Table 2.
Direct and indirect effects of hypothesized model.
| Δ Engagement (M) R2 = 0.07*** |
Job satisfaction T2 (Y) R2 = 0.49*** |
|
|---|---|---|
| b (SE) | b (SE) | |
| Gendera | -0.03 (0.09) | -0.04 (0.08) |
| Age | – | 0.02* (0.01) |
| Job satisfaction T1 (JS) | 0.24*** (0.04) | 0.68*** (0.04) |
| Job demand T1 (JD) | -0.03 (0.07) | – |
| Interaction 1 (JS X JD) | 0.13* (0.06) | – |
| Δ Engagement (M) | – | 0.30*** (0.04) |
| Interaction 2 (Age X M) | -0.03* (0.01) | |
| Conditional indirect effects of job satisfaction T1 through Δ Engagement | Job satisfaction T2 | |
| Point estimate (95% CI) | ||
| Low job demands and younger workers | 0.06 (0.01, 0.12) | |
| Low job demands and older workers | 0.04 (0.01, 0.09) | |
| High job demands and younger workers | 0.12 (0.08, 0.19) | |
| High job demands and older workers | 0.07 (0.03, 0.12) | |
N = 519 (listwise). a0 = male, 1 = female; *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001. M = mediator variable, Y = dependent variable. Confidence intervals (CIs) of indirect effects based on 10,000 bias corrected bootstrap samples. Unstandardized coefficients are reported.