Table 4.
Results of moderation analysis using PROCESS (Model 1) in Study 2.
Independent variables | Corruption (Y) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | SE | t | LCLI | UCLI | |
Ethical leadership (X) | −2.77** | 0.68 | 4.06 | −3.90 | −1.64 |
Machiavellianism (W) | −0.02 | 0.14 | 0.14 | −0.25 | 0.21 |
X × W | 0.33† | 0.19 | 1.72 | 0.01 | 0.65 |
F | 18.07** | ||||
R2 | 0.27** | ||||
Moderator (Machiavellianism) | Conditional direct effect of X on Y | ||||
B | SE | t | LCLI | UCLI | |
Low | −2.07** | 0.33 | 6.20 | −2.62 | −1.52 |
Mean | −1.66** | 0.23 | 7.05 | −2.06 | −1.27 |
High | −1.25** | 0.33 | 3.71 | −1.81 | −0.69 |
N = 146. LLCI, lower limit confident interval; UCLI, upper limit confidence interval. Ethical leadership were coded 0 = non-ethical leadership and 1 = ethical leadership. We report the bias-corrected and accelerated 90% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated using 5,000 bootstrap samples.
p < 0.10;
p < 0.01.