In this article, we attempt to distinguish between the properties of moderator and mediator variables at a number of levels. First, we seek to make theorists and researchers aware of the importance of not using the terms moderator and mediator interchangeably by carefully elaborating, both conceptually and strategically, the many ways in which moderators and mediators differ. We then go beyond this largely pedagogical function and delineate the conceptual and strategic implications of making use of such distinctions with regard to a wide range of phenomena, including control and stress, attitudes, and personality traits. We also provide a specific compendium of analytic procedures appropriate for making the most effective use of the moderator and mediator distinction, both separately and in terms of a broader causal system that includes both moderators and mediators. The purpose of this analysis is to distinguish between the properties of moderator and mediator variables in such a way as to clarify the different ways in which conceptual variables may account for differences in peoples ' behavior. Specifically, we differentiate between two often-confused functions of third variables: (a) the moderator function of third variables, which

The direct effect of one event on another can be defined and measured by holding constant all intermediate variables between the two. Indirect effects present conceptual and practical difficulties (in nonlinear models), because they cannot be isolated by holding certain variables constant. This paper presents a new way of defining the effect transmitted through a restricted set of paths, without controlling variables on the remaining paths. This permits the assessment of a more natural type of direct and indirect effects, one that is applicable in both linear and nonlinear models and that has broader policy-related interpretations. The paper establishes conditions under which such assessments can be estimated consistently from experimental and nonexperimental data, and thus extends path-analytic techniques to nonlinear and nonparametric models.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) has dominated causal analysis in the social and behavioral sciences since the 1960s. Currently, many SEM practitioners are having difficulty articulating the causal content of SEM and are seeking foundational answers.

Automating the learning of causal models from sample data is a key step toward incorporating machine learning into decisionmaking and reasoning under uncertainty. This paper presents a Bayesian approach to the discovery of causal models, using a Minimum Message Length (MML) method. We have developed encoding and search methods for discovering linear causal models. The initial experimental results presented in this paper show that the MML induction approach can recover causal models from generated data which are quite accurate re ections of the original models and compare favorably with those of TETRAD II (Spirtes et al. 1994) even when it is supplied with prior temporal information and MML is not. 1

INTRODUCTION This chapter surveys the development of graphical models known as Bayesian networks, summarizes their semantical basis and assesses their properties and applications to reasoning and planning. Bayesian networks are directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) in which the nodes represent variables of interest (e.g., the temperature of a device, the gender of a patient, a feature of an object, the occurrence of an event) and the links represent causal influences among the variables. The strength of an influence is represented by conditional probabilities that are attached to each cluster of parents-child nodes in the network. Figure 1 illustrates a simple yet typical Bayesian network. It describes the causal relationships among the season of the year (X 1 ), whether rain falls (X 2 ) during the season, whether the sprinkler is on (X 3 ) during that season, whether the pavement would get wet (X<F28.21

For nearly a century, investigators in the social sciences have used regression models to deduce cause-and-effect relationships from patterns of association. Path models and automated search procedures are more recent developments. In my view, this enterprise has not been successful. The models tend to neglect the difficulties in establishing causal relations, and the mathematical complexities tend to obscure rather than clarify the assumptions on which the analysis is based. Formal statistical inference is, by its nature, conditional. If maintained hypotheses A, B, C,... hold, then H can be tested against the data. However, if A, B, C,... remain in doubt, so must inferences about H. Careful scrutiny of maintained hypotheses should therefore be a critical part of empirical work-- a principle honored more often in the breach than the observance.

Abstract not found

This article establishes a new criterion for the identification of recursive linear models in which some errors are correlated. We show that identification is ensured as long as error correlation does not exist between a cause and its direct effect; no restrictions are imposed on errors associated with indirect causes. Before structural equation models (SEM) can be estimated and evaluated against data, a researcher must make sure that the parameters of the estimated model are identified, namely, that they can be determined uniquely from the population covariance matrix. The importance of testing identification prior to data analysis is summarized succinctly by Rigdon (1995): To avoid devoting research resources toward a hopeless cause (and to avoid ignoring productive research avenues out of an unfounded fear of underidentification), researchers need a way to quickly evaluate a model's identification status before data are collected. Furthermore, because models are often altered in the course of research (Joreskog, 1993), researchers need a technique that helps them understand the impact of potential structural changes on the identification status of the model, (p. 359) It is well known that, in recursive path models with correlated errors, the identification problem is unsolved. In other words, we are not in possession of a necessary and sufficient criterion for deciding whether the parameters in such a model can be computed from the population covariance matrix of the observed variables. Certain restricted classes of models are nevertheless known to be identifiable, and

Abstract: This review presents empirical researchers with recent advances in causal inference, and stresses the paradigmatic shifts that must be undertaken in moving from traditional statistical analysis to causal analysis of multivariate data. Special emphasis is placed on the assumptions that underly all causal inferences, the languages used in formulating those assumptions, the conditional nature of all causal and counterfactual claims, and the methods that have been developed for the assessment of such claims. These advances are illustrated using a general theory of causation based on the Structural Causal Model (SCM) described in Pearl (2000a), which subsumes and unifies other approaches to causation, and provides a coherent mathematical foundation for the analysis of causes and counterfactuals. In particular, the paper surveys the development of mathematical tools for inferring (from a combination of data and assumptions) answers to three types of causal queries: (1) queries about the effects of potential interventions, (also called “causal effects ” or “policy evaluation”) (2) queries about probabilities of counterfactuals, (including assessment of “regret, ” “attribution” or “causes of effects”) and (3) queries about direct and indirect effects (also known as “mediation”). Finally, the paper defines the formal and conceptual relationships between the structural and potential-outcome frameworks and presents tools for a symbiosis analysis that uses the strong features of both.

This paper aims at assisting empirical researchers benefit from recent advances in causal inference. The paper stresses the paradigmatic shifts that must be undertaken in moving from traditional statistical analysis to causal analysis of multivariate data. Special emphasis is placed on the assumptions that underly all causal inferences, the languages used in formulating those assumptions, and the conditional nature of causal claims inferred from nonexperimental studies. These emphases are illustrated through a brief survey of recent results, including the control of confounding, the assessment of causal effects, the interpretation of counterfactuals, and a symbiosis between counterfactual and graphical methods of analysis.