21:42 normality, linearity, homogeneity, homoscedasticity 22:30 setting up PROCESS 30:48 interpret PROCESS output 52:15 Create line chart from PROCESS output
This is really HELPFUL. Thanks! Honestly, I know right away if there's gonna be this time choices in the comment section. Then when I scrolled down, here it is I found in the first row, awesome
This is the most amazing thing that I have ever seen. Can you please just do...everything for all of stats...ever? I learned more from this video (for my dissertation no less), than I have ever learned in 4 years of statistics!
Currently doing an assignment in school and the professor didn't really explain how to report a moderation analysis. Watching this video was significantly better than both class and the hours of research that I spent trying to figure things out. So thanks very much; your channel has been and remains to be extremely educational in many of my research endeavors.
THANK YOU. I am a senior-ish academic who should know better, but was struggling to figure out how to plot simple slopes. This video is amazing -- great resource. Your generosity is much appreciated.
This is just so helpful! I am struggling with doing moderation analysis with continuous variable and did not even realize I can do all this using process macro (typically just use the macro for mediation analysis). This video is just so clear in explaining everything you need to do and how to interpret everything you get. Thank you so much for this!
Thank you so much for this great video, it helped me a lot :) As a thank you I have a little tip for you: change your Word Font to Courier (the same font is used in SPSS output for process) - it will keep the all the numbers neatly under each other :)
Thank you so much for this video! It is extremely helpful, not only in understanding and interpreting the whole process, but also formatting the graphs :)
Hi, Erin! First off - thank you so much! This video was unbelievably clear and helpful. I just installed the Process add-on and started playing around with it for my dissertation. Your video was so much more thorough than Andy Field's :) I love him, but you made it all come together with ease...I will definitely subscribe and try to watch some of your other videos. Also, going through all the assumptions first in the video was essential for people who are new to all of this. Thank you again!
Erin, I'm very happy for this video. It help me in the analysis and comprehension of date bank. I'm concluding Master's Degree in Business Management. Thank's again. Sorry for the english I'm Brazilian and i'm development the english language.
Thanks Erin for this video! It was really useful. I was wondering if you are going to upload a video on MODERATED MEDIATION with PROCESS, especially one dealing with several IVs. This type of analysis is becoming popular in psychology papers. Thank you!
Statistics of DOOM I do have a question...how are the levels calculated if not just by SD? I did moderation and used the percentage points of 16, 50, and 84%...is that accurate?
@@seanfdaly4 You can do it that way as well, but do realize that's basically the same idea as the SD, since those percentages correspond to 1 SD in the z normal distribution.
Hi! Just wanted to say THANK YOU! Video was very helpful your responses to questions in the comments section was very helpful! Thank you thank you thank you!!
I have applied same things which you explained in video. My interaction is Insignificant ( in video you said there is no specific explanation of significance and gave Three level L , M , H. Please guide me literature reference from where you took this explanation.) My supervisor wants to see literature reference as well as book reference. Please give me one more favour that provide reference of explanation of Johnson-Neyman Techniques. If you have used all these in any of your publication or any other. Please accept my advance Thanks :)
Hey, I've got a question: At the 'Conditional effect of X on Y at values of the moderator' part of the output, my p-values are all insignificant, what should I do. Also, there were no significant direct effects, but my interaction effect is significant (p = .0492)
Hey Erin, thanks for your video. It's helpful to go through it step by step. I've run into a weird problem: doing a linear regression analysis in with 2 predictors + interaction term in spss I find p=.030 for interaction. That's why I'm figuring out PROCESS now to see how the interaction works. However, in PROCESS, I find p=.108 for the interaction. I DO however find conditional interaction effects with 2x p
Something must be different ... maybe try centering your variables before running regular regression? Then try the process on the non centered variables? It should not turn out that different!
Thank you so much for this video! Hands down the best PROCESS tutorials out there. Do you by any chance have a publication on your own in which you use the outlier 2/3 technique? I would like to cite you on this one! regards from Germany!
Hi Erin, what are some steps for troubleshooting bent and crooked lines in the line graph? For some reason SPSS includes 0 as a value on my X-axis! Thanks.
Thank you very much for this detailed video, what a great resource. I was particularly confused regarding the use of GPower in this situation, and your video helped a lot. Unfortunately I am still unsure as to how to approach this for my particular situation. I am interested in the interaction between a categorical IV with 4 levels, and a continuous moderator. Does this still mean I need to enter '3' as the number of predictors (1 IV, 1 moderator, and their interaction) in GPower? Or do I need to count each dummy variable that PROCESS calculates as a predictor and thus see this as using 7 predictors (moderator, D1, D2, D3, int_1, int_2, int_3)? I assume it is the latter, but I am just not entirely sure... I am sorry to ask, but have been unable to find a clear answer to this anywhere...
Do you know how you would test for moderation across four time points? Like if you had measured attendance, books, and grade at year 1, 2, 3, and 4? Is that possible, or would you just run four separate moderations? P.S. Your videos are amazing and so helpful. Thank you so much for posting. You are a phenomenal teacher. I put you in my acknowledgements for thesis that used moderated mediation.
Thank you for the kind words! I think the answer to your question depends on the goal of the analysis. You could use time as a third variable - therefore, you would get three way interactions of books, grades, and time ... if that is significant, then you could break down the three-way interaction by only looking at each time point separately.
Hi Erin! Thanks for all your videos that helped me a lot! But just one question: Does there actually a graphical user interface for PROCESS exist? Or should I better use SmartPLS or AMOS for this? The problem is that with these programs it is not possible to calculate with moderations.... only mediations are possible (as far as I know)! :((
I am sorry for being imprecise, but I meant whether it is possible to "draw" / visualise your calculated model with PROCESS. Like it is in AMOS (you have the regressions of the SEM AND the graphical model with its arrows and boxes). Have a nice holiday.... ;-)
No on the graphic interface to Process. I think you might be able to coerce AMOS into interactions, but you would have to make the interaction column manually, and then interpreting would be much harder than the regression way (also df is treated very differently).
Question about the model summary statistics (ie. 31:46)...since this is a moderation regression, with 'books' as the IV, and 'attendance' as the moderator; could you interpret it as: 'books' accounts for 40.22% of the variance in grades when moderated by 'attendance'? Or is this wrong?
Yeah something like that - for the main effect it's basically that it accounts for 40% of the variance controlling for attendance and the interaction of the two.
Hi Dr. Buchanan, love your videos. They are really clear and helpful. And really liked the simple slopes in this vid, but some of the mediation analyses may be misleading. I've been struggling with interpreting mediation results using Process. Particularly, I think I was wrongly using the causal steps approach to mediation (i.e., significant a path, b path, c path and c' path) to interpret Process' bootstrapping results (i.e., estimating confidence intervals). However, Hayes (2014) cautions against using the casual steps approach for several reasons (assumptions of normality, weak power, "inconsistent" mediation per Baron and Kenny, etc...) and cautions against using the outdated terms of full and partial mediation. See Hayes (2014), section 6.1 What do you think?
I don't disagree. There are lots of approaches to mediation. I propose presenting your results in the most understandable way possible, which would allow for others to decide if they believe the evidence you are presenting. Additionally, I would not use the word "cause" without a supporting experimental research design (which is a different issue than the question of mediation).
Thank you so much Dr. Buchanan, your video is excellent and very very helpful. I have a question that maybe you can help with. I ran moderation and the interaction effect was non-significant, however; in the conditional effect table (high and low groups), all effects become statistically significant. Does this mean I can use this and say moderation does occur for these specific groups?
Hi Erin, Thank you for this video. It answered so many of my questions! I do still have one quick question. How would you proceed if the overall model was not significant (p = 0.08), but the interaction effect was significant (p = 0.01)? Thanks!
Hi Erin, love your video :) Just wondering if I have significant main effects but no interaction what does this mean? I understand that it means the variable doesn't moderate the relationship. But does it mean that my independent variable and moderator both predict my DV just not together?
I have significant X-> Y effect, Johnson-Neyman output, and for simple slopes, significant p-values for high and centered average of my mediator. However, my interaction was not significant. What does this mean, and can I still interpret my simple slopes?
i have similar results. The independent regression coefficients are significant but the interaction is non significant. Can i interpret moderation still? as some books say that moderation is actually the interaction between the IV and Moderator.
That means that there is main effect of X to Y, but the slopes do not different across M. I would not interpret the simple slopes because the interaction is not significant.
I would not interpret the simple slopes if the interaction coefficient is not significant, as that means all the simple slopes are statistically equal (given power, of course) ... the interaction is between X and M predicting Y, correct, which is how it is covered in this video.
This was so helpful, thank you! My interaction effect was not significant. Would this be a reason for not seeing the johnson neyman output or the conditional effects? I should add that I am also using the new version3.3
Yes, I think you only get the Johnson Neyman when the interaction is significant. There's a button you can tell it to give you the interaction either way.
00:35 G*Power
3:23 Centring
5:16 Missing data
6:52 outliers
20:10 multicollinearity
21:42 normality, linearity, homogeneity, homoscedasticity
22:30 setting up PROCESS
30:48 interpret PROCESS output
52:15 Create line chart from PROCESS output
This is really HELPFUL. Thanks!
Honestly, I know right away if there's gonna be this time choices in the comment section. Then when I scrolled down, here it is I found in the first row, awesome
This is the most amazing thing that I have ever seen. Can you please just do...everything for all of stats...ever? I learned more from this video (for my dissertation no less), than I have ever learned in 4 years of statistics!
Glad to be of help! :)
Currently doing an assignment in school and the professor didn't really explain how to report a moderation analysis. Watching this video was significantly better than both class and the hours of research that I spent trying to figure things out. So thanks very much; your channel has been and remains to be extremely educational in many of my research endeavors.
Thanks for the kind words!
Dr. Buchanan, this is just a little note to express my gratitude for all your excellent tutorials! They are hugely appreciated. Thank you!
Thanks for the kind words!
Thank you! You explained something I thought I’d never understood so clearly. I think my report might actually make sense.
Thanks for the kind words! Glad it helped.
What an amazing video ! Your teaching is so useful, practical and easily understandable. Thank you so much !!!
Thank you for the kind words!
You are an amazing lecturer. Extremely thorough, but eloquent at the same time.
Thank you!
THANK YOU. I am a senior-ish academic who should know better, but was struggling to figure out how to plot simple slopes. This video is amazing -- great resource. Your generosity is much appreciated.
Thank you Dr. Buchanan, this video was very helpful. I wish stat professors actually taught like you.
You've just saved my dissertation, I think I'm in love with you
Glad to be of help!
amazing presentation of hard-core statistics! wish I could know your channel early!
Thank you!
This is just so helpful! I am struggling with doing moderation analysis with continuous variable and did not even realize I can do all this using process macro (typically just use the macro for mediation analysis). This video is just so clear in explaining everything you need to do and how to interpret everything you get. Thank you so much for this!
Thanks for the kind words!
This video is awesome. Great narration and video quality! It is truly one of the best educational videos that I have ever seen at RUclips.
Thank you for making sure I didn't look like an idiot in front of my thesis committee member when we had an analysis consultation today
Excellent! :)
Really thanks. I got a lot from it which is the best video for moderation in process in RUclips.
Glad to be of help!
Excellent video, with easy to understand interpretation.
Thank you!
Thank you Dr. Buchanan! Your videos are helping me tremendously with my Master's thesis analyses!
Glad to be of help.
Thanks Dr. Erin, your explanation here was super easy to understand and helped greatly with one of my postgraduate assignments!
I'm glad it was a help!
Thank you so much for this great video, it helped me a lot :) As a thank you I have a little tip for you: change your Word Font to Courier (the same font is used in SPSS output for process) - it will keep the all the numbers neatly under each other :)
Good to know ha! I usually put things into Excel, but Word can be a bit easier to read for these examples.
Thanks for this video. I was having such a hard time with moderation, especially the PROCESS plug-in. Really excited to watch your other videos!
love your voice and your clear, step-by-step explanation!!!
You are an honest to God actual angel. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
Thank you so much for this video! It is extremely helpful, not only in understanding and interpreting the whole process, but also formatting the graphs :)
EXTREMELY INFORMATIVE VIDEO!!!!!
Good work explaining what everything does in the PROCESS dialog and output boxes!
Thank you very much Erin.
This was super helpful! Thank you. Got me thinking what would have happened if only the interaction effect was significant
Thanks!
This is the most informative video, thank you so much you have just saved my Honors Thesis & my soul!
I could cry, this is so helpful for my thesis paper, thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
Hi, Erin! First off - thank you so much! This video was unbelievably clear and helpful. I just installed the Process add-on and started playing around with it for my dissertation. Your video was so much more thorough than Andy Field's :) I love him, but you made it all come together with ease...I will definitely subscribe and try to watch some of your other videos. Also, going through all the assumptions first in the video was essential for people who are new to all of this. Thank you again!
Thank for your video! It helps me so much on my assignment!!!
Thanks for the kind words!
JOB WELL DONE, that was amazing, you cannot even imagine how much you helped me, lets just say you cannot even measure in SPSS :D, Stay blessed
Thanks for the kind words!
I'm here to say thank you ! This really helps
Glad to be of help!
You are truly the best.
This was an incredible help - THANK YOU for your clear explanations, and for taking the time to educate us all!
I really like your way of making things simpler to report. Thank you
Erin, I'm very happy for this video. It help me in the analysis and comprehension of date bank. I'm concluding Master's Degree in Business Management. Thank's again. Sorry for the english I'm Brazilian and i'm development the english language.
Thanks a lot for this video. Your teaching is great and you sound super sympathetic.
Thank you!
Outstanding lecture, this has helped me enormously with my thesis
Thank you!
Thanks Erin for this video! It was really useful.
I was wondering if you are going to upload a video on MODERATED MEDIATION with PROCESS, especially one dealing with several IVs. This type of analysis is becoming popular in psychology papers. Thank you!
also now I will try to make moderated mediation and I need this video :)
Thanks for sharing. It helped me a lot. Keep up the good work.
Thanks!
You'll surely be a part of my graduation speech.
Thank you for the kind words!
Thank you!!! This was simple and easy to understand
Thanks! Appreciate the kind words.
Statistics of DOOM I do have a question...how are the levels calculated if not just by SD? I did moderation and used the percentage points of 16, 50, and 84%...is that accurate?
@@seanfdaly4 You can do it that way as well, but do realize that's basically the same idea as the SD, since those percentages correspond to 1 SD in the z normal distribution.
Marvelous, thank you, full context, with reporting advices etc.
This lesson was incredibly helpful and clear. Thank you for uploading this!
Thanks for the kind words!
best best best video out here.
hello i'm writing from Turkey.. Thank you for the video... ı used your way my thesis...
Thank you so much, you safed my live respectively my bachelor thesis!
Glad to be of help!
Hey there ! Just a piece of advice- you can select for the names to be run as long names if you go to "long names" option :)
That's a newer option! Sometimes it still doesn't run, so I try to go with short names as much as I can.
I cannot like this video enough!!
Hi! Just wanted to say THANK YOU! Video was very helpful your responses to questions in the comments section was very helpful! Thank you thank you thank you!!
Thank you so much for such nice explanation and going through the important steps!
Thank you so much for this video. It really helped fill in that gaps that I really needed to know to finish my research write up :)
Great! Glad to help.
A prayer answered! This is so incredibly helpful! Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!
Great lecture, thanks!
Thank you!
This was so fantastic! Thank you
Thanks for the kind words!
Thank you so much. You have explained things in a wonderful way.
Glad to be of help!
I have applied same things which you explained in video. My interaction is Insignificant ( in video you said there is no specific explanation of significance and gave Three level L , M , H. Please guide me literature reference from where you took this explanation.) My supervisor wants to see literature reference as well as book reference. Please give me one more favour that provide reference of explanation of Johnson-Neyman Techniques. If you have used all these in any of your publication or any other. Please accept my advance Thanks :)
Thank you so much!! This video is amazing, explained everything I needed to know and more!
Thanks for the kind words!
It's amazing, I learned a lot from this lecture. Thanks for help!
Glad to be of help!
Thank you Dr Buchanan.
You are a Godsent! Thank you so much for this video, helped me so much! ☺
Thanks for the kind words!
Thank you!
Thank you so much!!! Very helpful 🙏🏻
Thanks for sharing, Erin! Love your video.
Thank you for the video. It was very helpful...
This video was so helpful, clear and understandable. Thank you so much! Do you have a video on interpreting output with multiple moderators? (Model 2)
Hey, I've got a question: At the 'Conditional effect of X on Y at values of the moderator' part of the output, my p-values are all insignificant, what should I do.
Also, there were no significant direct effects, but my interaction effect is significant (p = .0492)
THANK YOU! this is awesome, saves me from getting mental
Erin, you're AWESOME!
Thank you so much for this video, which is so helpful to my essay writing.
Glad to be of help!
Very clear delineation. Thank you!
thank you, you give me a light
1000th like! Well deserved for a very informative lecture (:
Thanks for the kind words!
This was so incredibly helpful!!!
Hey Erin, thanks for your video. It's helpful to go through it step by step. I've run into a weird problem: doing a linear regression analysis in with 2 predictors + interaction term in spss I find p=.030 for interaction. That's why I'm figuring out PROCESS now to see how the interaction works. However, in PROCESS, I find p=.108 for the interaction. I DO however find conditional interaction effects with 2x p
Something must be different ... maybe try centering your variables before running regular regression? Then try the process on the non centered variables? It should not turn out that different!
This is a wonderful video and explanation. Thank you so much!
Thank you so much for this video! Hands down the best PROCESS tutorials out there. Do you by any chance have a publication on your own in which you use the outlier 2/3 technique? I would like to cite you on this one! regards from Germany!
Oh boy. You know, I know I've used it several times, but reporting it, I'm not sure. If I remember one that has it, I'll get back to you. :|
Hi Erin, what are some steps for troubleshooting bent and crooked lines in the line graph? For some reason SPSS includes 0 as a value on my X-axis!
Thanks.
You are incredible!!
Thank you very much for this detailed video, what a great resource. I was particularly confused regarding the use of GPower in this situation, and your video helped a lot. Unfortunately I am still unsure as to how to approach this for my particular situation. I am interested in the interaction between a categorical IV with 4 levels, and a continuous moderator. Does this still mean I need to enter '3' as the number of predictors (1 IV, 1 moderator, and their interaction) in GPower? Or do I need to count each dummy variable that PROCESS calculates as a predictor and thus see this as using 7 predictors (moderator, D1, D2, D3, int_1, int_2, int_3)? I assume it is the latter, but I am just not entirely sure... I am sorry to ask, but have been unable to find a clear answer to this anywhere...
Use each of the dummy coded variables, so 7 yes. :)
I'm sorry for my late response. Thank you so much for your reply! Your channel is a very valuable resource.
This video is great! Help me a lot!
Do you know how you would test for moderation across four time points? Like if you had measured attendance, books, and grade at year 1, 2, 3, and 4? Is that possible, or would you just run four separate moderations?
P.S. Your videos are amazing and so helpful. Thank you so much for posting. You are a phenomenal teacher. I put you in my acknowledgements for thesis that used moderated mediation.
Thank you for the kind words! I think the answer to your question depends on the goal of the analysis. You could use time as a third variable - therefore, you would get three way interactions of books, grades, and time ... if that is significant, then you could break down the three-way interaction by only looking at each time point separately.
Hi Erin!
Thanks for all your videos that helped me a lot! But just one question: Does there actually a graphical user interface for PROCESS exist? Or should I better use SmartPLS or AMOS for this? The problem is that with these programs it is not possible to calculate with moderations.... only mediations are possible (as far as I know)! :((
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. PROCESS is graphical through SPSS and does both mediation and moderation.
I am sorry for being imprecise, but I meant whether it is possible to "draw" / visualise your calculated model with PROCESS. Like it is in AMOS (you have the regressions of the SEM AND the graphical model with its arrows and boxes).
Have a nice holiday.... ;-)
No on the graphic interface to Process. I think you might be able to coerce AMOS into interactions, but you would have to make the interaction column manually, and then interpreting would be much harder than the regression way (also df is treated very differently).
Also, sorry, I wasn't thinking the right way earlier :| thanks for the clarification!
Thank you so much for this! Life saver!
Happy to help!
This is a great and helpful video. Thanks a lot for it!
Glad to be of help!
amazing. Thanks so much!
Question about the model summary statistics (ie. 31:46)...since this is a moderation regression, with 'books' as the IV, and 'attendance' as the moderator; could you interpret it as: 'books' accounts for 40.22% of the variance in grades when moderated by 'attendance'? Or is this wrong?
Yeah something like that - for the main effect it's basically that it accounts for 40% of the variance controlling for attendance and the interaction of the two.
Very helpful, Thanks so much!
Best wishes
Great video, Erin! Thanks!!!
Hi Dr. Buchanan, love your videos. They are really clear and helpful. And really liked the simple slopes in this vid, but some of the mediation analyses may be misleading.
I've been struggling with interpreting mediation results using Process. Particularly, I think I was wrongly using the causal steps approach to mediation (i.e., significant a path, b path, c path and c' path) to interpret Process' bootstrapping results (i.e., estimating confidence intervals). However, Hayes (2014) cautions against using the casual steps approach for several reasons (assumptions of normality, weak power, "inconsistent" mediation per Baron and Kenny, etc...) and cautions against using the outdated terms of full and partial mediation. See Hayes (2014), section 6.1
What do you think?
I don't disagree. There are lots of approaches to mediation. I propose presenting your results in the most understandable way possible, which would allow for others to decide if they believe the evidence you are presenting. Additionally, I would not use the word "cause" without a supporting experimental research design (which is a different issue than the question of mediation).
thanks, very helpful
Wow! Thank you so much. You are to be commended for you video! It helped me a lot.
This video was so helpful! Thank you!
Glad to be of help!
Thank you so much Dr. Buchanan, your video is excellent and very very helpful. I have a question that maybe you can help with. I ran moderation and the interaction effect was non-significant, however; in the conditional effect table (high and low groups), all effects become statistically significant. Does this mean I can use this and say moderation does occur for these specific groups?
No - that means you do not have significant differences between slopes, but your main effect of your variable is overall significant.
Excellent Madam
Hi Erin,
Thank you for this video. It answered so many of my questions! I do still have one quick question. How would you proceed if the overall model was not significant (p = 0.08), but the interaction effect was significant (p = 0.01)?
Thanks!
Excellent job, thanks!
Hi Erin, love your video :) Just wondering if I have significant main effects but no interaction what does this mean? I understand that it means the variable doesn't moderate the relationship. But does it mean that my independent variable and moderator both predict my DV just not together?
Correct - that's how I would interpret it.
I have significant X-> Y effect, Johnson-Neyman output, and for simple slopes, significant p-values for high and centered average of my mediator. However, my interaction was not significant. What does this mean, and can I still interpret my simple slopes?
i have similar results. The independent regression coefficients are significant but the interaction is non significant. Can i interpret moderation still? as some books say that moderation is actually the interaction between the IV and Moderator.
That means that there is main effect of X to Y, but the slopes do not different across M. I would not interpret the simple slopes because the interaction is not significant.
I would not interpret the simple slopes if the interaction coefficient is not significant, as that means all the simple slopes are statistically equal (given power, of course) ... the interaction is between X and M predicting Y, correct, which is how it is covered in this video.
Thank you Erin!
This was so helpful, thank you! My interaction effect was not significant. Would this be a reason for not seeing the johnson neyman output or the conditional effects? I should add that I am also using the new version3.3
Yes, I think you only get the Johnson Neyman when the interaction is significant. There's a button you can tell it to give you the interaction either way.
Thank you Erin, this video helped me a lot. :)