Most management theories include hypotheses about interaction effects (i.e., the relation between two variables depends on values of another), but it is common for articles to present results that make it difficult to evaluate the nature, strength, and importance of the effect. We offer recommendations for improving the reporting of interaction effects by focusing on (a) visualizations, (b) effect size estimates, and (c) assessments of the nature, meaning, and importance of interactions for theory and practice.
AguinisH.BeatyJ. C.BoikR. J.PierceC. A.2005. Effect size and power in assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: A 30-year review. Journal of Applied Psychology,90: 94-107.
2.
AguinisH.EdwardsJ. R.BradleyK. J.2017. Improving our understanding of moderation and mediation in strategic management research. Organizational Research Methods,20: 665-685.
3.
AguinisH.WernerS.AbbottJ. L.AngertC.ParkJ. H.KohlhausenD.2010. Customer-centric science: Reporting significant research results with rigor, relevance, and practical impact in mind. Organizational Research Methods,13: 515-539.
4.
AmrheinV.GreenlandS.McShaneB.2019. Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature,567: 305-307.
5.
BoonC.Den HartogD. N.LepakD. P.2019. A systematic review of human resource management systems and their measurement. Journal of Management,45: 2498-2537.
6.
BundyJ.PfarrerM. D.ShortC. E.CoombsW. T.2017. Crises and crisis management: Integration, interpretation, and research development. Journal of Management,43: 1661-1692.
7.
GardnerR. G.HarrisT. B.LiN.KirkmanB. L.MathieuJ. E.2017. Understanding “it depends” in organizational research: A theory-based taxonomy, review, and future research agenda concerning interactive and quadratic relationships. Organizational Research Methods,20: 610-638.
8.
HayesA. F.MatthesJ.2009. Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods,41: 924-936.
9.
Kelley K.PreacherK. J. 2012. On effect size. Psychological Methods,17: 137-152.
10.
LiuH.YuanK.2021. New measures of effect size in moderation analysis. Psychological Methods,26: 680-700.
11.
McCabeC. J.KimD. S.KingK. M.2018. Improving present practices in the visual display of interactions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science,1: 147-165.
12.
MurphyK. R.MyorsB.WolachA.2014. Statistical power analysis: A simple and general model for traditional and modern hypothesis tests (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.
13.
MurphyK. R.RussellC. J.2017. Mend it or end it: Redirecting the search for interactions in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods,20: 549-573.
14.
SaebiT.FossN. J.LinderS.2019. Social entrepreneurship research: Past achievements and future promises. Journal of Management,45: 70-95.
15.
SherfE. N.MorrisonE. W.2020. I do not need feedback! Or do I? Self-efficacy, perspective taking, and feedback seeking. Journal of Applied Psychology,105: 146-165.
16.
Van IddekingeC. H.AguinisH.LeBretonJ. M.MackeyJ. D.DeOrtentiisP. S.2021. Assessing and interpreting interaction effects: A reply to Vancouver, Carlson, Dhanani, and Colton (2021). Journal of Applied Psychology,106: 476-488.
