Table 5.
Results of mediation analysis using PROCESS (Model 4) in Study 2.
Independent variables | Intuitive thinking style (M) | Corruption (Y) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | SE | t | LCLI | UCLI | B | SE | t | LCLI | UCLI | |
Ethical leadership (X) | 0.42** | 0.15 | 2.79 | 0.17 | 0.67 | −1.48** | 0.23 | 6.19 | −1.87 | −1.08 |
Intuitive thinking style (M) | −0.37** | 0.12 | 2.90 | −0.58 | −0.16 | |||||
F | 7.78** | 28.95** | ||||||||
R2 | 0.05** | 0.28** | ||||||||
Direct and indirect effect | B | SE | t | LCLI | UCLI | |||||
Direct effect of X on Y | −1.48** | 0.23 | 6.19 | −1.87 | −1.08 | |||||
Indirect effect of X on Y via M | −0.15 | 0.08 | −0.30 | −0.04 |
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 < 0.01.