Abstract
In testing hypotheses, researchers frequently have used multiple regression analysis to control for nuisance variables (i.e., potential confounding variables that are correlated with hypothesized causal variables). In this paper, we highlight limitations of this control strategy, and we discuss fundamental issues that should be considered in deciding whether to use it. Ultimately, we suggest the use of multiple regression analysis sometimes may not improve causal understanding and may actually limit the generalizability of results. Instead of the common practice of controlling for nuisance variables, we suggest that looking at shared variance frequently is a more appropriate test of a theoretical hypothesis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bandura A., (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of controlW. H. Freeman and Company New York
Becker, T. E., (2004). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in I/O psychology. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Chicago, IL, April, 2004
Berman S. L., Down J., Hill C. W., (2002). Tacit knowledge as a source of competitive advantage in the National Basketball Association Academy of Management Journal 45:13–31
Bloom M., (1999). The performance effects of pay dispersion on individuals and organizations Academy of Management Journal 42:25–40
Breaugh J. A., (2003). Effect size estimation: Factors to consider and mistakes to avoid Journal of Management 29:79–97
Cook T. D., (2000). Toward a practical theory of external validity. In Bickman L., (Ed.), Validity and social experimentation Sage Thousand Oaks, CA, 3–43
Day D. V., Hock-Peng S., Chen T., (2004). Assessing the burdens of leadership: Effects of formal leadership roles on individual performance over time Personnel Psychology 57:573–605
DeShon, R. P. (2002). Generalizability theory. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt N (Eds.) Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations Jossey Bass San Francisco CA, 189–220
Fichman, M., (1999). Variance explained: Why size does not (always) matter. In B. M. Staw & R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior 21, 295–331
Gordon R. A., (1968). Issues in multiple regression American Journal of Sociology 73:592–616
Judge T. A., Cable D. M., (2004). The effect of physical height on workplace success and income: Preliminary test of a theoretical model Journal of Applied Psychology 89:428–441
Kozlowski S. W., Klein K. J., (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In Klein K. J., Kozlowski S. W., (Eds.). Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations Jossey-Bass San Francisco, 3–90
Lewin T. (2002). Ideas & trends. New York Times, section 4, column 1, p. 3
Meehl P. E., (1970). Nuisance variables and the ex post facto design. In Radner M., Winokur S., (Eds.), Analyses of theories and methods of physics and psychology University of Minnesota Press Minneapolis, MN, 373–402
Murphy K. R., (2003). Validity generalization: A critical reviewLawrence Erlbaum Associates Mahwah, NJ
Pedhazur E. J., (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral researchHarcourt Brace & Company Fort Worth, TX
Schwab D. B., (1999). Research methods for organizational studiesLawrence Erlbaum Associates Mahwah, New Jersey
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Breaugh, J.A. Rethinking the Control of Nuisance Variables in Theory Testing. J Bus Psychol 20, 429–443 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-005-9009-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-005-9009-y