Experimental research scholars often discretize quantitative variables when testing moderation. This pedagogical article addresses the limitations of this approach and considers when and how spotlight and floodlight analyses should be used depending on whether the moderating variable at stake shows or does not show meaningful focal values.
BaronRMKennyDA (1986) Moderator-mediator variables distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51(6): 1173–1182.
2.
Chumpitaz-CaceresRVanhammeJ (2003) Les processus modérateurs et médiateurs : distinction conceptuelle, aspects analytiques et illustrations. Recherche et Applications en Marketing18(2): 67–100.
3.
ChurchillGAJr (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research16(1): 64–73.
4.
De PechpeyrouPOdouP (2012) Consumer skepticism and promotion effectiveness. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition)27(2): 45–69.
5.
FitzsimonsGJ (2008) Death to dichotomizing. Journal of Consumer Research35(1): 5–8.
6.
IacobucciD (2001) Continuous and discrete variables. Journal of Consumer Psychology10(1/2): 37–53.
7.
IrwinJR (2001) Treating individual difference predictors as continuous or categorical. Journal of Consumer Psychology10(1/2): 51–52.
8.
IrwinJRMcClellandGH (2001) Misleading heuristics and moderated multiple regression models. Journal of Marketing Research40(3): 366–371.
9.
IrwinJRMcClellandGH (2003) Negative consequences of dichotomizing continuous predictor variables. Journal of Marketing Research40(3): 366–371.
10.
JohnsonPONeymanJ (1936) Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs1: 57–93.
11.
LittleTDCardNABovairdJAPreacherKJCrandallCS (2007) Structural equation modeling of mediation and moderation with contextual factors. In: LittleTDBovairdJACardNA (eds) Modeling contextual effects in longitudinal studies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.207–230.
12.
LouviereJJHensherDASwaitJC (2000) Stated choice method: Analysis and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
McClellandGH (1997) Optimal design in psychological research. Psychological Methods2(1): 3–19.
15.
NelsonDEJarmanDWRehmJGreenTKReyGKerrWCMillerPShieldKDYeYNaimiTS (2013) Alcohol-attributable cancer deaths and years of potential life lost in the United States. American Journal of Public Health103(4): 641–648.
16.
PécheuxCDerbaixC (2002) L’attitude de l’enfant envers une nouvelle marque: de la nécessité d’une phase de fixation?Recherche et Applications en Marketing17(3): 63–79.
17.
PopperK. (1973) La logique de la découverte scientifique. Paris: Payot.
18.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods7(4): 879–891.
19.
SimmonsJPNelsonLDSimonsohnU (2011) False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science22(11): 1359–66.
20.
SoderlündM (2002) Consumer familiarity and its effects on satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Psychology and Marketing19(10): 861–880.
21.
SpectorPEBrannickMT (2011) Methodological urban legends: The misuse of statistical control variables. Organizational Research Methods14(2): 287–305.
22.
SpillerSAFitzsimonsGJLynchJGJrMcClellandGH (2013) Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research50(2): 277–288.
23.
TyboutA. (2001) Treating an individual difference predictor as continuous or categorical. Journal of Consumer Psychology10(1/2): 48–49.
24.
VarghaARudasTDelaneyHDMaxwellSE (1996) Dichotomization, partial correlation, and conditional independence. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics21(3): 264–282.
25.
YangSRaghubirP. (2005) Can bottles speak volumes? The effect of package shape on how much to buy. Journal of Retailing81(4): 269–281. (Translated as: (2006) Les bouteilles peuvent-elles être transcrites en volumes? L’effet de la forme de l’emballage sur la quantité à acheter. Recherche et Applications en Marketing 21(1): 81–100.)
