Figure 1
Conceptual Model of the Proposed Moderated Mediation.
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Internal Consistencies for all Variables.
| MALES | FEMALES | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | |||||||||||||||||
| 1 | Abusive Superv. (T1) | 1.31 | 0.85 | 1.30 | 0.71 | (.92) | ||||||||||||||
| 2 | Abusive Superv. (T2) | 1.38 | 0.92 | 1.32 | 0.72 | .57** | (.91) | |||||||||||||
| 3 | Self-Efficacy (T1) | 5.14 | 0.84 | 5.01 | 0.85 | –.10** | –.07* | (.79) | ||||||||||||
| 4 | Self-Efficacy (T2) | 5.21 | 0.91 | 5.05 | 0.86 | –.09** | –.14** | .70** | (.82) | |||||||||||
| 5 | Work Eng. (T1) | 3.21 | 1.21 | 3.38 | 1.20 | –.19** | –.21** | .43** | .40** | (.92) | ||||||||||
| 6 | Work Eng. (T2) | 3.03 | 1.30 | 3.28 | 1.24 | –.15** | –.21** | .38** | .48** | .81** | (.94) | |||||||||
| 7 | Depress. Symp. (T1) | 0.95 | 0.83 | 1.06 | 0.81 | .20** | .18** | –.40** | –.38** | –.41** | –.37** | (.92) | ||||||||
| 8 | Depress. Symp. (T2) | 1.02 | 0.88 | 1.06 | 0.80 | .15** | .26** | –.36** | –.45** | –.37** | –.44** | .65** | (.91) | |||||||
| 9 | Gender Subordinatea | – | – | – | – | .01 | .03 | .07* | .08* | –.06 | –.08* | –.06 | –.02 | – | ||||||
| 10 | Gender Leadera | – | – | – | – | –.03 | .02 | .07* | .05 | –.04 | –.03 | –.02 | –.02 | .09** | – | |||||
| 11 | Age (T1) | 39.86 | 10.77 | 40.54 | 9.93 | –.00 | –.03 | .05 | .08* | .04 | .07* | .01 | –.04 | –.14** | .05 | – | ||||
| 12 | Sectorb | – | – | – | – | .07* | .02 | –.18 | –.15** | –.08* | –.07* | .16** | .14** | .03 | –.11** | –.12** | – | |||
| 13 | Tenure with leader | 3.86 | 3.42 | 4.58 | 4–52 | .01 | .00 | .00 | .02 | .02 | .03 | –.03 | –.01 | –.07* | –.02 | .26** | –.13** | – | ||
| 14 | Paper-Pencil | – | – | – | – | .08* | .07 | –.15** | –.13** | –.22** | –.24** | .09** | .09** | –.00 | .10** | .04 | .47** | .01 | – | |
[i] Note: N = 866–928, a female = 0 and male = 1. b public = 0 and private = 1. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table 2
Measurement Invariance Between Men and Women and T1/T2 measures.
| χ2 | DF | Δχ2 | ΔDF | TLI | CFI | ΔCFI | RMSEA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abusive Supervision | |||||||||
| T1 (Men <> Women) | Unconstrained | 34.44 | 14 | .919 | .943 | .06 | |||
| Measurement weights | 36.71 | 19 | 7.91 | 5 | .948 | .951 | .008 | .05 | |
| T2 (Men <> Women) | Unconstrained | 32.14 | 14 | .945 | .962 | .05 | |||
| Measurement weights | 34.99 | 19 | 4.96 | 5 | .965 | .966 | .004 | .04 | |
| T1 <> T2 | Unconstrained | 135.15 | 34 | .878 | .907 | .06 | |||
| Measurement weights | 134.89 | 39 | 3.89 | 5 | .899 | .912 | .005 | .05 | |
| Occupational Self-efficacy | |||||||||
| T1 (Men <> Women) | Unconstrained | 41.35 | 23 | .964 | .973 | .04 | |||
| Measurement weights | 44.94 | 29 | 3.03 | 6 | .975 | .976 | .003 | .05 | |
| T2 (Men <> Women) | Unconstrained | 48.93 | 23 | .971 | .977 | .05 | |||
| Measurement weights | 53.42 | 29 | 4.37 | 6 | .978 | .979 | .002 | .04 | |
| T1 <> T2 | Unconstrained | 402.75 | 53 | .839 | .871 | .09 | |||
| Measurement weights | 417.57 | 59 | 10.11 | 6 | .852 | .867 | .004 | .09 | |
| Work Engagement | |||||||||
| T1 (Men <> Women) | Unconstrained | 161.88 | 23 | .922 | .940 | .12 | |||
| Measurement weights | 165.08 | 29 | 2.96 | 6 | .939 | .941 | .001 | .10 | |
| T2 (Men <> Women) | Unconstrained | 137.50 | 23 | .954 | .965 | .11 | |||
| Measurement weights | 146.69 | 29 | 4.39 | 6 | .963 | .964 | .001 | .10 | |
| T1 <> T2 | Unconstrained | 644.82 | 53 | .885 | .908 | .12 | |||
| Measurement weights | 664.04 | 59 | 8.97 | 6 | .895 | .906 | .002 | .11 | |
| Depressive Symptoms | |||||||||
| T1 (Men <> Women) | Unconstrained | 195.83 | 79 | .935 | .943 | .06 | |||
| Measurement weights | 202.70 | 89 | 14.24 | 10 | .944 | .945 | .002 | .05 | |
| T2 (Men <> Women) | Unconstrained | 188.49 | 79 | .929 | .938 | .06 | |||
| Measurement weights | 200.77 | 89 | 20.73* | 10 | .936 | .936 | .002 | .05 | |
| T1 <> T2 | Unconstrained | 716.55 | 169 | .865 | .880 | .06 | |||
| Measurement weights | 718.25 | 179 | 5.75 | 10 | .875 | .882 | .002 | .06 |
[i] Note: TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index, CFI = Comparative Fit Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Estimation. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Table 3
Results of Indirect and Conditional Indirect Effects of the SEM Model.
| EFFECTS | INDIRECT EFFECTS MODEL H1A/H1B | CONDITIONAL INDIRECT EFFECTS MODEL H2A/H2B |
|---|---|---|
| Paths related to hypotheses | ||
| a-path: ΔAS → ΔOS | –.11(.05)* | –.14(.05)* |
| b-path1: ΔOS → ΔWE | .43(.07)** | .42(.07)** |
| b-path2: ΔOS → ΔDS | –.34(.07)** | –.33(.07)** |
| Interaction ΔAS (T1) x Sex → ΔOS | x | .11(.11) |
| Direct effects | ||
| ΔAS → ΔWE | –.06(.05) | –.07(.05) |
| ΔAS → ΔDS | .19(.06)** | .20(.06)** |
| Indirect effects | ||
| On Work Engagement [CI95%] | –.05(.02)* [–.09; –.00] | –.06(.03)* [–.11; –.01] |
| On Depressive Symptoms [CI95%] | .04(.02)+ [–.00; .08] | .05(.02)* [.00; .09] |
| Total effects | ||
| On Work Engagement [CI95%] | –.11(.04)* [–.20; –.03] | –.12(.05)** [–.21; –.03] |
| On Depressive Symptoms [CI95%] | .23(.06)** [.11; .35] | .24(.06)** [.12; .37] |
[i] Note: AS = Abusive Supervision, OS = Occupational Self-Efficacy, WE = Work Engagement, DE = Depressive Symptoms, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, + p < 0.10, all analyses included the following control variables: sex of supervisor, sector (private vs. public), paper-pencil vs. online, age, tenure with leader. We also ran the models excluding the control variables, and the core results were the same.