Table 2.
Summary of regression analysis results in Study 1.
| Normative commitment |
Helping behavior |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | |
| Control variables | ||||||
| Companya | -0.08 | -0.02 | -0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.03 |
| Genderb | -0.14∗ | -0.10∗ | -0.07† | -0.00 | 0.05 | 0.11∗ |
| Educationc | 0.03 | 0.11∗ | 0.11∗ | -0.01 | 0.06 | 0.00 |
| Tenure | -0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | -0.02 | -0.02 | -0.02∗∗ |
| Independent variable | ||||||
| Role ambiguity | -0.51∗∗∗ | -0.09 | -0.44∗∗∗ | -0.13∗ | ||
| Role conflict | -0.05 | 0.65 | 0.09 | 0.12∗∗ | ||
| Moderator | ||||||
| Perceived organizational support | 1.13∗∗∗ | |||||
| Interaction | ||||||
| Role ambiguity ∗ POS | -0.29† | |||||
| Role conflict ∗ POS | -0.76∗∗ | |||||
| Mediator | ||||||
| Normative commitment | 0.59∗∗∗ | |||||
| R2 | 0.02 | 0.27 | 0.36 | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.43 |
| ΔR2 | 0.25∗∗∗ | 0.09∗∗∗ | 0.17∗∗∗ | 0.25∗∗∗ | ||
n = 350; aCompany: 0 = Company A; 1 = Company B; bGender: 0 = Male; 1 = Female; cEducation: 1 = high school or below; 2 = junior college degree; 3 = bachelor’s degree; and 4 = master’s degree or higher; †p < 0.1, ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001.