Included Analyses

 Linear Regression with Job_Involvement predicted by Individualized_Consideration,

Intellectual_Stimulation, Inspirational_Motivation, Idealized_Influence_Behaviour,
Contingent_Reward, Management_by_Exception_Active, Management_by_Exception_Passive,
and Idealized_Influence_Attribute

Results

Linear Regression Analysis

Introduction

A linear regression analysis was conducted to assess whether

Individualized_Consideration, Intellectual_Stimulation, Inspirational_Motivation,
Idealized_Influence_Behaviour, Contingent_Reward, Management_by_Exception_Active,
Management_by_Exception_Passive, and Idealized_Influence_Attribute significantly predicted
Job_Involvement.

Assumptions

Normality. The assumption of normality was assessed by plotting the quantiles of the
model residuals against the quantiles of a Chi-square distribution, also called a Q-Q scatterplot
(DeCarlo, 1997). For the assumption of normality to be met, the quantiles of the residuals must
not strongly deviate from the theoretical quantiles. Strong deviations could indicate that the
parameter estimates are unreliable. Figure 1 presents a Q-Q scatterplot of the model residuals.

Figure 1

Q-Q scatterplot for normality of the residuals for the regression model.
 Homoscedasticity. Homoscedasticity was evaluated by plotting the residuals against the
predicted values (Bates et al., 2014; Field, 2017; Osborne & Walters, 2002). The assumption of
homoscedasticity is met if the points appear randomly distributed with a mean of zero and no
apparent curvature. Figure 2 presents a scatterplot of predicted values and model residuals.

Figure 2

Residuals scatterplot testing homoscedasticity

 Multicollinearity. Variance Inflation Factors (VIFs) were calculated to detect the
presence of multicollinearity between predictors. High VIFs indicate increased effects of
multicollinearity in the model. VIFs greater than 5 are cause for concern, whereas VIFs of 10
should be considered the maximum upper limit (Menard, 2009). All predictors in the regression
model have VIFs less than 10. Table 1 presents the VIF for each predictor in the model.

Table 1
Variance Inflation Factors for Individualized_Consideration, Intellectual_Stimulation,
Inspirational_Motivation, Idealized_Influence_Behaviour, Contingent_Reward,
Management_by_Exception_Active, Management_by_Exception_Passive, and
Idealized_Influence_Attribute
Variable VIF
Individualized_Consideration 4.52
Intellectual_Stimulation 6.17
Inspirational_Motivation 6.40
Idealized_Influence_Behaviour 6.92
Contingent_Reward 3.20
Management_by_Exception_Active 2.22
Management_by_Exception_Passive 1.47
 Idealized_Influence_Attribute 5.48

Outliers. To identify influential points, Studentized residuals were calculated and the
absolute values were plotted against the observation numbers (Field, 2017; Pituch & Stevens,
2015). Studentized residuals are calculated by dividing the model residuals by the estimated
residual standard deviation. An observation with a Studentized residual greater than 3.11 in
absolute value, the 0.999 quantile of a t distribution with 499 degrees of freedom, was considered
to have significant influence on the results of the model. Figure 3 presents the Studentized
residuals plot of the observations. Observation numbers are specified next to each point with a
Studentized residual greater than 3.11.

Figure 3

Studentized residuals plot for outlier detection

Results
 The results of the linear regression model were significant, F(8,491) = 10.81, p < .001, R2
= .15, indicating that approximately 14.98% of the variance in Job_Involvement is explainable
by Individualized_Consideration, Intellectual_Stimulation, Inspirational_Motivation,
Idealized_Influence_Behaviour, Contingent_Reward, Management_by_Exception_Active,
Management_by_Exception_Passive, and Idealized_Influence_Attribute.
Individualized_Consideration significantly predicted Job_Involvement, B = 0.52, t(491) = 3.10,
p = .002. This indicates that on average, a one-unit increase of Individualized_Consideration will
increase the value of Job_Involvement by 0.52 units. Intellectual_Stimulation significantly
predicted Job_Involvement, B = 0.53, t(491) = 2.51, p = .012. This indicates that on average, a
one-unit increase of Intellectual_Stimulation will increase the value of Job_Involvement by 0.53
units. Inspirational_Motivation did not significantly predict Job_Involvement, B = 0.23, t(491) =
1.12, p = .263. Based on this sample, a one-unit increase in Inspirational_Motivation does not
have a significant effect on Job_Involvement. Idealized_Influence_Behaviour significantly
predicted Job_Involvement, B = -1.00, t(491) = -4.53, p < .001. This indicates that on average, a
one-unit increase of Idealized_Influence_Behaviour will decrease the value of Job_Involvement
by 1.00 units. Contingent_Reward significantly predicted Job_Involvement, B = -0.48, t(491) = -
3.19, p = .002. This indicates that on average, a one-unit increase of Contingent_Reward will
decrease the value of Job_Involvement by 0.48 units. Management_by_Exception_Active did
not significantly predict Job_Involvement, B = 0.17, t(491) = 1.21, p = .228. Based on this
sample, a one-unit increase in Management_by_Exception_Active does not have a significant
effect on Job_Involvement. Management_by_Exception_Passive significantly predicted
Job_Involvement, B = 0.24, t(491) = 2.13, p = .034. This indicates that on average, a one-unit
increase of Management_by_Exception_Passive will increase the value of Job_Involvement by
0.24 units. Idealized_Influence_Attribute significantly predicted Job_Involvement, B = 0.47,
t(491) = 2.47, p = .014. This indicates that on average, a one-unit increase of
Idealized_Influence_Attribute will increase the value of Job_Involvement by 0.47 units. Table 2
summarizes the results of the regression model.

Table 2
Results for Linear Regression with Individualized_Consideration, Intellectual_Stimulation,
Inspirational_Motivation, Idealized_Influence_Behaviour, Contingent_Reward,
Management_by_Exception_Active, Management_by_Exception_Passive, and
Idealized_Influence_Attribute predicting Job_Involvement
Variable B SE 95.00% CI β t p
[23.49, < .00
(Intercept) 26.25 1.41 0.00 18.68
29.02] 1
Individualized_Consideration 0.52 0.17 [0.19, 0.85] 0.27 3.10 .002
Intellectual_Stimulation 0.53 0.21 [0.12, 0.95] 0.26 2.51 .012
[-0.18,
Inspirational_Motivation 0.23 0.21 0.12 1.12 .263
0.65]
[-1.43, - < .00
Idealized_Influence_Behaviour -1.00 0.22 -0.50 -4.53
0.57] 1
[-0.77, -
Contingent_Reward -0.48 0.15 -0.24 -3.19 .002
0.18]
[-0.11,
Management_by_Exception_Active 0.17 0.14 0.07 1.21 .228
0.44]
Management_by_Exception_Passive 0.24 0.11 [0.02, 0.46] 0.11 2.13 .034
Idealized_Influence_Attribute 0.47 0.19 [0.10, 0.85] 0.24 2.47 .014
Note. Results: F(8,491) = 10.81, p < .001, R2 = .15
Unstandardized Regression Equation: Job_Involvement = 26.25 + 0.52*Individualized_Consideration
+ 0.53*Intellectual_Stimulation + 0.23*Inspirational_Motivation -
1.00*Idealized_Influence_Behaviour - 0.48*Contingent_Reward +
0.17*Management_by_Exception_Active + 0.24*Management_by_Exception_Passive +
0.47*Idealized_Influence_Attribute