Skip to main content
. 2023 Jul 6;9(7):e18002. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18002

Table 4.

Hypothesis testing results.



Model 1
Model 2 (ICE as the mediator)
Model 3 (ICE as the mediator and OM as the moderator)
Hypothesis Dependent variable OEB ICE OEB ICE OEB
Independent variable
H1 ICS 0.24 (5.00)c 0.43 (12.24)c 0.06 (0.95) 0.42 (11.41)c 0.05 (0.97)
OM 0.21 (5.37)c
H4 ICS × OM 0.18 (4.71)c
H2 ICE 0.44 (11.18)c 0.44 (11.91)c
Control variable
Ownership 0.10 (2.20)b 0.09 (2.39)b 0.09 (2.40)b
Size (assets) 0.09 (1.92)a 0.08 (1.92)a 0.08 (1.90)a
Size (employees) 0.04 (0.91) 0.07 (1.56) 0.07 (1.60)
Firm age 0.11 (2.99)c 0.11 (3.01)c 0.11 (3.35)c
Adjusted R2 0.09 0.18 0.24 0.25 0.24
Indirect effect Estimate LLCI ULCI
H3 ICS → ICE → OEB 0.19 0.14 (7.81)c 0.24

Notes: ICS: internal control structure; ICE: internal control effectiveness; OM: organizational mindfulness; OEB: organizational ethical behavior; ICS × OM: the interaction between ICS and OM; LLCI, ULCI: lower- and upper-confidence interval levels, respectively; numbers in brackets: t-values; a, b, c: significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively (2-tailed t-test).