Does Compulsory Citizenship Behavior Necessarily Reduce Employee’s Work Well-Being? The Role of Relative Deprivation and Resource Compensation Based on Compulsory Citizenship Behavior

Figures & data

Figure 1 Theoretical model.

Table 1 Sample Characteristics

Variable	Category	Proportion
Gender	Male	44.36%
	Female	55.64%
Age	≤25	7.05%
	26–45	62.11%
	>45	30.84%
Education	PhD degree	14.54%
	Master's degree	57.71%
	Bachelor’s degree	26.43%
	The rest	1.32%
Seniority	≤5	6.61%
	6–10	56.83%
	>10	36.56%
Position	Staff	88.55%
	Manger	11.45%

Table 2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Models	χ^2/df	RMSEA	TLI	CFI
Four-factor model: CCB, relative deprivation, work well-being, resource compensation based on CCB	4.324	0.071	0.953	0.958
Three-factor model: CCB + Resource compensation based on CCB, relative deprivation, work well-being	4.363	0.122	0.764	0.788
Two-factor model: CCB + Relative Deprivation + Resource compensation based on CCB, work well-being	7.884	0.175	0.516	0.562
One-factor model: CCB + Relative deprivation + Work well-being + Resource compensation based on CCB	8.520	0.182	0.471	0.519

Table 3 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Gender	1.556	0.476
Age	2.238	0.569	−0.089
Education	3.855	0.666	0.009	0.127
Seniority	3.198	1.141	−0.070	0.520***	−0.026
Position	2.251	1.032	−0.013	0.222**	0.015	0.412***
CCB	3.615	0.743	−0.033	−0.013	−0.142*	−0.017	0.026
Relative deprivation	3.378	0.592	−0.048	−0.011	−0.108	−0.011	0.019	0.735***
Work well-being	2.530	0.730	−0.024	0.010	0.041	0.055	0.029	−0.674***	−0.657***
Resource compensation based on CCB	2.970	0.932	0.033	0.142*	0.073	0.110	0.126	−0.227**	−0.570***	0.181**

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

Table 4 Regression Analysis of CCB and Work Well-Being

	Work Well-Being
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
	β	VIF	β	VIF	β	VIF	β	VIF
Control Variable
Gender	−0.034	1.009	−0.069	1.010	−0.070	1.012	−0.076	1.024
Age	−0.047	1.415	−0.029	1.415	−0.033	1.429	−0.025	1.463
Education	0.052	1.029	−0.058	1.051	−0.059	1.052	−0.057	1.054
Seniority	0.046	1.592	0.023	1.594	0.023	1.594	0.019	1.619
Position	0.005	1.206	0.026	1.208	0.024	1.220	0.024	1.220
Independent Variable
CCB			−0.672***	1.024	−0.666***	1.079	−0.678***	1.202
Moderator Variable
Resource compensation based on CCB					0.222**	1.091	0.212**	1.212
Interaction Term
CCB × Resource compensation based on CCB							0.136*	1.230
F	0.276		23.625***		26.981***		31.532***
R^2	0.006		0.462		0.473		0.494

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

Table 5 Regression Analysis of the Moderating Effect

	Relative Deprivation
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
	β	VIF	β	VIF	β	VIF	β	VIF
Control Variable
Gender	−0.060	1.009	−0.030	1.010	−0.010	1.012	0.002	1.024
Age	0.011	1.415	−0.005	1.415	0.046	1.429	0.029	1.463
Education	−0.098	1.029	−0.003	1.051	0.007	1.052	0.004	1.054
Seniority	−0.018	1.592	0.002	1.594	0.004	1.594	0.011	1.619
Position	0.019	1.206	0.000	1.208	0.025	1.220	0.026	1.220
Independent Variable
CCB			0.585***	1.024	0.507***	1.079	0.532***	1.202
Moderator Variable
Resource compensation based on CCB					−0.279***	1.091	−0.259***	1.212
Interaction Term
CCB × Resource compensation based on CCB							−0.172*	1.230
F	0.679		43.166***		79.214***		71.734***
R^2	0.015		0.541		0.717		0.725

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

Figure 2 Schematic diagram of interaction effect.

Table 6 Moderated Mediation

Variable	Level	Effect	SE	95% CI
				BootLLCI	BootULCI
Resource compensation based on CCB	High	−0.472	0.049	−0.366	0.072
	Low	−0.609	0.069	−0.748	−0.479
	Difference	0.137	0.062	0.019	0.261