“Comparisons are Odious”? — Exploring the Dual Effect of Upward Social Comparison on Workplace Coping Behaviors of Temporary Agency Workers

Figures & data

Table 1 Discriminant Validity and Common Method Bias Tests

Model	χ^2	df	TLI	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR
Six-factor model+method factor	2834.625	763	0.935	0.942	0.055	0.043
Six-factor model	3862.377	804	0.909	0.915	0.066	0.071
Five-factor model	6009.631	809	0.846	0.855	0.085	0.108
Four-factor model	9124.469	813	0.755	0.769	0.108	0.141
Three-factor model	10,994.623	816	0.701	0.717	0.119	0.156
Two-factor model	14,903.120	818	0.587	0.608	0.140	0.181
Single-factor model	20,477.279	819	0.424	0.452	0.165	0.205

Notes: N = 882. Six-factor model: USC,BE,ME,IWL,SU,PA; Five-factor model: USC,BE+ME,IWL,SU,PA; Four-factor model: USC,BE+IWL,ME+SU,PA; Three-factor model: USC+BE+ME+PA,IWL,SU; Two-factor model: USC+ME+SU,BE+IWL+PA; Single-factor model: USC+BE+ME+PA+IWL+SU.

Abbreviations: USC, upward social comparison; BE, benign envy; ME, malicious envy; IWL, informal workplace learning; SU, social undermining; PA, psychological availability; χ2, chi-square; df, degree of freedom; TLI, Tucker-Lewis index; CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root-mean-square residual.

Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1.Gender	–
2.Age	0.246***	–
3.Edu	−0.262**	−0.447***	–
4.Salary	−0.146***	0.067*	0.049	–
5.Years	−0.049	0.143***	−0.088**	0.299***	–
6.USC	−0.137***	−0.017	0.084*	0.105**	0.077*	(0.894)
7.BE	−0.023	0.176***	−0.100**	−0.081*	0.049	0.221***	(0.887)
8.ME	−0.177***	−0.170***	0.183***	0.044	0.015	0.332***	−0.210***	(0.919)
9.IWL	0.008	0.160***	−0.110**	−0.007	0.111**	0.101**	0.360***	0.006	(0.870)
10.SU	−0.124***	−0.153***	0.186***	0.042	−0.043	0.360***	0.018	0.282***	−0.183***	(0.960)
11.PA	0.000	0.132***	−0.034	0.050	0.085*	−0.145***	0.394***	−0.550***	0.093**	0.074*	(0.963)
M	1.482	27.533	2.582	3.341	1.441	2.897	3.485	1.678	4.341	1.688	4.261
SD	0.5	8.288	0.764	1.181	0.628	1.228	1.196	1.026	0.694	1.009	1.056

Notes: N = 882. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

Abbreviations: Edu, education; USC, upward social comparison; BE, benign envy; ME, malicious envy; IWL, informal workplace learning; SU, social undermining; PA, psychological availability.

Figure 1 The path analysis results of model.

Notes: The path coefficients in the figure are non-standardized coefficients. This model includes control variables (omitted). ***p<0.001, **p<0.01.

Figure 2 The interaction between upward social comparison and psychological availability on benign envy.

Figure 3 The interaction between upward social comparison and psychological availability on malicious envy.

Table 3 Results of Moderated Mediation Effect

Path	Moderator (Psychological Availability)	Indirect Effect	SE	95% CI
USC→BE→IWL	Higher (+1SD)	0.089	0.015	[0.062, 0.121]
	Lower (−1SD)	0.034	0.014	[0.007, 0.062]
	DIFF	0.055	0.022	[0.015, 0.102]
USC→ME→SU	Higher (+1SD)	0.031	0.012	[0.008, 0.057]
	Lower (−1SD)	0.114	0.027	[0.067, 0.175]
	DIFF	−0.083	0.031	[−0.151, −0.029]

Notes: N = 882.

Abbreviations: USC, upward social comparison; BE, benign envy; ME, malicious envy; IWL, informal workplace learning; SU, social undermining.