Table 3.
Path | Effect | SE | 95% CI |
---|---|---|---|
Indirect effect | |||
IND1: PFP → PR → TP | −0.02** | 0.00 | [−0.02, −0.01] |
IND2: PFP → PR → CP | −0.01** | 0.00 | [−0.01, −0.00] |
IND3: PFP → IM → TP | 0.05** | 0.00 | [0.04, 0.06] |
IND4: PFP → IM → CP | 0.04** | 0.00 | [0.03, 0.05] |
Indirect effect difference | |||
IND1-IND3: PFP → PR → TP- PFP → IM → TP | −0.06** | 0.01 | [−0.07, −0.05] |
IND2-IND4: PFP → PR → CP- PFP → IM → CP | −0.05** | 0.00 | [−0.06, −0.04] |
Direct effect | |||
PFP → TP | 0.23** | 0.01 | [0.21, 0.26] |
PFP → CP | 0.14** | 0.01 | [0.11, 0.16] |
Total effect | |||
PFP → TP | 0.26** | 0.01 | [0.24, 0.29] |
PFP → CP | 0.17** | 0.01 | [0.14, 0.20] |
PFP, pay for performance; PR, pressure; IM, intrinsic motivation; TP, task performance; CP, contextual performance.
Estimates were tested for significance using bias-corrected confidence intervals from 20,000 resamples through the R program.
N = 6,054. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.