Table 2.
Meta-analytic relations (across 3 samples) of JDM-focused individual difference variables with overall CWB
| 95% CI | 80%CrI | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictor | r | ρ | SDρ | LL | UL | LL | UL |
| Social Norms† | − .148 | − .154 | .111 | − .278 | − .018 | − .296 | − .011 |
| Rational DMS† | − .247 | − .280 | .000 | − .372 | − .122 | − .280 | − .280 |
| Avoidant DMS† | .204 | .220 | .000 | .077 | .332 | .220 | .220 |
| Spontaneous DMS† | .197 | .219 | .000 | .069 | .325 | .219 | .219 |
| Intuitive DMS | .040 | .045 | .083 | − .093 | .173 | − .061 | .151 |
| Dependent DMS | .039 | .043 | .032 | − .095 | .172 | .002 | .084 |
| Riskiness Perceptions† | − .268 | − .327 | .073 | − .392 | − .144 | − .420 | − .233 |
| Benefit Perceptions† | .411 | .487 | .000 | .300 | .522 | .487 | .487 |
k = 3; N = 652. Social Norms = the judgment and decision-making skill associated with social norms; DMS = decision-making style; Riskiness perceptions = riskiness perceptions of unethical behavior; Benefit perceptions = benefit perceptions of unethical behavior; r = estimated mean observed (uncorrected for measurement error) correlation weighted for sampling error; ρ = estimated mean correlation corrected for measurement error; SDρ = standard deviation of corrected correlation; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; 80% CrI = 80% credibility interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit. For rational decision-making style, avoidant decision-making style, spontaneous decision-making style, and ethical risk perception-benefit SDρ was set to zero because the variance of ρ was negative (Schmidt & Hunter, 2015); accordingly, the range of the credibility interval around ρ is also zero
† JDM-focused individual differences hypothesized to relate to CWB. The remaining two decision-making styles were studied in exploratory fashion