0
$\begingroup$

My model:

IV: extroversion (5 point likert) Moderator: Comepetence (values 1-5) DV: Offer (values 5 to 15)

Hypothesis: The negative relationship between Extroversion and offer is moderated by competence, such that higher competence weakens the negative relationship.

My output: SPSS output (significance cut-off value is .1, not .05 in my case)

There is no significant negative direct effect between extroversion and competenece.

The extroversion*comeptence interaction effect is significant, but the coefficient is positive. Does this support my hypothesis or it means the complete opposite (that higher competence trust intensifies the negative relationship between extroversion and offer).

Please help me i am very confused on what the results mean.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ What exactly do you mean by "significant"? According to the most lax standard (0.05 uncorrected for multiple comparisons), only ExperiOK=0 has a significant coefficient in this table. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Jun 12 at 19:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hi, I think you have asked about constructing your model and interpreting your outputs several times in SO and here, which is completely fine, but I'd highly recommend getting some live help from someone with stats expertise. If that's impossible, take some time to read some basic resources about interpreting regression results and running moderation analyses. $\endgroup$
    – Sointu
    Commented Jun 13 at 7:47
  • $\begingroup$ The typical way of exploring a significant continuous x continuous interaction further is to visualize it, e.g. by plotting the slope of extroversion predicting Offer at Competence mean and at -1sd and +1sd of the mean. SPSS is horrible for plotting results, so you probably need to do some reading to find a way to do that. But, the positive sign of the interaction term means in your case that as Competence increases, the effect of Extraversion on Offer becomes more positive (less negative), and vice versa, when Ext. increases the effect of Competence becomes more positive (less negative). $\endgroup$
    – Sointu
    Commented Jun 13 at 8:42
  • $\begingroup$ So that would be according to your hypothesis, though I find it difficult to see how alpha level of .10 was justified. $\endgroup$
    – Sointu
    Commented Jun 13 at 14:12

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

Here's a quick example of interpreting and visualizing a continuous x continuous interaction:

#create some data with similar properties as your data

set.seed(123)
Ex<-rnorm(1:100)
Comp<-rnorm(1:100)
Offer<-3+(-.7*x)+(-1*z)+(0.5*(x*z))+rnorm(100)
example_df<-data.frame(Ex,Comp,Offer)
model<-lm(Offer ~ Ex*Comp, data=example_df)
summary(model)

Call:
lm(formula = Offer ~ Ex * Comp, data = example_df)

Residuals:
    Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max 
-1.8719 -0.6777 -0.1086  0.5897  2.3166 

Coefficients:
            Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
(Intercept)  3.14098    0.09578  32.795  < 2e-16 ***
Ex          -0.79281    0.10834  -7.318 7.65e-11 ***
Comp        -0.96566    0.09881  -9.772 4.58e-16 ***
Ex:Comp      0.65911    0.11449   5.757 1.03e-07 ***
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

So, here, the coefficients mimic your relevant coefficients (the fact that you have a multilevel model and mine is a single-level one does not matter for the example).

Then, we can visualize the interaction:


#First, let's get interesting values for Competence:
mean(example_df$Comp) #mean of Comp
-0.1075468
mean(example_df$Comp)-sd(example_df$Comp) #mean - 1sd of Comp
-1.074533
mean(example_df$Comp)+sd(example_df$Comp) #mean + 1 sd of Comp
0.8594398

library(sjPlot)
plot_model(model, type="pred", terms=c("Ex", "Comp[-1.07, .11, 0.86]"))

As you can see from the image, when Competence is low or average, the effect of Extraversion is pretty strongly negative, but when Competence is high (+1 sd), the effect of Extraversion is only slightly negative.

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you so much..In my case the direct effect of extroverison on offer was not significant, but had a negative coefficient. When i plotted the interaction i got positive slopes (extro on offer) for every levels of comepetence except for the lowest level. Does this still support my hypothesis? In my opinion this means that extro has a negative but insignificant effect on offer, and when competence trust mediated the relationship the relationship becomes positive. This supports my hypothesis as competence ‘weakens’ (reverses) the negative (non-sig) relationship into positive correct? $\endgroup$
    – breeks
    Commented Jun 13 at 22:54
  • $\begingroup$ First, you are testing moderation, not mediation, so no mediation is happening here and it's also not customary to talk about "direct" effects in this setting. But, if you consider the p < .10 as significant, then Competence moderates the effect of Extraversion on Offer so that when competence is high or moderate, the effect is positive (though not necessarily significantly different from zero) and when competence is very low, the effect of Ext. is neutral or negative (again it's not clear whether this effect is different from zero, just that it's different from ...). $\endgroup$
    – Sointu
    Commented Jun 14 at 7:08
  • $\begingroup$ ...Extraversion's effect at higher levels of Competence). $\endgroup$
    – Sointu
    Commented Jun 14 at 7:08
  • $\begingroup$ "This supports my hypothesis as competence ‘weakens’ (reverses) the negative (non-sig) relationship into positive correct? " No. As you know, the main effect of Extraversion in your model (-.757) is now the effect of E in the situation of Competence being zero (here imaginary situation, as Competence is on a scale from 1 to 5). To find out Extraversion's unconditional main effect, you'd need to run the model without the interaction. $\endgroup$
    – Sointu
    Commented Jun 14 at 11:23
  • $\begingroup$ Your results just mean that Competence moderates the effect of E (or vice versa, whichever makes more sense), assuming we accept the alpha of .10., so that E's effect is more positive when Comp is higher, and less positive when Comp is lower. $\endgroup$
    – Sointu
    Commented Jun 14 at 11:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.