Search results

The ever increasing prevalence of mental health disorders is subsequently resulting in an ever increasing burden on mental health services globally. Due to need outweighing capacity, many turn to, or are signposted to, online resources. Online mental health chatrooms are chat-based services that users can frequent to discuss their mental health, often with individuals experiencing similar issues. Most of these are moderated by volunteers. The purpose of this study was to explore the motivations for moderating, the positive and negative effects of the role and to identifying current and required pathways of support.

This study used an online questionnaire design, disseminated via the online mental health community, 18percent. An open ended interview schedule was disseminated to eight volunteer moderators. Qualitative data was analysed using NVivo software and reflexive thematic analysis.

Moderators were motivated to engage in this role due to past experiences and to help others. The positive effects of moderating were engaging in digital altruism and improving one’s personal mental health. The negative effects were personal triggers and role specific issues such as harassment and being unable to help people in crisis situations. For further support, moderators would benefit from refresher training sessions and further professional training in which they can proactively help when a user is experiencing suicidal ideation/behaviours.

The research highlighted the motivations for, positive and negative effects of and the current and further pathways of support required by volunteer moderators and proffers recommendations within the discussion.

Being clear and specific on what moderating and/or mediating variables are included and what effects are observed in academic research helps the reader to better understand the academic research context and results. But in terms of managerial relevance, it is also important to do this in a way that it provides descriptive, goal and operational relevance to decision makers in practice, depending on the type of intended research. This article wants to provide “a question-based step-by-step guide” on how to make the analysis of moderating/mediating variables and their observed effects more managerially relevant.

Based on a critical review of the literature, important criteria of managerial relevance are confronted with important aspects of theory building with respect to mediating and moderating effects, leading to best-practice insights and recommendations. Moreover, exemplary articles are used to illustrate these findings.

The insights and step-by-step recommendations assist the academic researcher in making choices when analyzing moderators and mediators, by not only taking a theoretical perspective, but also a managerial (relevance) perspective. Adding moderators/mediators may for instance challenge the “core logic of managerial practice” (in terms of thinking and decision making), even if it does not change the “core logic of a theory” as such. In the other direction, academics (and their theory) may be challenged by practitioners, in the way they define moderators/mediators and their levels. The steps in this article relate to aspects such as measurability, controllability and role of moderators and mediators in managerial problem and decision contexts. In case of multiple moderating and/or mediating variables, the decision architecture for managers becomes more complex, especially when the effects are countervailing/opposite. Multiple studies in this article illustrate that in that case, making optimal decisions becomes a “balancing” act for managers/decision makers and may even challenge their common beliefs (e.g. linear thinking).

The guidelines on managerial relevance of moderating and/or mediating variables and their effects can be used by academic researchers and editors of academic journals, pursuing not only academic rigor, but also managerial relevance. Besides being a guide for managerially relevant output, it also helps in determining for which questions in the research process, input from practitioners or at least insights from practice (e.g. through sources such as business magazines and portals) may be needed. The guidelines may also be used for teaching purposes, complementing more theoretical articles that mainly focus on methodological/statistical issues of moderating/mediating variables and their effects.

Meta-regression is widely used and misused today in meta-analyses in psychology, organizational behavior, marketing, management, and other social sciences, as an approach to the identification and calibration of moderators, with most users being unaware of serious problems in its use. The purpose of this paper is to describe nine serious methodological problems that plague applications of meta-regression.

This paper is methodological in nature and is based on well-established principles of measurement and statistics. These principles are used to illuminate the potential pitfalls in typical applications of meta-regression.

The analysis in this paper demonstrates that many of the nine statistical and measurement pitfalls in the use of meta-regression are nearly universal in applications in the literature, leading to the conclusion that few meta-regressions in the literature today are trustworthy. A second conclusion is that in almost all cases, hierarchical subgrouping of studies is superior to meta-regression as a method of identifying and calibrating moderators. Finally, a third conclusion is that, contrary to popular belief among researchers, the process of accurately identifying and calibrating moderators, even with the best available methods, is complex, difficult, and data demanding.

This paper provides useful guidance to meta-analytic researchers that will improve the practice of moderator identification and calibration in social science research literatures.

Today, many important decisions are made on the basis of the results of meta-analyses. These include decisions in medicine, pharmacology, applied psychology, management, marketing, social policy, and other social sciences. The guidance provided in this paper will improve the quality of such decisions by improving the accuracy and trustworthiness of meta-analytic results.

This paper is original and valuable in that there is no similar listing and discussion of the pitfalls in the use of meta-regression in the literature, and there is currently a widespread lack of knowledge of these problems among meta-analytic researchers in all disciplines.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze simultaneously two moderator effects on a model of relationships between external human resource (HR) flexibility and innovation in a large sample of manufacturing firms.

The study sample consisted of 1,864 Spanish industrial firms in 2012 compiled from a large set of statements from the Survey of Business Strategies questionnaire. Logit and linear regressions tested the moderator effects of inter-organizational technology cooperation and environmental (market) dynamism in the relationship between external HR flexibility and innovation performance. To control for multicollinearity the Lance’s residual centering technique was used.

Process innovations seemed to be dependent on industry while innovative firms have developed a greater flexibility than non-innovative firms. Some moderator effects were found regarding inter-organizational cooperation while the market dynamism was negatively related to the measures of innovation with absence of moderator effects.

Future studies should integrate more moderator effects that may influence the relationship between external HR flexibility and the firm’s innovation performance. The results regarding the influences of external flexibility on innovation have to be differentiated as inter-organizational technological cooperation compensated the influence of external workplace flexibility on innovation.

Managers should use a right mix of external flexibility measures according to the inter-organizational cooperation but regardless the level of environmental dynamism.

This paper is original in the sense that it studies the relationship between external HR flexibility and innovation with the simultaneous moderator effect of inter-organizational technology cooperation and market dynamism. The value of the paper lies in the discussion of interrelated moderator effects in order to propose adequate strategies to develop external HR flexibility.

Traditional focus group methodology involves an individual trained moderator who manages the whole process from writing the focus group guide that directs the topics pursued, the interaction with participants, to interpretation, reporting and client feedback. Since their training, personality and orientation can vary differentially, this may lead to moderator bias. Proposes a new method that involves a series of complementary moderators that target specific areas of the guide that allows them to specialise in their particular experiences and orientations. These moderators are used sequentially on the same groups that offer the potential to avoid many of the problems associated with single‐moderator discussion groups. Moreover, the chance to moderate the moderator keeps a check on how the sessions of each focus group develops, building in feedback between moderators, and reduces the prospects of misinterpretation and side‐tracking by a single moderator.

Research on the relationship between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty has advanced to a stage that requires a more thorough examination of moderator variables. Limited research shows how moderators influence the relationship between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty in a service context; this article aims to present empirical evidence of the conditions in which the satisfaction‐loyalty relationship becomes stronger or weaker.

Using a sample of more than 700 customers of DIY retailers and multi‐group structural equation modelling, the authors examine moderating effects of several firm‐related variables, variables that result from firm/employee‐customer interactions and individual‐level variables (i.e. loyalty cards, critical incidents, customer age, gender, income, expertise).

The empirical results suggest that not all of the moderators considered influence the satisfaction‐loyalty link. Specifically, critical incidents and income are important moderators of the relationship between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty.

Several of the moderator variables considered in this study are manageable variables.

This study should prove valuable to academic researchers as well as service and retailing managers. It systematically analyses the moderating effect of firm‐related and individual‐level variables on the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty. It shows the differential effect of different types of moderator variables on the satisfaction‐loyalty link.

This study aims to discuss and test the combined role of perceived risk, objective knowledge and certainty as moderators in the satisfaction‐loyalty relationship.

The authors use survey data of 387 Vietnamese consumers in a food context. A structural equation modeling (SEM) approach for moderator analysis with latent constructs is used to test the hypotheses.

Perceived risk is a barrier in the forming of loyalty with a negative moderating effect on the satisfaction‐loyalty relationship. However, the satisfaction‐loyalty relationship is stronger when objective knowledge and certainty increase.

The object and setting are limited to one product category in one market. In addition, other moderators (e.g. situation and ambivalence) can be added. The nature of causality is problematic due to the use of survey design.

Customer management based on satisfaction is not sufficient to keep customers' loyalty, especially in the situations of highly perceived risk and uncertainty. Marketing strategies, which reduce consumers' risks, consolidate their confidence and educate them with relevant knowledge, may be effective strategies to increase their loyalty.

The study fills several gaps in the present literature. First, it overcomes some shortcomings of previous studies of moderators in the satisfaction‐loyalty relationship by testing the combined role of three important moderators. Second, it tests the moderator effect of objective knowledge and adds an extra explanation to previous studies. While some previous studies suggest a negative moderator effect of subjective knowledge, this paper argues for and confirms a positive moderator effect of objective knowledge on this relationship. Finally, it uses SEM for moderator analysis with latent constructs.

During the past 26 years, there has been a phenomenal growth in the literature on workplace bullying. The purpose of this paper is to review and synthesize the extant empirical studies on underlying and intervening mechanisms in antecedents–bullying and bullying–outcomes relationships.

In total, 53 studies on mediators and moderators in antecedents–bullying and bullying–outcomes relationships (2001-2016) were selected from academic databases (Google Scholar, Research Gate, Emerald Insight, Science Direct, etc.)

The review suggests that while a reasonable number of studies examine the role of mediators and moderators in bullying–outcomes relationships, such efforts are meager in antecedents–bullying relationships. The paper concludes by proposing some potential variables that can explain the underlying mechanisms in the bullying phenomenon and alleviate/aggravate the antecedents–bullying–outcomes relationships.

To the best of authors’ knowledge, this is the first review on mediators and moderators of workplace bullying.

In an online executive education setting, online discussions are seen as a frequently used pedagogical tool that promotes higher level of learning and critical thinking. A teacher's role is seen more as a moderator or facilitator of learning than as a lecturer or preacher. This shift of roles enhances the online students’ opportunities to critically think and reflect; and encourages co-creation of knowledge by way of peer discussions. It is imperative that students apply their critical thinking as well as soft skills to effectively participate and contribute towards making the discussion forum as self-regulated. However, in reality it needs explicit planning and effort on the part of the teacher to motivate them towards this positional shift. This chapter presents the motivation and techniques for improving student engagement by way of assigning them the role of moderator in a predominantly asynchronous online course for management graduates. A qualitative analysis of the observations made based on the application of three techniques of student moderation on student cohorts is shared and implications are discussed.

We argue that entrepreneurship research should use meta-analysis to integrate the findings of the field. A meta-analytical approach has several advantages as compared with narrative reviews: First, narrative reviews are likely to bias empirical evidence because they are limited by the information-processing capacities of the reviewers (Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). This is often a downward bias leading to the conclusion of little positive knowledge in the field. For example, frequency counts of significant results ignore sampling errors of individual studies, reliability problems of instruments, range restrictions of samples, dichotomization of continuous variables, imperfect construct validity, and extraneous factors (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). These issues usually result in a higher incidence of Type II errors (i.e., rejecting the hypothesis wrongly). Thus, narrative reviews are more likely to lead to the conclusion that there are no relationships between independent and dependent variables in entrepreneurship when in fact they are (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990; Tett et al., 1991). Second, meta-analysis accumulates studies based on a set of explicit decision rules and, therefore, is less biased by subjective perceptions of the reviewer than narrative reviews. Meta-analyses require judgments as well, e.g., when defining the area of the study or coding moderator variables. However, the decisions are public and open to criticism and replication by other scientists (Johnson & Eagly, 2000). Third, meta-analysis is based on many studies and, thus, avoids the influence of single studies. Fourth, meta-analysis controls for sampling error variance and, thus, controls for power deficits of individual studies (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). For example, the Brockhaus and Nord (1979) study is frequently cited in the entrepreneurship literature for providing evidence that there is no relationship of personality characteristics with entrepreneurship. However, this study is based on a small sample of 31 business owners and therefore, has serious statistical power problems. Noteworthy, the effect sizes of small samples are less precise in estimating a population value than effect sizes of larger samples. Fifth, meta-analyses can correct many errors of individual studies (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Since meta-analyses estimate population correlations between given variables, it is important to correct for errors of studies (e.g., unreliability, range restriction, and sampling error) to achieve unbiased estimates. Sixth, meta-analysis allows an assessment of the magnitude of relationships and, thus, provides more precise and often comparable assessments of the validity of concepts. Thus, meta-analyses support the assessment of the practical significance of findings. Seventh, meta-analysis tests for variations in relationships across studies and, therefore, allows an assessment of the generalizeability of effects. If the size of reported relationships varies considerably between different studies, there will be context conditions that account for these variations. These context conditions are moderators that affect the size of relationships. The moderators may include study characteristics, method moderators, and theoretical moderators. Thus, meta-analyses also help to identify areas for new studies. Finally, meta-analysis techniques allow to test more than one independent and/or moderator variable by using methods based on regression analysis (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Using such procedures allows to estimate the independent contribution of variables on results, to control for methodological variables, and to test the interactions between moderator variables.