Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2010 Sep;5(3):67–83. doi: 10.1525/jer.2010.5.3.67

Table 3.

Path coefficients and standard errors from regression models predicting ideal behaviors from organizational justice (OJ) and intrinsic drive (ID), positive affect from organizational drive and intrinsic drive, misbehavior from positive affect (PAff) and estimated indirect effects.

Ideal Behavior Positive Affect Ideal Behavior

OJ ID OJ*ID OJ ID OJ*ID PAff

c1 c2 c3 a1 a2 a3 b1 a1*b1 a2*b1 a3*b1
avoiding favoritism
  OJ: University .506** (.183) .131 (.167) −.102* (.042) .139* (.069) .005 (.065) −.017 (.015)
  OJ: Manuscript −.130 (.174) −.513* (.219) .053 (.040) .024 (.067) −.063 (.084) .002 (.015)
  OJ: Injustice −.589* (.267) −.799** (.315) .114 (.061) .022 (.099) .111 (.117) −.030 (.023)
golden rule
  OJ: University .585** (.211) .310 (.201) −.122** (.049) .100 (.071) −.024 (.066) −.008 (.016)
  OJ: Manuscript .417* (.214) .279 (.272) −.078 (.049) .012 (.067) −.057 (.084) .002 (.015)
playing by the rules
  OJ: IRB/IACUC .736** (.298) .312 (.333) −.122 (.066) .103 (.073) −.015 (.090) −.007 (.017)
  OJ: Manuscript .693* (.301) .460 (.360) −.144* (.068) .021 (.072) −.047 (.090) .002 (.016)
*

p≤.05,

**

p≤.01,

***

p≤.005