Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38158553›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2024

What does a population-level mediation reveal about individual people?

Paul C Bogdan, Víctor H Cervantes, Michel Regenwetter

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Paul C BogdanCenter for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, 308 Research Dr, Durham, 27708, NC, USA. pbogda2@illinois.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4362-6084
Víctor H CervantesDepartment of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 603 E Daniel St, Champaign, 61820, IL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9525-3454
Michel RegenwetterDepartment of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 603 E Daniel St, Champaign, 61820, IL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5607-9016

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mediation analysis investigates the covariation of variables in a population of interest. In contrast, the resolution level of psychological theory, at its core, aims to reach all the way to the behaviors, mental processes, and relationships of individual persons. It would be a logical error to presume that the population-level pattern of behavior revealed by a mediation analysis directly describes all, or even many, individual members of the population. Instead, to reconcile collective covariation with theoretical claims about individual behavior, one needs to look beyond abstract aggregate trends. Taking data quality as a given and a mediation model's estimated parameters as accurate population-level depictions, what can one say about the number of people properly described by the linkages in that mediation analysis? How many individuals are exceptions to that pattern or pathway? How can we bridge the gap between psychological theory and analytic method? We provide a simple framework for understanding how many people actually align with the pattern of relationships revealed by a population-level mediation. Additionally, for those individuals who are exceptions to that pattern, we tabulate how many people mismatch which features of the mediation pattern. Consistent with the person-oriented research paradigm, understanding the distribution of alignment and mismatches goes beyond the realm of traditional variable-level mediation analysis. Yet, such a tabulation is key to designing potential interventions. It provides the basis for predicting how many people stand to either benefit from, or be disadvantaged by, which type of intervention.

Indexed as

Mediation AnalysisHumansPsychological TheoryIndividual differencesMediationScientific reasoning fallaciesTheoretical scope

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.