Influence of perceived value of rural labour in China on the labourers’ willingness to return to their hometown: the moderating effect of social support

Figures & data

Figure 1. Model of the influence of perceived value of rural labour on its decision of willingness to return.

Table 1. Distribution of individual characteristics of the rural labour force.

Statistics	Categories	Sample size	Effective percentage
Gender	Male	194	60.2
	Female	128	39.8
	Total	322	100.0
Age	Under 16 years old	0	0
	16–30 years old	138	42.9
	31–40 years old	101	31.4
	41–50 years old	75	23.3
	51–60 years old	8	2.5
	61 years old and above	0	0
	Total	322	100.0
Education	Junior high school and below	10	3.1
	High school and junior college	39	12.1
	College and undergraduate	160	49.7
	Postgraduate and above	113	35.1
	Total	322	100.0
Marital Status	Married	194	60.2
	Unmarried	128	39.8
	Total	322	100.0
Family members	Under 3	61	18.9
	3–6	252	78.3
	More than 6	9	2.8
	Total	322	100.0
Number of outworkings	Under 3	190	59.0
	3–5	98	30.4
	More than 5	34	10.6
	Total	322	100.0
Occupation	Students	11	3.4
	Farmers	39	12.1
	Workers	90	28.0
	Enterprise employees	58	18.0
	Freelancers	31	9.6
	Individuals	32	9.9
	Teachers	9	2.8
	Civil servant	52	16.1
	Others	11	3.4
	Total	322	100.0
Annual income	Under 3w	96	29.8
	3w-6w	66	20.5
	6w-9w	58	18.0
	9w-12w	47	14.6
	More than 12w	55	17.1
	Total	322	100.0

Table 2. CFA Model Test.

	Standard	Result
CMIN/DF	1–3 excellent, 3-5 good	2.141
RMSEA	<0.05 excellent, <0.08 good	0.060
IFI	>0.9 excellent, >0.8 good	0.891
TLI	>0.9 excellent, >0.8 good	0.872
CFI	>0.9 excellent, >0.8 good	0.889

Table 3. Reliability test.

Component Dimension	Item number	Cronbach’s α within dimensions	Item number
PEB	PEB1	0.840	5
	PEB2
	PEB3
	PEB4
	PEB5
PIB	PIB1	0.718	5
	PIB2
	PIB3
	PIB4
	PIB5
Total PB		0.856	10
PEC	PEC1	0.733	4
	PEC2
	PEC3
	PEC4
PIC	PIC1	0.829	3
	PIC2
	PIC3
Total PC		0.866	7
PV	PV1	0.745	3
	PV2
	PV3
FS	FS1	0.727	3
	FS2
	FS3
IS	IS1	0.676	4
	IS2
	IS3
	IS4
Total SS		0.740	7
Will	Will1	0.735	3
	Will2
	Will3

Table 4. KMO test and Bartlett’s test results.

KMO		0.917
Bartlett’s test	χ^²	4181.775
	Df	435
	P	0.000***

Note: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

Table 5. Convergent validity test.

			Estimate	AVE	CR
PEB1	<—	PEB	0.774	0.5213	0.8427
PEB2	<—	PEB,	0.683
PEB3	<—	PEB	0.553
PEB4	<—	PEB	0.760
PEB5	<—	PEB	0.811
PIB1	<—	PIB	0.561	0.3528	0.7277
PIB2	<—	PIB	0.685
PIB3	<—	PIB	0.580
PIB4	<—	PIB	0.663
PIB5	<—	PIB	0.452
PEC1	<—	PEC	0.616	0.4064	0.7286
PEC2	<—	PEC	0.778
PEC3	<—	PEC	0.541
PEC4	<—	PEC	0.590
PIC1	<—	PIC	0.809	0.6263	0.8335
PIC2	<—	PIC	0.842
PIC3	<—	PIC	0.718
FS1	<—	FS	0.643	0.4875	0.7372
FS2	<—	FS	0.615
FS3	<—	FS	0.819
IS1	<—	IS	0.498	0.3506	0.6809
IS2	<—	IS	0.641
IS3	<—	IS	0.555
IS4	<—	IS	0.660
PV1	<—	PV	0.713	0.5088	0.7541
PV2	<—	PV	0.607
PV3	<—	PV	0.806
Will1	<—	Will	0.654	0.4787	0.7334
Will2	<—	Will	0.703
Will3	<—	Will	0.717

Table 6. Discriminant validity test.

	factors	CMIN	DF	P	CMIN/DF	RMSEA	IFI	TLI	CFI	Comparison	△CMIN	△DF
1	8	807.187	377	.000***	2.141	0.060	0.891	0.872	0.889
2	7	914.827	384	.000***	2.382	0.066	0.865	0.846	0.864	2vs1	107.64	7
3	6	1061.327	390	.000***	2.721	0.073	0.830	0.808	0.828	3vs1	254.14	13
4	5	1128.246	395	.000***	2.856	0.076	0.814	0.793	0.812	4vs1	321.059	18
5	4	1198.069	399	.000***	3.003	0.079	0.797	0.776	0.795	5vs1	390.882	22
6	3	1216.434	402	.000***	3.026	0.079	0.793	0.774	0.791	6vs1	409.247	25
7	2	1502.999	404	.000***	3.720	0.092	0.720	0.696	0.718	7vs1	695.812	27
8	1	1669.773	405	.000***	4.123	0.099	0.678	0.651	0.675	8vs1	862.586	28

Note: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

Table 7. Model parameter test.

R	R^2	Adjusted R^2	Std. Error	Durbin-Watson	F	P
0.958	0.917	0.916	0.24653	1.855	873.670	0.000

Note: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

Table 8. Regression model.

	Coeff.		Std. Coeff	T	P	Collinear Statistics
	B	Std. Error	Beta			Franchise	VIF
	0.517	0.154		3.352	.001
PEB	0.393	0.026	0.336	15.114	.000	0.532	1.879
PIB	0.484	0.031	0.323	15.467	.000	0.603	1.658
PEC	−0.308	0.027	−0.276	−11.208	.000	0.433	2.308
PIC	−0.220	0.023	−0.246	−9.495	.000	0.390	2.565

Note: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

Table 9. Model parameter test.

R	R^2	Adjusted R^2	Std. Error	Durbin-Watson	F	P
0.957	0.916	0.915	0.24717	1.827	1736.486	0.000

Note: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

Table 10. Regression model.

	Coeff.		Std. Coeff	T		P	Collinear Statistics
	B	Std. Error	Beta				Franchise	VIF
	0.577	0.151		3.811		.000
PB	0.864	0.029	0.590	29.599		.000	0.664	1.505
PC	−0.524	0.022	−0.486	−24.382		.000	0.664	1.505

Note: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

Table 11. Model parameter test.

Model	R	R^2	Adjusted R^2	Std. Error	F	P	Durbin-Watson
Model 1	0.561	0.315	0.313	0.61181	147.009	.000
Model 2	0.579	0.335	0.331	0.60374	80.289	.000	2.082

Note: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

Table 12. Stepwise regression of variables for each dimension of perceived value.

Model		Coeff.		Std. Coeff	T	P	Collinear Statistics
		B	Std. Error	Beta			Franchise	Std. Error
Model 1		1.050	0.236		4.458	.000
	PB	0.714	0.059	0.561	12.125	.000	1.000	1.000
Model 2		1.624	0.297		5.465	0.000
	PB	0.394	0.118	0.310	3.329	0.001	0.241	4.151
	PV	0.251	0.081	0.288	3.101	0.002	0.241	4.151

Note: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

Table 13. Excluded variables.

Model		Beta	T	P	Franchise	VIF
Model 1	PC	−0.076	−1.336	0.183	0.664	1.505
Model 2	PC	0.184	1.953	0.052	0.232	4.311

Note: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

Table 14. Model parameter test.

Model	R	R^2	Adjusted R^2	Std. Error	F	P	Durbin-Watson
Model 3	0.558	0.312	0.310	0.61318	144.928	.000
Model 4	0.616	0.380	0.374	0.58394	64.886	.000
Model 5	0.623	0.388	0.378	0.58183	40.078	.000	2.090

Note: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

Table 15. Regression model.

Model		Coeff.		Std. Coeff	T		P	Collinear Statistics
		B	Std. Error	Beta				允差	B
Model 3		3.876	0.034		113.423		.000
	ZPV	0.485	0.040	0.558	12.039		.000	1.000	1.000
Model 4		3.876	0.033		119.102		.000
	ZPV	0.316	0.048	0.363	6.567		.000	0.637	1.569
	ZFS	0.076	0.058	0.064	1.305		.193	0.819	1.221
	ZIS	0.387	0.072	0.296	5.342		.000	0.635	1.575
Model 5		3.866	0.036		106.430		.000
	ZPV	0.312	0.049	0.359	6.309		.000	0.597	1.676
	ZFS	0.140	0.066	0.118	2.134		.034	0.637	1.569
	ZIS	0.379	0.073	0.290	5.174		.000	0.617	1.621
	ZPVZFS	0.114	0.055	0.119	2.051		.041	0.571	1.751
	ZPVZIS	−0.047	0.067	−0.039	−0.697		.486	0.615	1.625

Note: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

Table 16. Cross-table analysis of return intention and individual characteristic variables.

			Willingness to return		Total
			Yes	No
Gendar	Men	count	175	19	194
		Percentage	90.21%	9.79%
	Women	count	98	30	128
		Percentage	76.56%	23.44%
	Total	count	273	49	322
		Percentage	84.78%	15.22%
	chi-square	11.127
	P	0.001*
Age	16–30	count	109	29	138
		Percentage	78.99%	21.01%
	31–40	count	92	9	101
		Percentage	91.09%	8.91%
	41–50	count	66	9	75
		Percentage	88.00%	12.00%
	51–60	count	6	2	8
		Percentage	75.00%	25.00%
	Total	count	273	49	322
		Percentage	84.78%	15.22%
	chi-square	7.903
	P	0.048*
Education	Junior high school	count	10	0	10
		Percentage	100.00%	0.00%
	High school	count	33	6	39
		Percentage	84.62%	15.38%
	undergraduate	count	138	22	160
		Percentage	86.25%	13.75%
	Postgraduate and above	count	92	21	113
		Percentage	81.42%	18.58%
	Total	count	273	49	322
		Percentage	84.78%	15.22%
	chi-square	3.055
	P	0.383

Data availability statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.