Research methods based on the frequentist philosophy use prior information in a priori power calculations and when determining the necessary sample size for the detection of an effect, but not in statistical analyses. Bayesian methods incorporate prior knowledge into the statistical analysis in the form of a prior distribution. When prior information about a relationship is available, the estimates obtained could differ drastically depending on the choice of Bayesian or frequentist method. Study 1 in this project compared the performance of five methods for obtaining interval estimates of the mediated effect in terms of coverage, Type I error rate, empirical power, interval imbalance, and interval width at N = 20, 40, 60, 100 and 500. In Study 1, Bayesian methods with informative prior distributions performed almost identically to Bayesian methods with diffuse prior distributions, and had more power than normal theory confidence limits, lower Type I error rates than the percentile bootstrap, and coverage, interval width, and imbalance comparable to normal theory, percentile bootstrap, and the bias-corrected bootstrap confidence limits. Study 2 evaluated if a Bayesian method with true parameter values as prior information outperforms the other methods. The findings indicate that with true values of parameters as the prior information, Bayesian credibility intervals with informative prior distributions have more power, less imbalance, and narrower intervals than Bayesian credibility intervals with diffuse prior distributions, normal theory, percentile bootstrap, and bias-corrected bootstrap confidence limits. Study 3 examined how much power increases when increasing the precision of the prior distribution by a factor of ten for either the action or the conceptual path in mediation analysis. Power generally increases with increases in precision but there are many sample size and parameter value combinations where precision increases by a factor of 10 do not lead to substantial increases in power.