| Literature DB >> 36231458 |
Dan Zhou1, Sibo Yang2, Xue Li3.
Abstract
We explore the causal effects of Internet use on job satisfaction using a sample of 83,012 Chinese labor force members aged 16-64 years from the China Family Panel Studies (CFPS) from 2010 to 2018. We use ordered logistic estimation and find that Internet use significantly increases job satisfaction by 3.2%. Heterogeneity analysis shows that the Internet has a more positive impact on those who are in urban areas and have higher incomes and higher education. Our results are robust after eliminating endogeneity using instrumental variables and solving the self-selection problem using the PSM method. Our mechanistic analysis leads to similar conclusions to mainstream research, where Internet use induces job satisfaction by increasing time efficiency and enhancing job autonomy. Specifically, shorter working hours boosted job satisfaction by approximately 0.3%, while working in informal places boosted job satisfaction by 5.4%. Thus, employers may consider encouraging employees to access the Internet.Entities:
Keywords: China; Internet use; job satisfaction; time efficiency; urban and rural labor force; work autonomy
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36231458 PMCID: PMC9566043 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912157
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Logical Framework Diagram.
Descriptive Statistics.
| Variable | Mean | Standard Deviation | Minimum | Maximum Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Job Satisfaction | 3.489 | 0.900 | 1 | 5 |
| Internet Use (Yes = 1) | 0.364 | 0.481 | 0 | 1 |
| Age | 45.004 | 17.423 | 9 | 64 |
| Urban (yes = 1) | 0.271 | 0.444 | 0 | 1 |
| Male (Yes = 1) | 0.496 | 0.500 | 0 | 1 |
| Marriage (Yes = 1) | 0.775 | 0.418 | 0 | 1 |
| Years of Education | 7.265 | 4.880 | 0 | 23 |
| State of Health | 3.790 | 1.286 | 1 | 5 |
| Popularity at Work | 3.934 | 0.307 | 1 | 4 |
|
| ||||
| Household Income | 10.554 | 1.051 | 0 | 15.936 |
| Family Size | 4.330 | 1.970 | 1 | 26 |
| Family Property (Yes = 1) | 0.178 | 0.383 | 0 | 1 |
| Number of Children in the Family | 1.252 | 1.083 | 0 | 10 |
|
| ||||
| Work Efficiency | 37.423 | 25.314 | 0.1 | 168 |
| Autonomy | 0.345 | 0.475 | 0 | 1 |
Note: This article is abbreviated at the 1% level, as in the following tables.
Ordered Logit Estimates of Internet Use and Job Satisfaction.
| Dep = Job Satisfaction | Full Sample | Full Sample | Full Sample |
|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | |
| Internet Use | 0.193 *** | 0.194 *** | 0.032 *** |
| Age | −0.004 * | ||
| Age Squared | 0.0002 *** | ||
| Gender | −0.044 *** | ||
| Marital Status | 0.008 | ||
| Years of Education | −0.001 | ||
| State of Health | −0.103 *** | ||
| Popularity | 0.047 ** | ||
| Household Income | 0.040 *** | ||
| Family Size | −0.013 *** | ||
| Family Property | 0.030 *** | ||
| Number of Children in the Family | −0.020 *** | ||
| Individual Fixed Effects | No | Yes | Yes |
| County-Year Fixed Effect | No | No | Yes |
| Number of Samples | 83,012 | 83,012 | 83,012 |
| Pseudo R-Squared | 0.116 | 0.122 | 0.056 |
Note: *, **, and *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively. In parentheses are the robust standard errors adjusted for White’s heteroskedasticity.
Urban and Rural Heterogeneity.
| Dep = Job Satisfaction | Urban Worker | Rural Worker |
|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | |
| Internet Use | 0.116 ** | 0.042 |
| Control Variables | Yes | Yes |
| Individual Fixed Effects | Yes | Yes |
| County-Year Fixed Effect | Yes | Yes |
| Number of Samples | 37,399 | 45,613 |
| Pseudo R-Squared | 0.103 | 0.102 |
Note: ** indicate significance at the 5% level, respectively. In parentheses are the robust standard errors adjusted for White’s heteroskedasticity.
Income Status Heterogeneity.
| Dep = Job Satisfaction | Income Status | Income Status | Income Status | Income Status | Income Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
| Internet Use | −0.167 ** | 0.041 ** | 0.045 ** | 0.093 ** | −0.076 |
| Control Variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Individual Fixed Effects | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| County-Year Fixed Effect | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Number of Samples | 7488 | 21,912 | 37,144 | 10,668 | 5800 |
| Pseudo R-Squared | 0.105 | 0.102 | 0.126 | 0.125 | 0.072 |
Note: ** indicate significance at the 5% level, respectively. In parentheses are the robust standard errors adjusted for White’s heteroskedasticity.
Educational Attainment Heterogeneity.
| Dep = Job Satisfaction | Elementary School and Below | Middle School | College and Above |
|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | |
| Internet Use | −0.043 | 0.018 | 0.191 * |
| Control Variables | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Individual Fixed Effects | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| County-Year Fixed Effect | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Number of Samples | 32,176 | 33,889 | 16,947 |
| Pseudo R-Squared | 0.131 | 0.124 | 0.121 |
Note: * indicate significance at the 10% level, respectively. In parentheses are the robust standard errors adjusted for White’s heteroskedasticity.
Internet Use and Job Satisfaction: Instrumental Variables.
| Dep = Job Satisfaction | OLS | Reduced Form | 2SLS Second Stage |
|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | |
| Internet Use | 0.032 *** | 2.611 ** | |
| First Stage: Internet Use | |||
| Length of Optical Cable | 0.156 *** | 0.061 *** | |
| F Value in the First Stage | 875.16 | ||
| Control Variables | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Individual Fixed Effects | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| County-Year Fixed Effect | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Number of Samples | 83,012 | 83,012 | 83,012 |
| Adj R-Squared | 0.056 | 0.155 | 0.486 |
Note: **, and *** indicate significance at the 5% and 1% levels, respectively. In parentheses are the robust standard errors adjusted for White’s heteroskedasticity.
Internet Use and Job Satisfaction: Propensity Score Matching Method.
| Matching Method | Outcome Variable | Treatment Group | Group | ATT | Standard Error | T Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full Sample | ||||||
| One-to-One Nearest Neighbor Matching | Internet Use | 3.394 | 3.358 | 0.036 | 0.027 | 2.31 |
| Radius Match | Internet Use | 3.394 | 3.347 | 0.047 | 0.024 | 2.04 |
| Urban Labor | ||||||
| One-to-One Nearest Neighbor Matching | Internet Use | 3.492 | 3.440 | 0.052 | 0.059 | 2.19 |
| Radius Match | Internet Use | 3.492 | 3.467 | 0.025 | 0.051 | 2.01 |
| Rural Labor | ||||||
| One-to-One Nearest Neighbor Matching | Internet Use | 3.347 | 3.346 | 0.001 | 0.131 | 2.05 |
| Radius Match | Internet Use | 3.347 | 3.332 | 0.016 | 0.103 | 2.32 |
Figure 2Standardized Deviation Plot for Yes Variables.
Figure 3Common Range of Values for Propensity Score Matching.
Figure 4Fit Plot of Propensity Score Before and After Matching.
Robustness Test: Only Retain a Sample of Respondents Who Participated in All Five Periods.
| Dep = Job Satisfaction | Full Sample | Urban Labor | Rural Labor | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O-Logit | 2SLS | O-Logit | 2SLS | O-Logit | 2SLS | |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
| Internet Use | 0.088 *** | 1.155 *** | 0.104 *** | 1.125 ** | 0.068 | 1.154 |
| Control Variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Individual Fixed Effects | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| County-Year Fixed Effect | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Number of Samples | 58,056 | 58,056 | 20,924 | 20,924 | 37,132 | 37,132 |
| R-Squared | 0.030 | 0.453 | 0.149 | 0.432 | 0.103 | 0.403 |
| Cragg–Donald Wald F | 80.781 *** | 16.578 *** | 46.680 *** | |||
Note: **, and *** indicate significance at the 5% and 1% levels, respectively. In parentheses are the robust standard errors adjusted for White’s heteroskedasticity.
Robustness Test: The Impact of Internet Use Importance on Job Satisfaction.
| Dep = Job Satisfaction | Full Sample | Urban Laborer | Rural Laborer | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O-Logit | 2SLS | O-Logit | 2SLS | O-Logit | 2SLS | |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
| Importance of Internet Use | 0.841 *** | 4.160 *** | 0.632 *** | 0.750 *** | 0.907 | 1.406 |
| Control Variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Individual Fixed Effects | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| County-Year Fixed Effect | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Number of Samples | 58,056 | 58,056 | 20,924 | 20,924 | 37,132 | 37,132 |
| R-Squared | 0.127 | 0.452 | 0.134 | 0.495 | 0.131 | 0.464 |
| Cragg–Donald Wald F | 17.368 *** | 91.880 *** | 40.354 *** | |||
Note: *** indicate significance at the 1% level, respectively. In parentheses are the robust standard errors adjusted for White’s heteroskedasticity.
Internet Use, Work Efficiency and Job satisfaction.
| Dep = | Job Satisfaction | Work Efficiency | Job Satisfaction |
|---|---|---|---|
| O-Logit | OLS | O-Logit | |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | |
| Internet Use | 0.032 *** | −0.124 *** | 0.079 *** |
| Work Efficiency | −0.003 *** | ||
| Control Variables | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Individual Fixed Effects | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| County-Year Fixed Effect | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Number of Samples | 83,012 | 83,012 | 83,012 |
| R-Squared | 0.056 | 0.124 | 0.126 |
Note: *** indicate significance at the 1% level, respectively. In parentheses are the robust standard errors adjusted for White’s heteroskedasticity.
Internet Use, Job Autonomy and Job Satisfaction.
| Dep = | Job Satisfaction | Autonomy | Job Satisfaction |
|---|---|---|---|
| O-Logit | OLS | O-Logit | |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | |
| Internet Use | 0.032 *** | 0.006 *** | 0.161 *** |
| Work Autonomy | 0.054 *** | ||
| Control Variables | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Individual Fixed Effects | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| County-Year Fixed Effect | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Number of Samples | 83,012 | 83,012 | 83,012 |
| R-Squared | 0.056 | 0.107 | 0.121 |
Note: *** indicate significance at the 1% level, respectively. In parentheses are the robust standard errors adjusted for White’s heteroskedasticity.