Table 3 Results of regression analyses...

Table 3

Results of regression analyses including indirect and moderating effects

Paths and models	B	SE	95% CI
Hypothesis 1 (PROCESS Model 1, simple moderation)
POS* P–J fit → work engagement	0.13^**	0.05	[0.04, 0.22]
Low P–J fit (16th percentile)	0.01	0.04	[−0.03, 0.08]
Moderate P–J fit (50th percentile)	0.12	0.05	[0.02, 0.23]
High P–J fit (84th percentile)	0.17^**	0.06	[0.05, 0.29]
Hypothesis 2a (PROCESS Model 4, mediation)
Indirect effect (a.b): POS → Work engagement → Job satisfaction	0.10	0.02	[0.05, 0.15]
Hypothesis 2b (PROCESS Model 4, mediation)
Indirect effect (a.b): POS → Work engagement → Burnout	−0.05	0.01	[−0.08, −0.02]
Hypothesis 2c (PROCESS Model 4, mediation)
Indirect effect (a.b): POS → Work engagement → Task performance	0.09	0.03	[0.04, 0.14]
Hypotheses 3a, b, and c (PROCESS Model 7, moderated mediation)
Index of moderated mediation (POS* P–J fit → work engagement → Job satisfaction)	0.06	0.03	[0.01, 0.11]
Low P–J fit (16th percentile)	0.01	0.03	[−0.06, 0.06]
Moderate P–J fit (50th percentile)	0.05	0.02	[0.01, 0.10]
High P–J fit (84th percentile)	0.07	0.02	[0.03, 0.13]
Index of moderated mediation (POS* P–J fit → work engagement → Burnout)	0.03	0.01	[−0.05, −0.01]
Low P–J fit (16th percentile)	−0.01	0.02	[−0.04, 0.03]
Moderate P–J fit (50th percentile)	−0.03	0.01	[−0.05, −0.01]
High P–J fit (84th percentile)	−0.04	0.01	[−0.07, −0.01]
Index of moderated mediation (POS* P–J fit → work engagement → Task performance)	0.05	0.02	[0.01, 0.10]
Low P–J fit (16th percentile)	0.01	0.03	[−0.05, 0.06]
Moderate P–J fit (50th percentile)	0.05	0.02	[0.01, 0.09]
High P–J fit (84th percentile)	0.06	0.03	[0.02, 0.11]

Paths and models	B	SE	95% CI
Hypothesis 1 (PROCESS Model 1, simple moderation)
POS* P–J fit → work engagement	0.13^**	0.05	[0.04, 0.22]
Low P–J fit (16th percentile)	0.01	0.04	[−0.03, 0.08]
Moderate P–J fit (50th percentile)	0.12	0.05	[0.02, 0.23]
High P–J fit (84th percentile)	0.17^**	0.06	[0.05, 0.29]
Hypothesis 2a (PROCESS Model 4, mediation)
Indirect effect (a.b): POS → Work engagement → Job satisfaction	0.10	0.02	[0.05, 0.15]
Hypothesis 2b (PROCESS Model 4, mediation)
Indirect effect (a.b): POS → Work engagement → Burnout	−0.05	0.01	[−0.08, −0.02]
Hypothesis 2c (PROCESS Model 4, mediation)
Indirect effect (a.b): POS → Work engagement → Task performance	0.09	0.03	[0.04, 0.14]
Hypotheses 3a, b, and c (PROCESS Model 7, moderated mediation)
Index of moderated mediation (POS* P–J fit → work engagement → Job satisfaction)	0.06	0.03	[0.01, 0.11]
Low P–J fit (16th percentile)	0.01	0.03	[−0.06, 0.06]
Moderate P–J fit (50th percentile)	0.05	0.02	[0.01, 0.10]
High P–J fit (84th percentile)	0.07	0.02	[0.03, 0.13]
Index of moderated mediation (POS* P–J fit → work engagement → Burnout)	0.03	0.01	[−0.05, −0.01]
Low P–J fit (16th percentile)	−0.01	0.02	[−0.04, 0.03]
Moderate P–J fit (50th percentile)	−0.03	0.01	[−0.05, −0.01]
High P–J fit (84th percentile)	−0.04	0.01	[−0.07, −0.01]
Index of moderated mediation (POS* P–J fit → work engagement → Task performance)	0.05	0.02	[0.01, 0.10]
Low P–J fit (16th percentile)	0.01	0.03	[−0.05, 0.06]
Moderate P–J fit (50th percentile)	0.05	0.02	[0.01, 0.09]
High P–J fit (84th percentile)	0.06	0.03	[0.02, 0.11]

Note(s): *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. B = Unstandardized regression coefficient. CI = Lower-level and higher-level confidence interval. SE = Standard error. SD = Standard deviation. POS = Perceived organizational support. P–J fit = Person–job fit

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable