| Literature DB >> 30567411 |
Seunghee Im1, Yang Woon Chung2, Ji Yeon Yang3.
Abstract
This study investigated the mediating effects of happiness and cohesion in the relationship between employee volunteerism, in-role behavior, and helping behavior. The study surveyed 312 full-time employees in South Korea, and regression analyses and the bootstrapping method were used to test the hypotheses. The study found happiness and cohesion to mediate the relationships between employee volunteerism and in-role and helping behavior. The findings suggest that employee volunteerism can promote a healthy working environment through increased feelings of happiness and cohesion as well as by improving performance behaviors.Entities:
Keywords: cohesion; employee volunteerism; happiness; helping behavior; in-role behavior
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30567411 PMCID: PMC6313706 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15122903
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations.
| Variable | Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Gender | 1.468 | 0.500 | ||||||||||
| 2. Education | 2.625 | 0.880 | −0.483 ** | |||||||||
| 3. Age | 34.048 | 8.146 | −0.432 ** | 0.270 ** | ||||||||
| 4. Position | 1.933 | 1.134 | −0.381 ** | 0.291 ** | 0.644 ** | |||||||
| 5. Tenure | 8.961 | 7.434 | −0.097 | −0.076 | 0.818 ** | 0.517 ** | ||||||
| 6. PA | 5.096 | 1.033 | −0.129 * | 0.122 * | 0.088 | 0.125 * | 0.055 | |||||
| 7. EV | 5.141 | 1.139 | −0.005 | 0.012 | 0.068 | 0.022 | 0.064 | 0.426 ** | ||||
| 8. Happiness | 5.385 | 1.065 | −0.210 ** | 0.083 | 0.200 ** | 0.181 ** | 0.149 ** | 0.606 ** | 0.398 ** | |||
| 9. Cohesion | 5.267 | 1.049 | −0.228 ** | 0.097 | 0.157 ** | 0.207 ** | 0.133 * | 0.595 ** | 0.369 ** | 0.654 ** | ||
| 10. IRB | 5.444 | 0.900 | −0.193 ** | 0.158 ** | 0.246 ** | 0.199 ** | 0.182 ** | 0.524 ** | 0.302 ** | 0.521 ** | 0.580 ** | |
| 11. HB | 5.395 | 0.928 | −0.169 ** | 0.069 | 0.172 ** | 0.194 ** | 0.127 * | 0.605 ** | 0.429 ** | 0.639 ** | 0.752 ** | 0.616 ** |
PA: positive affect; EV: employee volunteerism; IRB: in-role behavior; HB: helping behavior; * p <0.05, ** p <0.01.
Fit statistics for measurement models.
| Models | χ2 | df | NFI | TLI | CFI | RMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| One-factor model | 2660.363 | 181 | 0.628 | 0.586 | 0.643 | 0.210 |
| Two-factor model a | 1962.522 | 180 | 0.726 | 0.701 | 0.744 | 0.178 |
| Three-factor model b | 1396.984 | 178 | 0.805 | 0.793 | 0.825 | 0.148 |
| Four-factor model c | 855.115 | 175 | 0.881 | 0.883 | 0.902 | 0.112 |
| Five-factor model d | 343.276 | 171 | 0.952 | 0.970 | 0.975 | 0.057 |
Notes: a = all constructs combined into one factor; b = In-role behavior, helping behavior, happiness; and cohesion combined into one factor; c = In-role behavior and helping behavior combined into one factor, happiness and cohesion combined into one factor; d = In-role behavior and helping behavior combined into one factor. df = degree of freedom; NFI = normal fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
Results of model comparisons.
| Models | χ2 | df | NFI | TLI | CFI | RMSEA | ∆χ2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | 343.276 | 171 | 0.952 | 0.970 | 0.975 | 0.057 | - |
| Model 2 | 404.168 | 176 | 0.944 | 0.961 | 0.967 | 0.065 | 60.892 |
| Model 3 | 414.747 | 177 | 0.942 | 0.959 | 0.966 | 0.066 | 71.471 |
| Model 4 | 404.774 | 177 | 0.943 | 0.961 | 0.967 | 0.064 | 61.498 |
Notes: Hypothesized model 1(hypothesized full mediation model); Alternative model 2 (partial mediation model); Alternative model 3 (volunteering → in-role behavior included); Alternative model 4 (volunteering → helping behavior included). The Chi-squared differences from Model 1. df = degree of freedom; NFI = normal fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
Figure 1Estimates of the structural mediation model.
Multiple mediators regression analysis.
| Variables | Happiness | Cohesion | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | SE | Coefficient | SE | |
| Volunteering | 0.156 ** | 0.047 | 0.149 ** | 0.047 |
| In-role behavior | Helping behavior | |||
| Coefficient | SE | Coefficient | SE | |
| Volunteering | 0.021 | 0.040 | 0.094 ** | 0.033 |
| Happiness | 0.121 * | 0.054 | 0.138 ** | 0.044 |
| Cohesion | 0.289 *** | 0.054 | 0.444 *** | 0.044 |
| R2 = 0.433 | R2 = 0.633 | |||
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. SE = standard error.
Indirect effects of volunteering on in-role behavior.
| Indirect Effects of Volunteering on In-Role Behavior | Bootstrapping | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Point Estimate | SE | Lower | Upper | |
|
| ||||
| Happiness | 0.019 | 0.024 | 0.019 | 0.113 |
| Cohesion | 0.043 | 0.019 | 0.010 | 0.086 |
| Total | 0.062 | 0.024 | 0.019 | 0.113 |
Notes: CI = confidence interval; Bias-corrected bootstrapping results: 5000 bootstrap samples. SE = standard error.
Indirect effects of volunteering on helping behavior.
| Indirect Effects of Volunteering on Helping Behavior | Bootstrapping | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Point Estimate | SE | Lower | Upper | |
|
| ||||
| Happiness | 0.021 | 0.012 | 0.002 | 0.049 |
| Cohesion | 0.066 | 0.028 | 0.015 | 0.124 |
| Total | 0.088 | 0.033 | 0.024 | 0.156 |
Notes: CI = confidence interval; Bias-corrected bootstrapping results: 5000 bootstrap samples. SE = standard error.