Assessing and Interpreting Interaction Effects: A Reply to Vancouver, Carlson, Dhanani, and Colton (2021)

• 成果类型: Editorial Material
• 署名作者: Van Iddekinge, Chad H.; Aguinis, Herman; LeBreton, James M.; Mackey, Jeremy D.; DeOrtentiis, Philip S.
• 署名单位: University of Iowa; George Washington University; Pennsylvania Commonwealth System of Higher Education (PCSHE); Pennsylvania State University; Pennsylvania State University - University Park; Auburn University System; Auburn University; Michigan State University
• 刊物名称: JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY
• ISSN/ISSBN: 0021-9010
• DOI: 10.1037/apl0000883
• 发表日期: 2021
• 页码: 476-488
• 关键词: interactions; moderated multiple regression; ability; motivation; performance

摘要

Van Iddekinge et al. (2018)'smeta-analysis revealed that ability and motivation havemostly an additive rather than an interactive effect on performance. One of the methods they used to assess the ability x motivation interaction was moderated multiple regression (MMR). Vancouver et al. (2021) presented conceptual arguments that ability and motivation should interact to predict performance, as well as analytical and empirical arguments against the use of MMR to assess interaction effects. We describe problems with these arguments and show conceptually and empirically that MMR (and the Delta R and Delta R-2 it yields) is an appropriate and effective method for assessing both the statistical significance and magnitude of interaction effects. Nevertheless, we also applied the alternative approach Vancouver et al. recommended to test for interactions to primary data sets (k = 69) from Van Iddekinge et al. These new results showed that the ability x motivation interaction was not significant in 90% of the analyses, which corroborated Van Iddekinge et al.'s original conclusion that the interaction rarely increments the prediction of performance beyond the additive effects of ability and motivation. In short, Van Iddekinge et al.'s conclusions remain unchanged and, given the conceptual and empirical problems we identified, we cannot endorse Vancouver et al.'s recommendation to change how researchers test interactions. We conclude by offering suggestions for how to assess and interpret interactions in future research.