The effect of incentive types and organizational value statements on corporate social responsibility decisions

Figures & data

Table 1. Participants.

Description	Total
Participant who join in the experiment	60
Participant who did not pass manipulation checks	6
	54

Table 2. Participant descriptive data.

CSR decisions mean
Incentive	Value statements
	Financial	Environmental	Total
Financial	4.3333 (n = 12, SD= .9847)	5.9286(n = 14; SD = 1.1411)	5.1923 (n = 26; SD = 1.3272)
Recognition	5.1429 (n = 14; SD=.8644)	6.5000 (n = 14; SD=.8548)	5.8214 (n = 28; SD = 1.0904)
Total	4.7692 (n = 26; SD = 0.9922)	6.2143 (n = 28; SD = 1.0312)	5.5186 (n = 54; SD = 1.2399)

Table 3. Randomization test result.

Source	Type III sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Sig
Corrected model	.354^a	2	.177	.111	.895
Intercept	810.833	1	810.833	509.723	.000
Gender	.344	1	.344	.216	.644
Experience	.023	1	.023	.014	.905
Error	81.127	51	1.591	–	–
Total	1726.000	54	–	–	–
Corrected total	81.481	53	–	–	–

Table 4. Hypotheses test result.

Source	Type III sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Sig
Corrected model	34.672^a	3	11.557	12.345	.000
Intercept	1612.190	1	1612.190	1722.075	.000
Incentive (I)	6.408	1	6.408	6.844	.012
Value statement (VS)	29.288	1	29.288	31.284	.000
I x VS	0.190	1	0.190	0.203	.654
Error	46.810	50	0.936	–	–
Total	1726.000	54	–	–	–
Corrected total	81.481	53	–	–	–

^a R squared =, 426 (adjusted R squared =, 391).

Table 5. Analysis result of post-hoc multiple comparison (Games-Howell t-statistics).

	Mean difference	Standard error	p-value
Cell 1 and 2	0.809	0.381	0.230
Cell 1 and 3	1.595*	0.381	0.001
Cell 1 and 4	2.166*	0.381	0.000
Cell 2 and 3	0.785	0.366	0.219
Cell 2 and 4	1.595*	0.366	0.003
Cell 3 and 4	0.571	0.366	0.747

* Significant mean difference at level (1-tailed).

Data availability statement

The participants of this study did not give written consent for their data to be shared publicly, so due to the sensitive nature of the research supporting data is not available.