Acta Psychologica Sinica ›› 2024, Vol. 56 ›› Issue (5): 594-611.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00594
• Reports of Empirical Studies • Previous Articles Next Articles
YAN Yu, FENG Ming, ZHANG Yong()
Published:
2024-05-25
Online:
2024-03-06
Contact:
ZHANG Yong
E-mail:zhangyongxy@cqu.edu.cn
YAN Yu, FENG Ming, ZHANG Yong. (2024). “Buddha-like” mentality in workplace: The building of fundamental theory and the empirical test of its validity in Chinese context. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(5), 594-611.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://journal.psych.ac.cn/acps/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00594
Items | Friendly and not argumentative | Letting nature take its course | Unconcerned | Satisfied with the status quo | α after delete the item |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
fx35 I am approachable, not aggressive and easy to get along with in the eyes of my colleagues. | 0.98 | −0.07 | −0.22 | 0.08 | 0.929 |
fx34 I will not refuse the request of my colleagues, and I am a “good man” in the eyes of my colleagues. | 0.87 | 0.00 | 0.06 | −0.12 | 0.928 |
fx33 At work, I will avoid conflict and friction with people. | 0.69 | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.927 |
fx32 At work, I will compromise when I disagree with people’s views. | 0.53 | 0.22 | 0.15 | 0.01 | 0.926 |
fx31 At work, I do not argue with others about right and wrong, winning and losing. | 0.48 | 0.13 | 0.31 | 0.00 | 0.926 |
fx41 At work, I do not take the initiative to express my own ideas or make suggestions for my work | −0.11 | 0.90 | −0.12 | −0.04 | 0.931 |
fx42 For work arrangement, I usually wait for the leader to assign it. Even if I am good at it, I don’t take the initiative to strive for it. | 0.16 | 0.77 | −0.16 | 0.10 | 0.927 |
fx45 When I achieve my goals, I do not want to put in more energy to make things better. | 0.12 | 0.65 | −0.03 | 0.05 | 0.928 |
fx44 At work, I think it is good to do your best, and the result is not important. | 0.17 | 0.61 | −0.01 | 0.02 | 0.928 |
fx43 I will not take the initiative to participate in or compete for posts, awards and other opportunities. | −0.02 | 0.53 | 0.40 | 0.03 | 0.925 |
fx11 I do not care about a promotion or a raise | −0.14 | −0.22 | 0.97 | 0.08 | 0.930 |
fx13 I do what I want and don’t care what other people think of me. | −0.10 | 0.31 | 0.77 | −0.20 | 0.929 |
fx14 I don’t care about the gains and losses in the work, task allocation, performance allocation, etc. | 0.30 | −0.02 | 0.71 | −0.08 | 0.927 |
fx12 I do not care about the company’s incentive mechanism. | 0.05 | −0.26 | 0.69 | 0.34 | 0.928 |
fx21 I am comfortable in my present job and would not change it. | 0.13 | −0.17 | −0.04 | 0.90 | 0.928 |
fx24 At work, I am not ambitious and do not set high goals for myself. | −0.11 | 0.24 | 0.07 | 0.71 | 0.926 |
fx22 When dealing with a new working environment, I think we should take it as it comes. | 0.26 | 0.00 | −0.01 | 0.69 | 0.926 |
fx23 I have no plan for my future career development. | −0.28 | 0.35 | 0.08 | 0.67 | 0.928 |
Eigenvalue (unrotated) | 8.36 | 1.42 | 1.26 | 1.03 | |
Percentage of variance | 46.42 | 7.91 | 7.00 | 5.73 |
Table 1 Exploratory factor analysis results (N = 165)
Items | Friendly and not argumentative | Letting nature take its course | Unconcerned | Satisfied with the status quo | α after delete the item |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
fx35 I am approachable, not aggressive and easy to get along with in the eyes of my colleagues. | 0.98 | −0.07 | −0.22 | 0.08 | 0.929 |
fx34 I will not refuse the request of my colleagues, and I am a “good man” in the eyes of my colleagues. | 0.87 | 0.00 | 0.06 | −0.12 | 0.928 |
fx33 At work, I will avoid conflict and friction with people. | 0.69 | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.927 |
fx32 At work, I will compromise when I disagree with people’s views. | 0.53 | 0.22 | 0.15 | 0.01 | 0.926 |
fx31 At work, I do not argue with others about right and wrong, winning and losing. | 0.48 | 0.13 | 0.31 | 0.00 | 0.926 |
fx41 At work, I do not take the initiative to express my own ideas or make suggestions for my work | −0.11 | 0.90 | −0.12 | −0.04 | 0.931 |
fx42 For work arrangement, I usually wait for the leader to assign it. Even if I am good at it, I don’t take the initiative to strive for it. | 0.16 | 0.77 | −0.16 | 0.10 | 0.927 |
fx45 When I achieve my goals, I do not want to put in more energy to make things better. | 0.12 | 0.65 | −0.03 | 0.05 | 0.928 |
fx44 At work, I think it is good to do your best, and the result is not important. | 0.17 | 0.61 | −0.01 | 0.02 | 0.928 |
fx43 I will not take the initiative to participate in or compete for posts, awards and other opportunities. | −0.02 | 0.53 | 0.40 | 0.03 | 0.925 |
fx11 I do not care about a promotion or a raise | −0.14 | −0.22 | 0.97 | 0.08 | 0.930 |
fx13 I do what I want and don’t care what other people think of me. | −0.10 | 0.31 | 0.77 | −0.20 | 0.929 |
fx14 I don’t care about the gains and losses in the work, task allocation, performance allocation, etc. | 0.30 | −0.02 | 0.71 | −0.08 | 0.927 |
fx12 I do not care about the company’s incentive mechanism. | 0.05 | −0.26 | 0.69 | 0.34 | 0.928 |
fx21 I am comfortable in my present job and would not change it. | 0.13 | −0.17 | −0.04 | 0.90 | 0.928 |
fx24 At work, I am not ambitious and do not set high goals for myself. | −0.11 | 0.24 | 0.07 | 0.71 | 0.926 |
fx22 When dealing with a new working environment, I think we should take it as it comes. | 0.26 | 0.00 | −0.01 | 0.69 | 0.926 |
fx23 I have no plan for my future career development. | −0.28 | 0.35 | 0.08 | 0.67 | 0.928 |
Eigenvalue (unrotated) | 8.36 | 1.42 | 1.26 | 1.03 | |
Percentage of variance | 46.42 | 7.91 | 7.00 | 5.73 |
Model | χ2 | df | χ2/df | RMSEA | CFI | TLI | SRMR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Four-factor model | 467.38*** | 129 | 3.62 | 0.07 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.05 |
Three-factor model | 692.32*** | 132 | 5.24 | 0.09 | 0.89 | 0.87 | 0.06 |
Two-factor model | 1079.30*** | 134 | 8.05 | 0.12 | 0.81 | 0.79 | 0.08 |
Single factor model | 1318.60*** | 135 | 9.77 | 0.14 | 0.77 | 0.74 | 0.08 |
Second-order four-factor model | 469.50*** | 131 | 3.58 | 0.07 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.05 |
Table 2 Confirmatory factor analysis results of Buddha-like mentality (N = 478)
Model | χ2 | df | χ2/df | RMSEA | CFI | TLI | SRMR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Four-factor model | 467.38*** | 129 | 3.62 | 0.07 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.05 |
Three-factor model | 692.32*** | 132 | 5.24 | 0.09 | 0.89 | 0.87 | 0.06 |
Two-factor model | 1079.30*** | 134 | 8.05 | 0.12 | 0.81 | 0.79 | 0.08 |
Single factor model | 1318.60*** | 135 | 9.77 | 0.14 | 0.77 | 0.74 | 0.08 |
Second-order four-factor model | 469.50*** | 131 | 3.58 | 0.07 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.05 |
Variable | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Unconcerned | 2.82 | 1.31 | |||
2. Satisfied with the status quo | 3.63 | 1.29 | 0.58** | ||
3. Friendly and not argumentative | 4.10 | 1.24 | 0.55** | 0.59** | |
4. Letting nature take its course | 3.36 | 1.33 | 0.62** | 0.61** | 0.60** |
Table 3 Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of Buddha-like mentality (N = 478)
Variable | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Unconcerned | 2.82 | 1.31 | |||
2. Satisfied with the status quo | 3.63 | 1.29 | 0.58** | ||
3. Friendly and not argumentative | 4.10 | 1.24 | 0.55** | 0.59** | |
4. Letting nature take its course | 3.36 | 1.33 | 0.62** | 0.61** | 0.60** |
Variable | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Buddha-like mentality | 3.88 | 1.34 | ||||||
2. unconcerned | 3.68 | 1.55 | 0.83** | |||||
3. satisfied with the status quo | 3.66 | 1.65 | 0.84** | 0.62** | ||||
4. friendly and not argumentative | 4.44 | 1.46 | 0.85** | 0.62** | 0.61** | |||
5. letting nature take its course | 3.65 | 1.69 | 0.87** | 0.60** | 0.64** | 0.62** | ||
6. extraversion | 4.63 | 0.56 | −0.32** | −0.21** | −0.22** | −0.26** | −0.36** | |
7. agreeableness | 4.24 | 0.38 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.11 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.28** |
Table 4 Correlation analysis of Buddha-like mentality and its dimensions with extraversion and agreeableness (N = 290)
Variable | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Buddha-like mentality | 3.88 | 1.34 | ||||||
2. unconcerned | 3.68 | 1.55 | 0.83** | |||||
3. satisfied with the status quo | 3.66 | 1.65 | 0.84** | 0.62** | ||||
4. friendly and not argumentative | 4.44 | 1.46 | 0.85** | 0.62** | 0.61** | |||
5. letting nature take its course | 3.65 | 1.69 | 0.87** | 0.60** | 0.64** | 0.62** | ||
6. extraversion | 4.63 | 0.56 | −0.32** | −0.21** | −0.22** | −0.26** | −0.36** | |
7. agreeableness | 4.24 | 0.38 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.11 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.28** |
Model | χ2 | df | χ2/df | RMSEA | CFI | TLI | SRMR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Single factor model (F +T+C+W) | 2969.27*** | 152 | 19.54 | 0.22 | 0.46 | 0.39 | 0.20 |
Two-factor model (F、T+C+W) | 3385.33*** | 151 | 22.42 | 0.23 | 0.38 | 0.30 | 0.25 |
Three-factor model (F、T+C、W) | 1089.71*** | 149 | 7.31 | 0.13 | 0.82 | 0.79 | 0.07 |
Four-factor model (F、T、C、W) | 381.15*** | 146 | 2.61 | 0.06 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.04 |
Table 5 Confirmatory factor analysis of prediction validity study (N = 402)
Model | χ2 | df | χ2/df | RMSEA | CFI | TLI | SRMR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Single factor model (F +T+C+W) | 2969.27*** | 152 | 19.54 | 0.22 | 0.46 | 0.39 | 0.20 |
Two-factor model (F、T+C+W) | 3385.33*** | 151 | 22.42 | 0.23 | 0.38 | 0.30 | 0.25 |
Three-factor model (F、T+C、W) | 1089.71*** | 149 | 7.31 | 0.13 | 0.82 | 0.79 | 0.07 |
Four-factor model (F、T、C、W) | 381.15*** | 146 | 2.61 | 0.06 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.04 |
Variable | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Gender | 0.62 | 0.49 | ||||||||||||||||
2. Ages | 35.21 | 8.59 | −0.11* | |||||||||||||||
3. Education | 2.60 | 0.75 | 0.10* | −0.37** | ||||||||||||||
4. Tenure | 9.33 | 7.54 | −0.04 | 0.74** | −0.17** | |||||||||||||
5. Job levels | 1.31 | 0.58 | −0.09 | 0.18** | 0.06 | 0.26** | ||||||||||||
6. Enterprise type 1 | 0.31 | 0.46 | −0.09 | 0.09 | −0.36** | −0.10* | 0.08 | |||||||||||
7. Enterprise type 2 | 0.05 | 0.22 | −0.01 | −0.06 | 0.05 | −0.10* | 0.00 | −0.15** | ||||||||||
8. Industry type 1 | 0.18 | 0.39 | 0.05 | −0.02 | −0.11* | −0.26** | −0.02 | 0.21** | −0.11* | |||||||||
9. Industry type 2 | 0.14 | 0.35 | −0.01 | 0.07 | −0.12* | 0.08 | −0.01 | 0.62** | −0.09 | −0.19** | ||||||||
10. Industry type 3 | 0.04 | 0.20 | −0.14** | −0.09 | 0.01 | −0.10* | 0.15** | 0.24** | 0.12* | −0.10* | −0.09 | |||||||
11. Industry type 4 | 0.04 | 0.18 | −0.05 | −0.01 | −0.03 | −0.04 | −0.01 | −0.13* | 0.83** | −0.09 | −0.08 | −0.04 | ||||||
12. Industry type 5 | 0.04 | 0.18 | −0.05 | −0.08 | −0.03 | −0.15** | −0.08 | 0.20** | −0.04 | −0.09 | −0.08 | −0.04 | −0.04 | |||||
13. Industry type 6 | 0.10 | 0.29 | −0.10 | −0.15** | 0.20** | −0.15** | −0.05 | −0.16** | 0.04 | −0.15** | −0.13** | −0.07 | −0.06 | −0.06 | ||||
14. Buddha-like mentality | 3.75 | 0.93 | 0.03 | 0.20** | −0.21** | 0.17** | −0.07 | 0.08 | −0.12* | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.04 | −0.11* | −0.03 | −0.09 | |||
15. Job performance | 5.48 | 0.99 | 0.04 | 0.05 | −0.04 | 0.11* | 0.19** | 0.03 | 0.06 | −0.08 | 0.08 | −0.10* | 0.06 | −0.16** | −0.06 | −0.03 | ||
16. Creativity | 4.81 | 1.26 | −0.07 | 0.01 | −0.01 | 0.04 | 0.05 | −0.06 | 0.03 | −0.16** | 0.08 | −0.14** | 0.02 | −0.10* | 0.02 | −0.16** | 0.65** | |
17. Workplace well-being | 4.44 | 1.15 | −0.02 | 0.18** | −0.10 | 0.12* | 0.112* | 0.08 | −0.06 | 0.11* | −0.02 | −0.05 | −0.05 | 0.13** | −0.09 | 0.17** | −0.06 | −0.17** |
Table 6 Descriptive statistics and correlations of prediction validity study (N = 402)
Variable | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Gender | 0.62 | 0.49 | ||||||||||||||||
2. Ages | 35.21 | 8.59 | −0.11* | |||||||||||||||
3. Education | 2.60 | 0.75 | 0.10* | −0.37** | ||||||||||||||
4. Tenure | 9.33 | 7.54 | −0.04 | 0.74** | −0.17** | |||||||||||||
5. Job levels | 1.31 | 0.58 | −0.09 | 0.18** | 0.06 | 0.26** | ||||||||||||
6. Enterprise type 1 | 0.31 | 0.46 | −0.09 | 0.09 | −0.36** | −0.10* | 0.08 | |||||||||||
7. Enterprise type 2 | 0.05 | 0.22 | −0.01 | −0.06 | 0.05 | −0.10* | 0.00 | −0.15** | ||||||||||
8. Industry type 1 | 0.18 | 0.39 | 0.05 | −0.02 | −0.11* | −0.26** | −0.02 | 0.21** | −0.11* | |||||||||
9. Industry type 2 | 0.14 | 0.35 | −0.01 | 0.07 | −0.12* | 0.08 | −0.01 | 0.62** | −0.09 | −0.19** | ||||||||
10. Industry type 3 | 0.04 | 0.20 | −0.14** | −0.09 | 0.01 | −0.10* | 0.15** | 0.24** | 0.12* | −0.10* | −0.09 | |||||||
11. Industry type 4 | 0.04 | 0.18 | −0.05 | −0.01 | −0.03 | −0.04 | −0.01 | −0.13* | 0.83** | −0.09 | −0.08 | −0.04 | ||||||
12. Industry type 5 | 0.04 | 0.18 | −0.05 | −0.08 | −0.03 | −0.15** | −0.08 | 0.20** | −0.04 | −0.09 | −0.08 | −0.04 | −0.04 | |||||
13. Industry type 6 | 0.10 | 0.29 | −0.10 | −0.15** | 0.20** | −0.15** | −0.05 | −0.16** | 0.04 | −0.15** | −0.13** | −0.07 | −0.06 | −0.06 | ||||
14. Buddha-like mentality | 3.75 | 0.93 | 0.03 | 0.20** | −0.21** | 0.17** | −0.07 | 0.08 | −0.12* | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.04 | −0.11* | −0.03 | −0.09 | |||
15. Job performance | 5.48 | 0.99 | 0.04 | 0.05 | −0.04 | 0.11* | 0.19** | 0.03 | 0.06 | −0.08 | 0.08 | −0.10* | 0.06 | −0.16** | −0.06 | −0.03 | ||
16. Creativity | 4.81 | 1.26 | −0.07 | 0.01 | −0.01 | 0.04 | 0.05 | −0.06 | 0.03 | −0.16** | 0.08 | −0.14** | 0.02 | −0.10* | 0.02 | −0.16** | 0.65** | |
17. Workplace well-being | 4.44 | 1.15 | −0.02 | 0.18** | −0.10 | 0.12* | 0.112* | 0.08 | −0.06 | 0.11* | −0.02 | −0.05 | −0.05 | 0.13** | −0.09 | 0.17** | −0.06 | −0.17** |
Predictive variable | Job performance (T2) | Creativity (T2) | Workplace well-being (T2) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
b | SE | b | SE | b | SE | b | SE | b | SE | b | SE | |
Control variable | ||||||||||||
Gender | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.10 | −0.26 | 0.13 | −0.24 | 0.13 | 0.00 | 0.12 | −0.02 | 0.12 |
Ages | −0.01 | 0.01 | −0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
Education | 0.00 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.08 | −0.04 | 0.10 | −0.08 | 0.10 | −0.04 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.09 |
Tenure | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | −0.01 | 0.01 | −0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
Job levels | 0.32*** | 0.09 | 0.31*** | 0.09 | 0.17 | 0.11 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.19 | 0.10 | 0.22* | 0.10 |
Enterprise type 1 | 0.73** | 0.21 | 0.73** | 0.21 | 0.27 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.27 | 0.04 | 0.26 | 0.03 | 0.25 |
Enterprise type 2 | 0.98* | 0.43 | 0.97* | 0.43 | 0.90 | 0.55 | 0.87 | 0.55 | 0.33 | 0.51 | 0.36 | 0.50 |
Industry type 1 | −0.63*** | 0.17 | −0.63*** | 0.17 | −0.83*** | 0.22 | −0.82*** | 0.22 | 0.35 | 0.21 | 0.35 | 0.20 |
Industry type 2 | −0.63* | 0.25 | −0.63* | 0.25 | −0.26 | 0.32 | −0.27 | 0.32 | −0.06 | 0.30 | −0.05 | 0.30 |
Industry type 3 | −1.49*** | 0.32 | −1.48*** | 0.32 | −1.66*** | 0.41 | −1.59*** | 0.41 | −0.29 | 0.38 | −0.35 | 0.38 |
Industry type 4 | −0.78 | 0.50 | −0.78 | 0.50 | −1.06 | 0.65 | −1.13 | 0.64 | −0.56 | 0.60 | −0.49 | 0.59 |
Industry type 5 | −1.43*** | 0.31 | −1.44*** | 0.31 | −1.18** | 0.41 | −1.21** | 0.40 | 0.98** | 0.38 | 1.01** | 0.37 |
Industry type 6 | −0.41* | 0.18 | −0.41* | 0.18 | −0.30 | 0.24 | −0.32 | 0.23 | −0.13 | 0.22 | −0.12 | 0.22 |
Independent variable | ||||||||||||
Buddha-like mentality (T1) | −0.02 | 0.05 | −0.22** | 0.07 | 0.19** | 0.06 | ||||||
R | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.10 | ||||||
ΔR | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
Table 7 Regression analysis result of prediction validity study (N = 402)
Predictive variable | Job performance (T2) | Creativity (T2) | Workplace well-being (T2) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
b | SE | b | SE | b | SE | b | SE | b | SE | b | SE | |
Control variable | ||||||||||||
Gender | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.10 | −0.26 | 0.13 | −0.24 | 0.13 | 0.00 | 0.12 | −0.02 | 0.12 |
Ages | −0.01 | 0.01 | −0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
Education | 0.00 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.08 | −0.04 | 0.10 | −0.08 | 0.10 | −0.04 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.09 |
Tenure | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | −0.01 | 0.01 | −0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
Job levels | 0.32*** | 0.09 | 0.31*** | 0.09 | 0.17 | 0.11 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.19 | 0.10 | 0.22* | 0.10 |
Enterprise type 1 | 0.73** | 0.21 | 0.73** | 0.21 | 0.27 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.27 | 0.04 | 0.26 | 0.03 | 0.25 |
Enterprise type 2 | 0.98* | 0.43 | 0.97* | 0.43 | 0.90 | 0.55 | 0.87 | 0.55 | 0.33 | 0.51 | 0.36 | 0.50 |
Industry type 1 | −0.63*** | 0.17 | −0.63*** | 0.17 | −0.83*** | 0.22 | −0.82*** | 0.22 | 0.35 | 0.21 | 0.35 | 0.20 |
Industry type 2 | −0.63* | 0.25 | −0.63* | 0.25 | −0.26 | 0.32 | −0.27 | 0.32 | −0.06 | 0.30 | −0.05 | 0.30 |
Industry type 3 | −1.49*** | 0.32 | −1.48*** | 0.32 | −1.66*** | 0.41 | −1.59*** | 0.41 | −0.29 | 0.38 | −0.35 | 0.38 |
Industry type 4 | −0.78 | 0.50 | −0.78 | 0.50 | −1.06 | 0.65 | −1.13 | 0.64 | −0.56 | 0.60 | −0.49 | 0.59 |
Industry type 5 | −1.43*** | 0.31 | −1.44*** | 0.31 | −1.18** | 0.41 | −1.21** | 0.40 | 0.98** | 0.38 | 1.01** | 0.37 |
Industry type 6 | −0.41* | 0.18 | −0.41* | 0.18 | −0.30 | 0.24 | −0.32 | 0.23 | −0.13 | 0.22 | −0.12 | 0.22 |
Independent variable | ||||||||||||
Buddha-like mentality (T1) | −0.02 | 0.05 | −0.22** | 0.07 | 0.19** | 0.06 | ||||||
R | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.10 | ||||||
ΔR | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
[1] | WANG Yating, CHEN Zhijun, LI Rui, ZHOU Mingjian. Positive effects of leader perceived overqualification on team creativity [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2024, 56(3): 326-338. |
[2] | ZHANG Jianwei, ZHOU Yufan, LI Linying, LI Haihong, HUA Weijun. How to teach resourcefully? The mechanism of teacher dialectical feedback on team creativity of college students [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2023, 55(8): 1301-1316. |
[3] | XU Minya, LIU Beini, XU Zhenyu. Lost radiance: Negative influence of parental gender bias on women’s workplace performance [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2023, 55(7): 1148-1159. |
[4] | LI Liyuan, GAO Xiangyu, ZHENG Xiaoming. An examination of configural effects of employees’ proactive behavior: A process perspective [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2023, 55(5): 792-811. |
[5] | DONG Niannian, YIN Kui, XING Lu, SUN Xin, DONG Yanan. The effects of daily supervisor negative feedback on employee creativity [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2023, 55(5): 831-843. |
[6] | LI Xin, LIU Pei, LI Aimei, WANG Xiaotian, ZHANG Junwei. A multipath model of leader after-hours electronic communication expectations and employee job performance [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2022, 54(8): 964-978. |
[7] | CHENG Tong, CHENG Nanhua, WANG Meifang, WANG Zhengyan. Toddlers' anxiety predicts their creativity at the age of five: The chain mediation effects of general cognition and mastery motivation [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2022, 54(7): 799-812. |
[8] | ZHANG Ying, DUAN Jinyun, WANG Fuxi, QU Jinzhao, PENG Xiongliang. “Attraction of the like”: How does coworkers’ proactive behavior stimulate employees’ motivation and job performance? [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2022, 54(5): 516-528. |
[9] | WANG Dan, WANG Dianhui, CHEN Wenfeng. The relationship between adolescents’ resilience and their malevolent creative behaviors [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2022, 54(2): 154-167. |
[10] | CHENG Rui, LU Kelong, HAO Ning. The effect of anger on malevolent creativity and strategies for its emotion regulation [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2021, 53(8): 847-860. |
[11] | KE Xiaoxiao, QI Huizi, LIANG Jiahui, JIN Xinyuan, GAO Jie, ZHANG Mingxia, WANG Yamin. Situational assessment method of the Chinese people’s holistic thinking characteristics and their application [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2021, 53(12): 1299-1309. |
[12] | LI Qiaoling, ZHAO Junzhe, QIAO Shiqi, GUO Tengfei, WANG Minghui, ZHAO Guoxiang. Mechanisms of different purposes of social media usage on employees’ job performance [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2021, 53(11): 1260-1270. |
[13] | ZHANG Jinghuan, FU Mengmeng, XIN Yuwen, CHEN Peipei, SHA Sha. The development of creativity in senior primary school students: Gender differences and the role of school support [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(9): 1057-1070. |
[14] | HU Qiaoting,WANG Haijiang,LONG Lirong. Will newcomer job crafting bring positive outcomes? The role of leader-member exchange and traditionality [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(5): 659-668. |
[15] | Wei WEI,Yanran FANG,Jiannan LI,Junqi SHI,Shenjiang MO. The impact of conflict on performance: The moderating effects of individual and team agreeableness [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(3): 345-356. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||