Conceptualizing, Organizing, and Positing Moderation in Communication Research

Abstract

Abstract Meta-theoretical focus is given to how communication researchers are approaching and hypothesizing moderation. A moderation typology is offered and an evaluation of the field’s common practices for positing moderation reveals an inability to discern between three overarching classifications (Contributory, Contingent, Cleaved). A content analysis of eight communication journals reveals moderation hypotheses lacking a level of precision that can best aid the field’s knowledge generation. In addition, vague hypothesizing is leaving communication researchers vulnerable to the commitment of Type III error (i.e., correctly rejecting a null hypothesis for the wrong reason). Recommendations are provided in an effort to improve the field’s conceptualization and presentation of moderation.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 146 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.