CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.5 Structural Equation Model
4.5.2 SEM Analysis of Thai Samples
The upper and lower intervals of RE-NC-ICWB mediation path both contain 0, P>0.05, so H23 is not supported and there is no mediation effect.
The upper and lower intervals of TR-NC-ICWB mediation path both contain 0, P>0.05, so H24 is not supported and there is no mediation effect.
four CN1-CN4 observation variables and four e20-e23 observation variables error variances. NC has four NA1-NA4 observation variables and four e24-e27 observation variable error variances, OCWB has six CR1-CR6 observation variables and six e28- e33 six observation variable error variances, ICWB has six PE1-PE6 observation variables and six e34-e39 six observation variable error variances, and the estimated parameters have 21 standardized path coefficient values, 39 observation variable standardized factor load values and 44 observation error variances.
1) Model fit analysis Table 4.24 Model Fit Index
The Reference
X2/df GFI AGFI NFI IFI TLI CFI RMSEA
Statistics 1.494 0.832 0.807 0.861 0.949 0.944 0.949 0.045 Reference < 3 > 0.8 > 0.8 > 0.8 > 0.9 > 0.9 > 0.9 < 0.08
According to the standard of model fitting index in Table 4.24. X2/df = 1.494; GFI = 0.832, AGFI = 0.807, NFI = 0.861, IFI = 0.949, TLI = 0.944, CFI = 0.949, RMSEA = 0.045, the fitting indexes of the model all meet the requirements, so the model fits well and the model is acceptable.
2) Path analysis
Table 4.25 Path Coefficient between Variables
The Path Estimate S.E. T P
OCWB <--- DE 0.148 0.052 2.367 0.018
OCWB <--- RE 0.304 0.065 3.717 ***
OCWB <--- TR 0.335 0.089 4.114 ***
ICWB <--- DE 0.047 0.065 0.658 0.510
ICWB <--- RE 0.263 0.081 2.818 0.005
ICWB <--- TR 0.244 0.108 2.699 0.007
AC <--- DE -0.026 0.094 -0.312 0.755
CC <--- DE -0.122 0.090 -1.227 0.220
NC <--- DE -0.066 0.08 -0.83 0.407
The Path Estimate S.E. T P
AC <--- RE -0.393 0.103 -4.207 ***
CC <--- RE -0.227 0.096 -2.062 0.039
NC <--- RE -0.42 0.087 -4.645 ***
AC <--- TR -0.296 0.135 -2.597 0.009
CC <--- TR -0.252 0.12 -2.767 0.006
NC <--- TR -0.283 0.143 -2.983 0.003
OCWB <--- AC -0.182 0.042 -3.169 0.002
OCWB <--- CC -0.109 0.046 -2.205 0.052
OCWB <--- NC -0.132 0.049 -2.249 0.025
ICWB <--- AC -0.262 0.053 -3.913 ***
ICWB <--- CC -0.092 0.057 -1.616 0.106
ICWB <--- NC -0.224 0.062 -3.292 ***
Note: *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001
Data analysis based on Table 4.25.
The standardized path coefficient from Development dimension to organization-oriented counterproductive work behavior (OCWB<--DE) is 0.148 (T = 2.367, P<0.05), indicating that the development dimension has a significant positive influence on the organization-oriented counterproductive work behavior, that is, the higher the degree of psychological contract violation in the development dimension, the more organization-oriented counterproductive behavior, so H1a is supported.
The standardized path coefficient from relationship dimension to organization-oriented counterproductive work behavior (OCWB<--RE) is 0.304 (T = 3.717, P<0.05), indicating that the relational dimension has a significant positive influence on the organization-oriented counterproductive work behavior, that is, the higher the degree of psychological contract violation in the relational dimension, the more organization-oriented counterproductive behavior, so H2a is supported.
The standardized path coefficient from transaction dimensions to organization-oriented counterproductive work behavior (OCWB<--TR) is 0.335 (T = 4.114, P<0.05), indicating that the transaction dimension has a significant positive effect on the organization-oriented counterproductive work behavior, that is, the higher the degree of psychological contract violation in the transaction dimension, the more organization-oriented counterproductive work behavior, so H3a is supported.
The standardized path coefficient from development dimension to interpersonal -oriented counterproductive work behavior (ICWB<--DE) was 0.047 (T
= 0.658, P = 0.510>0.05), indicating that development dimension had no significant effect on interpersonal-oriented counterproductive behavior, so H1e was not supported.
The standardized path coefficient from relational dimension to interpersonal-oriented counterproductive work behavior (ICWB<--RE) is 0.263 (T = 2.818, P<0.05), indicating that the relational dimension has a significant positive influence on the interpersonal-oriented counterproductive work behavior, that is, the higher the degree of psychological contract violation in the relationship dimension, the more the interpersonal-oriented counterproductive work behavior, so H2e is supported.
The standardized path coefficient from the transaction dimension to the interpersonal-oriented counterproductive work behavior (ICWB<--TR) is 0.244 (T = 2.699, P<0.05), indicating that the transaction dimension has a significant positive effect on the interpersonal-oriented counterproductive work behavior, that is, the higher the degree of psychological contract violation in the transaction dimension, the more interpersonal-oriented counterproductive work behavior, so H3e is supported.
The standardized path coefficient from the development dimension to affective commitment (AC<--DE) is -0.026 (T = -0.312, P = 0.755>0.05), indicating that the development dimension has no significant effect on affective commitment, so H1b is not supported.
The standardized path coefficient from development dimension to continuous commitment (CC<--DE) was -0.122 (T = -1.227, P = 0.220>0.05), indicating that development dimension had no significant negative effect on continuous commitment, so H1c was not supported.
The standardized path coefficient from development dimension to normative commitment (NC<--DE) was -0.066 (T = -0.830, P = 0.407>0.05), indicating that development dimension had no significant negative effect on normative commitment, so H1d was not supported.
The standardized path coefficient from relational dimension to affective commitment (AC<--RE) is -0.393 (T = -4.207, P<0.05), indicating that the relationship dimension has a significant negative influence on affective commitment, that is, the higher the degree of psychological contract violation in relational dimension, the lower the affective commitment, so H2b is supported.
The standardized path coefficient from relational dimension to continuous commitment (CC<--RE) is -0.227 (T = -2.062, P<0.05), indicating that relational dimension has a significant negative influence on continuous commitment, that is, the higher the degree of psychological contract violation in relational dimension, the lower the continuous commitment, so H2c is supported.
The standardized path coefficient from relational dimension to normative commitment (NC<--RE) is -0.420 (T = -4.645, P<0.05), indicating that relational dimension has a significant negative influence on normative commitment, that is, the higher the degree of psychological contract violation of relational dimension, the lower the normative commitment, so H2d is supported.
The standardized path coefficient from the transaction dimension to affective commitment (AC<--TR) is -0.296 (T = -2.597, P<0.05), indicating that the transaction dimension has a significant negative impact on affective commitment, that is, the higher the degree of psychological contract violation in the transaction dimension, the lower the affective commitment, so H3b is supported.
The standardized path coefficient from transaction dimension to continuous commitment (CC<--TR) is -0.252 (T = -2.767, P<0.05), indicating that the transaction dimension has a significant negative impact on continuous commitment, that is, the higher the degree of psychological contract violation in the transaction dimension, the lower the continuous commitment, so H3c is supported.
The standardized path coefficient from transaction dimension to the normative commitment (NC<--TR) was -0.283 (T = -2.983, P<0.05), indicating transaction dimensions have significant negative influence on normative commitment,
namely transaction dimension has a significant negative influence on normative commitment, namely transaction dimension, the higher the degree of psychological contract violation normative commitment is lower, so H3d is support.
The standardized path coefficient from affective commitment to organization-oriented counterproductive work behavior (OCWB<--AC) was -0.182 (T
= -3.169, P<0.05), indicating that affective commitment had a significant negative influence on organization-oriented counterproductive behavior, that is, the lower the affective commitment, the more organization-oriented counterproductive behavior, so H4a is supported.
The standardized path coefficient from continuous commitment to organization-oriented counterproductive behavior (OCWB<---CC) was -0.109 (T = - 2.205, P = 0.052>0.05), indicating that continuous commitment had no significant effect on organization-oriented counterproductive behavior, so H5a was not supported.
The standardized path coefficient between normative commitment and organization-oriented counterproductive work behavior (OCWB<--NC) was -0.132 (T
= -2.249, P<0.05), indicating that normative commitment had a significant negative influence on organizational counterproductive behavior, that is, the lower the affective commitment, the more organizational counterproductive behavior, so H6a is supported.
The standardized path coefficient from affective commitment to interpersonal oriented counterproductive behavior (ICWB<--AC) was -0.262 (T = - 3.913, P<0.05), indicating that affective has a significant negative influence on interpersonal, that is, the lower the affective commitment is, the more interpersonal oriented counterproductive behavior is, so H4b is supported.
The standardized path coefficient from continuous commitment to interpersonal-oriented counterproductive work behavior (ICWB<--CC) was -0.092 (T
= -1.616, P = 0.106>0.05), indicating that continuous commitment had no significant effect on interpersonal oriented counterproductive behavior, so H5b is not supported.
The standardized path coefficient from normative commitment to interpersonal-oriented counterproductive work behavior (ICWB<--NC) was -0.224 (T
= -3.292, P<0.05), indicating that normative commitment had a significant negative influence on interpersonal-oriented counterproductive work behavior, that is, the lower the normative commitment, the more interpersonal-oriented counterproductive work behavior, so H6b is supported.
3) Intermediate effect analysis Table 4.26 Mediation Effect Test
Parameter Estimate (Sta.) Lower Upper P
DE-AC-OCWB 0.005 -0.030 0.047 0.721
RE-AC-OCWB 0.072 0.019 0.161 0.007
TR-AC-OCWB 0.052 0.008 0.127 0.020
DE-AC-ICWB 0.007 -0.044 0.063 0.753
RE-AC-ICWB 0.103 0.037 0.217 0.002
TR-AC-ICWB 0.074 0.014 0.176 0.017
DE-CC-OCWB 0.013 -0.005 0.063 0.166
RE-CC-OCWB -0.025 -0.082 0.000 0.046
TR-CC-OCWB -0.032 -0.095 0.000 0.049
DE-CC-ICWB 0.011 -0.006 0.062 0.203
RE-CC-ICWB -0.021 -0.076 0.003 0.096
TR-CC-ICWB -0.027 -0.097 0.006 0.110
DE-NC-OCWB 0.009 -0.011 0.052 0.327
RE-NC-OCWB 0.055 0.008 0.125 0.020
TR-NC-OCWB 0.033 0.003 0.100 0.027
DE-NC-ICWB 0.015 -0.020 0.078 0.361
RE-NC-ICWB 0.094 0.030 0.196 0.003
TR-NC-ICWB 0.057 0.010 0.145 0.018
In this study, the mediation effect test was performed by bootstrap method with 5000 repetitions of samples, and 95% of confidence interval were calculated, from the results of the above table, we know that 18 mediation paths, the upper and lower intervals of the mediation path do not contain 0, and the P<0.05, so the hypothesis holds, and the mediation effect holds. The upper and lower interval of the mediation path contains 0, and the P>0.05, so the hypothesis does not supported and the mediation effect does not exist.
Based on Table 4.26 data analysis.
Both the upper and lower intervals of DE-AC-OCWB mediating path contain 0, and the P>0.05, so H7 is not supported and the mediating effect is not established.
The upper and lower intervals of RE-AC-OCWB mediating path do not contain 0, and the P<0.05, so H8 is supported and the mediating effect is established.
The upper and lower intervals of TR-AC-OCWB mediating path did not contain 0, and the P<0.05, so H9 is supported and the mediating effect is established.
Both the upper and lower intervals of DE-AC-ICWB mediating path contain 0, and the P>0.05, so H10 is not supported and the mediating effect is not established.
The upper and lower intervals of RE-AC-ICWB mediating path do not contain 0, and the P<0.05, so H11 is supported and the mediating effect is established.
The upper and lower intervals of TR-AC-ICWB mediating path did not contain 0, and the P<0.05, so H12 is supported and the mediating effect is established.
Both the upper and lower intervals of DE-CC-OCWB mediating path contain 0, and the P>0.05, so H13 is not supported and the mediating effect is not established.
The upper and lower intervals of RE-CC-OCWB mediating path do not contain 0, and the P<0.05, so H14 is supported and the mediating effect is established.
The upper and lower intervals of TR-CC-OCWB mediating path did not contain 0, and the P<0.05, so H15 was supported and the mediating effect is established.
Both the upper and lower intervals of DE-CC-ICWB mediating path contain 0, and the P>0.05, so H16 is not supported and the mediating effect is not established.
Both the upper and lower intervals of RE-CC-ICWB mediating path contain 0, and the P>0.05, so H17 is not supported and the mediating effect is not established.
Both the upper and lower intervals of TR-CC-ICWB mediating path contain 0, and the P>0.05, so H18 is not supported and the mediating effect is not established.
Both the upper and lower intervals of DE-NC-OCWB mediating path contain 0, and the P>0.05, so H19 is not supported and the mediating effect is not established.
The upper and lower intervals of RE-NC-OCWB mediating path do not contain 0, and the P<0.05, so H20 is supported and the mediating effect is established.
The upper and lower intervals of TR-NC-OCWB mediating path did not contain 0, and the P<0.05, so H21 is supported and the mediating effect is established.
Both the upper and lower intervals of DE-NC-ICWB mediating path contain 0, and the P>0.05, so H22 is not supported and the mediating effect is not established.
The upper and lower intervals of RE-NC-ICWB mediating path did not contain 0, and the P<0.05, so H23 is supported and the mediating effect is established.
The upper and lower intervals of TR-NC-ICWB mediating path did not contain 0, and the P<0.05, so H24 is supported and the mediating effect is established.