Table 2 Moderation analysis predicting...

Table 2

Moderation analysis predicting bullying behaviours at T2

Variables (T1)	b	SE b	95% CI	β	t
Challenge stressors (ChaS)	0.001	0.008	[-0.014, 0.017]	0.006	0.18	p = 0.854
ChaS × ChaS	0.013	0.005	[0.003, 0.028]	0.080	2.77	p = 0.006
Hindrance stressors (HinS)	0.090	0.008	[0.075, 0.104]	0.361	11.97	p < 0.001
ChaS × HinS	0.014	0.007	[0.000, 0.028]	0.074	1.98	p = 0.048
ChaS × ChaS × HinS	0.008	0.003	[0.001, 0.015]	0.102	2.30	p = 0.021
Sex	0.034	0.011	[0.012, 0.056]	0.057	3.02	p = 0.003
Age	−0.001	0.001	[-0.002, 0.000]	−0.033	−1.58	p = 0.114
Managerial position	−0.037	0.014	[-0.066, −0.009]	0.046	−2.57	p = 0.010

Variables (T1)	b	SE b	95% CI	β	t
Challenge stressors (ChaS)	0.001	0.008	[-0.014, 0.017]	0.006	0.18	p = 0.854
ChaS × ChaS	0.013	0.005	[0.003, 0.028]	0.080	2.77	p = 0.006
Hindrance stressors (HinS)	0.090	0.008	[0.075, 0.104]	0.361	11.97	p < 0.001
ChaS × HinS	0.014	0.007	[0.000, 0.028]	0.074	1.98	p = 0.048
ChaS × ChaS × HinS	0.008	0.003	[0.001, 0.015]	0.102	2.30	p = 0.021
Sex	0.034	0.011	[0.012, 0.056]	0.057	3.02	p = 0.003
Age	−0.001	0.001	[-0.002, 0.000]	−0.033	−1.58	p = 0.114
Managerial position	−0.037	0.014	[-0.066, −0.009]	0.046	−2.57	p = 0.010

Note(s): Unstandardised coefficients (b) are based on mean-centred predictors. Standardised coefficients (β) represent SD-standardised effects computed using Stata’s beta option. Reported standard errors are Huber–White robust. The overall model was significant, F(8, 2002) = 47.50, p < 0.001, R² = 0.240. Values in brackets represent 95% confidence intervals for b. Bullying behaviours were measured using mean NAQ–R scores (M = 1.24, SD = 0.33)

Source(s): Author’s own work

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable