12
$\begingroup$

Moderated regression analyses are often used in social sciences to assess the interaction between two or more predictors/covariates.

Typically, with two predictor variables, the following model is applied:

$Y = β_0 + β_1*X + β_2*M + β_3*XM + e$

Notice that the test of moderation is operationalized by the product term $XM$ (the multiplication between independent variable $X$ and moderator variable $M$). My very fundamental question is: why do we actually calculate a product term between $X$ and $M$? Why not, for instance, the absolute difference $|M-X|$ or just the sum $X + M$?

Interestingly, Kenny alludes to this issue here http://davidakenny.net/cm/moderation.htm by saying: "As will be seen, the test of moderation is not always operationalized by the product term XM" but no further explanation is given. A formal illustration or proof would be enlightening, I guess/hope.

$\endgroup$
12
$\begingroup$

A "moderator" affects the regression coefficients of $Y$ against $X$: they might change as values of the moderator change. Thus, in full generality, the simple regression model of moderation is

$$\mathbb{E}(Y) = \alpha(M) + \beta(M)X$$

where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are functions of the moderator $M$ rather than constants unaffected by values of $M$.

In the same spirit in which regression is founded on a linear approximation of the relationship between $X$ and $Y$, we may hope that both $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are--at least approximately--linear functions of $M$ throughout the range of values of $M$ in the data:

$$\eqalign{ \mathbb{E}(Y) &= \alpha_0 + \alpha_1 M + O(M^2) + (\beta_0 + \beta_1 M + O(M^2))X \\ &= \alpha_0 + \beta_0 X + \alpha_1 M + \beta_1 MX + O(M^2) + O(M^2)X. }$$

Dropping the nonlinear ("big-O") terms, in the hope they are too small to matter, gives the multiplicative (bilinear) interaction model

$$\mathbb{E}(Y) = \alpha_0 + \beta_0 X + \alpha_1 M + \beta_1 MX.\tag{1}$$

This derivation suggests an interesting interpretation of the coefficients: $\alpha_1$ is the rate at which $M$ changes the intercept while $\beta_1$ is the rate at which $M$ changes the slope. ($\alpha_0$ and $\beta_0$ are the slope and intercept when $M$ is (formally) set to zero.) $\beta_1$ is the coefficient of the "product term" $MX$. It answers the question in this way:

We model the moderation with a product term $MX$ when we expect the moderator $M$ will (approximately, on average) have a linear relationship with the slope of $Y$ vs $X$.


Of interest is that this derivation points the way towards a natural extension of the model, which might suggest ways to check goodness of fit. If you are not concerned with nonlinearity in $X$--you either know or assume that model $(1)$ is accurate--then you would want to extend the model to accommodate the terms that were dropped:

$$ \mathbb{E}(Y) = \alpha_0 + \beta_0 X + \alpha_1 M + \beta_1 MX + \alpha_2M^2 + \beta_2 M^2X. $$

Testing the hypothesis $\alpha_2=\beta_2=0$ evaluates the goodness of fit. Estimating $\alpha_2$ and $\beta_2$ could indicate in what way model $(1)$ might need to be extended: to incorporate nonlinearity in $M$ (when $\alpha_2 \ne 0$) or a more complicated moderating relationship (when $\beta_2 \ne 0$) or possibly both. (Note that this test would not be suggested by a power series expansion of a generic function $f(X,M)$.)


Finally, if you were to discover that the interaction coefficient $\beta_1$ were not significantly different from zero, but that the fit is nonlinear (as evidenced by a significant value of $\beta_2$), then you would conclude (a) there is moderation but (b) it is not modeled by an $MX$ term, but instead by some higher-order terms beginning with $M^2X$. This might be the kind of phenomenon to which Kenny was referring.

$\endgroup$
8
$\begingroup$

If you use the sum of predictors to model their interaction, your equation would be:

$$ \begin{eqnarray} Y &=& \beta_0 + \beta_1X + \beta_2M + \beta_3(X + M) + e\\ &=& \beta_0 + \beta_1X + \beta_2M + \beta_3X + \beta_3M + e\\ &=& \beta_0 + (\beta_1 + \beta_3)X + (\beta_2 + \beta_3)M + e \\ &=& \beta_0 + \beta_1'X + \beta_2'M + e \end{eqnarray} $$

where $\beta_1'=\beta_1+\beta_3$ and $\beta_2'=\beta_2+\beta_3$. Therefore, your model would have no interaction at all. Clearly, this is not the case with product.

Recall the definition of the absolute value:

$$ |X-M| = \begin{cases} X-M, & X \geq M\\ M-X, & X < M \end{cases} $$

Although you can reduce the model $\beta_0 + \beta_1X + \beta_2M + \beta_3|X-M| + e$ to the one with only $X$ and $M$ terms, using the def. of $|X-M|$, the absolute value is a "specialized form of moderation that is unlikely to be realistic in many situations", as pointed out in the comment below.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Actually, including an $|X-M|$ term is demonstrably a form of moderation: the value of $M$ changes $\beta_2$. It is, however, a limited, specialized form of moderation that is unlikely to be realistic in many situations. It is not correct to say that such a model has "only main effects." $\endgroup$ – whuber Jul 21 '16 at 16:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, you are right, $|X-M|$ is a form of moderation, I got carried away by transformation and will edit the answer accordingly. Thanks for pointing this out. $\endgroup$ – Milos Jul 21 '16 at 16:48
  • $\begingroup$ @Milos: Your example about the sum of predictors was an eye-opener, a somewhat embarrassing one, I must say because I should have already realized the mathematical implications ;) whuber: As far as I understand it, the absolute value is only useful when both predictor variables are measured in same units (e.g. two psychometric tests, using the same metric, such as z-scores or T-scores). The absolute difference between X and M is a useful metric, although not the only possible one (i.e. the prodcut term could also be used). $\endgroup$ – denominator Jul 22 '16 at 21:16
6
$\begingroup$

You won't find a formal proof for using multiplicative moderator. You can support this approach by other means. For instance, look at the Taylor-MacLaurin expansion of a function $f(X,M)$:

$$f(X,M)=f(0,0)+\frac{\partial f(0,0)}{\partial T} T+\frac{\partial f(0,0)}{\partial M} M+\frac{\partial^2 f(0,0)}{\partial T\partial M} TM +\frac{\partial^2 f(0,0)}{2\partial T^2} T^2 +\frac{\partial^2 f(0,0)}{2\partial M^2} M^2\dots$$

If you plug a function of this form $f(X,M)=\beta_0+\beta_XX+\beta_MM+\beta_{XM}XM$ into the Taylor equation, you get this:

$$f(X,M)=\beta_0+\beta_XX +\beta_MM +\beta_{XM}XM$$

So, the rationale here is that this particular multiplicative form of the moderation is basically a second order Taylor approximation of a generic moderation relationship $f(X,M)$

UPDATE: if you include quadratic terms, as @whuber suggested then this will happen: $$g(X,M)=b_0+b_XX +b_MM +b_{XM}XM+b_{X2}X^2 +b_{M2}M^2$$ plug this into Taylor: $$g(X,M)=b_0+b_XX +b_MM +b_{XM}XM +b_{X2}X^2 +b_{M2}M^2$$

This shows that our new model $g(X,M)$ with quadratic terms corresponds to a full second order Taylor approximation, unlike the original moderation model $f(X,M)$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Since the basis of your argument is the Taylor expansion, why did you not also include the other two quadratic terms $X^2$ and $M^2$? True, they are not forms of moderation, but their inclusion in the model usually will affect $\beta_{XM}$. $\endgroup$ – whuber Jul 21 '16 at 16:32
  • $\begingroup$ @whuber, I decided to keep the post short - that's the main reason. Otherwise, I started writing about my preference to include second order terms whenever you have a cross term, then cut it out. $\endgroup$ – Aksakal Jul 21 '16 at 17:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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