Table 4.
Results of mediating effect of dissonance in Study 2.
| Dissonance |
Normative commitment |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control variables | |||||
| Gendera | -0.01 | -0.03 | 0.01 | 0.13 | 0.12 |
| Ageb | 0.01 | 0.01 | -0.04 | -0.05 | -0.05 |
| Educationc | -0.24∗ | -0.20∗ | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.01 |
| Independent variable | |||||
| Role stressord | 0.27∗∗ | -0.38∗∗∗ | -0.30∗∗ | ||
| Mediator | |||||
| Dissonance | -0.28∗∗ | ||||
| R2 | 0.06 | 0.13 | 0.02 | 0.16 | 0.23∗∗∗ |
| ΔR2 | 0.07∗∗ | 0.14∗∗ | 0.07∗∗ | ||
n = 104; aGender: 0 = Male; 1 = Female; bAge: 1 = aged 29 or below; 2 = aged between 30 and 39; 3 = aged between 40 and 49; and 4 = aged 50 or above; cEducation: 1 = high school or below; 2 = junior college degree, 3 = bachelor’s degree; and 4 = master’s degree or higher; dDummy variable: 0 = No role ambiguity; 1 = with role ambiguity; ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001.