Empirical Evaluation of Dimensionality of ... - Springer Link

Psychol Stud (October–December 2012) 57(4):392–403 DOI 10.1007/s12646-012-0154-x

ASSESSMENT

Empirical Evaluation of Dimensionality of Organizational Citizenship Behavior for Indian Business Context Vishal Gupta & Shailendra Singh

Received: 24 January 2011 / Accepted: 17 April 2012 / Published online: 3 May 2012 # National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India 2012

Abstract Knowledge about dimensionality of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) is essential for conducting any future research on the construct. The present study explores the suitability of OCB conceptualization developed by Organ (1988) in Indian business context. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed to test the dimensionality of the 5-factor OCB conceptualization. Based on the results of CFA alternate conceptualizations were explored. A three factor conceptualization consisting of ‘organizationorientation’, ‘punctuality’ and ‘individual-orientation’ factors showed excellent fit with data. Concurrent validity of factors was tested with organizational justice, organizational identification and job tenure. ‘Organization-orientation’ and ‘individual-orientation’ emerged as significant dimensions of OCB. Implications for theory and practice are discussed. Keywords Organizational citizenship behavior . Scale testing . Organization-orientation . Individual-orientation . Indian business context

Introduction Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) was defined by Organ (1988) as “individual behavior that is discretionary, V. Gupta (*) Indian Institute of Management (IIM), #201, Chintan Block, Prabandh Nagar, Off Sitapur Road, Lucknow 226013 Uttar Pradesh, India e-mail: [email protected] S. Singh Indian Institute of Management (IIM), #201, Chintan Block, Prabandh Nagar, Off Sitapur Road, Lucknow 226013 Uttar Pradesh, India e-mail: [email protected]

not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization.” The idea was developed in defense to the popular notion that worker satisfaction affected productivity by Organ (1977) who stated that apart from quantifiable aspects of productivity there are subtle contributions that a satisfied employee can make that can enhance the overall productivity of the unit. The author suggested that such contributions are usually subtle like helping a coworker, following the spirit as well as the literal rules of workplace governance, and accommodating the changes that managers make. OCB goes beyond the strict definitions of job description and does not lay claim to contractual compensation from the formal reward system. One of the main reasons for the interest in OCB is that it is expected to be positively related to organizational effectiveness. The popularity of the concept can be judged from the fact that since Organ and his colleagues (Bateman and Organ 1983; Smith et al. 1983) first coined the term in the early part of the 1980s, over 650 articles have been published on OCB and related constructs such as organizational citizenship performance, pro-social organizational behavior, extra-role behavior, organizational spontaneity, voice behavior, contextual performance; potential antecedents of OCB, such as personality traits, employee attitudes, employee perceptions of fairness, leader behaviors, variety of task characteristics; and the effects that OCB have on employee and organizational outcome variables (Organ et al. 2006). Bateman and Organ (1983) did the first study on OCB where they measured correlation between job satisfaction and OCB. It was Smith et al. (1983) who formally defined a scale to measure OCB that consisted of altruism and compliance dimensions. Graham (1986) added civic virtue to the dimensions of OCB while Organ (1988) made a case that courtesy is a distinguishable form of OCB. Organ (1990)

Psychol Stud (October–December 2012) 57(4):392–403

suggested two other variants of OCB–cheerleading and peacemaking. Loyalty was added by George and Brief (1992) and Graham (1991). A seminal paper by Katz (1964), pointed to self-development and protecting the organization as important behaviors that go beyond formal reward systems for differential individual performance. Individual initiative was another important dimension that was added to the list by LePine et al. (2002). While the above listed measures form the most visible and differentiable dimensions of OCB, there are about 40 measures of OCB dimensions that have been suggested in the literature and “sometimes our capacity for conceptual distinctions outruns our ability to capture those distinctions empirically” (Organ et al. 2006). All of the above stated studies have happened in North America and it is important that we ponder on the question of whether significant differences exist amongst the OCB dimensions in varying cultures and economic systems. Paine and Organ (1999) observed that one of the important questions that has remained unanswered in OCB research is whether the term OCB has the same meaning in nonwestern cultures (i.e. whether there are different perceptions of OCB in other cultures and are the distinct classes of OCB such as altruism, generalized compliance, as found in US studies, analogous to those understood in other cultures). Hofstede (2001) identified the five major dimensions of differences among societal cultures, namely, ‘individualism-collectivism’, ‘power distance’, ‘uncertainty avoidance’, ‘masculinity-femininity’ and ‘long term orientation’. Kirkman et al. (2009) demonstrated that cultural dimensions like employee power distance orientations impact display of OCB. United States and East Asian countries differ significantly not just on factors like individualism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, masculinity and time orientation, there are significant differences in the economic systems as well. These include the degree to which firms are disciplined by free, competitive markets and the degree to which legal and regulatory contexts govern economic transactions. OCB, which is supposed to contribute ultimately to levels of involvement and organizational efficiency, would be viewed differently in North American and Western European organizations. These countries have a highly developed legal and regulatory environment that ensures a level playing field for competitors. Countries that do not have such a well-developed institutional infrastructure for free market transactions may treat different set of behaviors as extrarole behaviors. Countries like India and China have many firms that are owned by the state and the phenomenon of liberalization is quite recent. These countries also stand quite opposite from the United States as strongly collectivist, laying a great amount of emphasis on social inclusion, perception of others; power distance, and uncertainty

393

avoidance. Farh et al. (2004) tested these ideas and came up with 10 dimensions of OCB. One such dimension “social welfare participation”, referring to employee participation in community service, such as planting trees emerged strongly among employees and managers in state-owned firms. Even dimensions that looked similar to those found in the United States had subtle differences (Organ et al. 2006). The results of the study showed the importance of consideration of societal culture in the process of operationalizing OCB. Although the knowledge and service sector has emerged as a major contributor to gross domestic product (GDP) in many industrialized and transitional economies (Chuang and Liao 2010), the OCB literature is framed primarily by the study of manufacturing organizations (Bartel 2004; Bowen and Schneider 1988). OCB is instrumental to the survival of organizations perhaps now more than ever because of an increase in global competition, emphasis on customer service, and reliance on team-based structures (Fassina et al. 2008). With an increase of private sector jobs, exhibition of employee discretionary behaviors will be an important antecedent of firm performance (Podsakoff et al. 2009). The present study is an effort to test the validity of OCB dimensions in the Indian knowledge-based industry context. Ideally, OCB studies in a different cultural setting should start from ground up (as Farh et al. 2004 did) so that researchers can understand what behaviors do employees and supervisors view as discretionary contributions beyond those mandated by consensual definitions of the job. However, to do this is often to reinvent the wheel (Organ et al. 2006). A more practical approach is to work towards the evolution of measures that have substantial face validity and general applicability across a large number of work settings. This is the approach we have followed in the present study where we test the psychometric properties of the dimensions of OCB as perceived by employees in the Indian knowledge-based organizations. The study contributes to the OCB literature by providing a psychometric analysis of the OCB measures in Indian knowledge-based industry context. To our best knowledge, this study is first in this direction.

Background and Research Objective In spite of the various ways in which OCB has been conceptualized over the years (Bateman and Organ 1983; Organ 1988, 1990; Smith et al. 1983; Van Dyne et al. 1994; Williams and Anderson 1991), Organ’s (1988, 1990) conceptualization of OCB remains one of the most popular conceptualizations of OCB. Organ (1988) proposed a five-factor OCB model consisting of helping, compliance, courtesy, civic virtue, and

394

sportsmanship. Helping was initially labeled as “altruism” but nowadays researchers use the term “helping” as they argue that “altruism” implies something about the motive behind the behavior or quality like “selflessness” on the part of the actor. “Helping” is directed at a specific individual–usually a coworker, but sometimes the supervisor or a customer–and is defined as effort aimed at making a coworker comfortable in his/her job by helping him/her out in subtle ways like making him/ her learn a new job, sharing his/her workload or solving a problem. Compliance denotes more general adherence to the spirit as well as the letter of the rules or norms that define a cooperative system. Courtesy is concerned with avoiding practices that make other people’s work harder (e.g. giving notice well in advance before assigning additional work to a coworker so that he/she will be prepared for the extra workload). Sportsmanship is defined as a willingness on the part of employees to tolerate less than ideal circumstances without complaining and making problems seem bigger than they actually are. Civic virtue is behavior indicating that employees take an active interest in the life of their organization. Organ (1990) subsequently expanded this model to include two other dimensions (peacekeeping and cheerleading). There is, however, little empirical research (Bachrach et al. 2001; MacKenzie et al. 1993; Podsakoff and MacKenzie 1989) supporting the distinctiveness of helping (altruism), peacekeeping, and cheerleading because as noted by Podsakoff et al. (1997), these dimensions clearly involve helping others or preventing the occurrence of work-related problems. We, in this study, have used the basic five-factor model of OCB to measure its applicability to the Indian context. As mentioned above, this scale was the first to be developed to measure OCB and remains one of the most basic frameworks to measure OCB. OCB is one form of work behavior that has its roots, at least in part, in cultural values and norms (Kwantes 2003). Contextual factors can increase or decrease the likelihood of employees demonstrating OCB. One of the important and major influences on employee behaviors is the national culture (Paine and Organ 1999). The five-dimensional model of Hofstede (2001) characterized India in the following manner: (1) low uncertainty avoidance at work commensurate with Hindu belief in karma, which promotes a sense of fatalistic acceptance of current uncertainty rather than proactive efforts to reduce it; (2) high power distance reflective of traditional Indian social respect for paternalistic, hierarchic authority by age, caste, family status and gender; (3) medium collectivist orientation influenced by extended family, caste, religious and linguistic affiliations, with the resultant in-group and out-group relationship orientations; (4) medium masculinity reflected in moderate levels of


assertiveness, interest in acquiring money and things, relative to affiliation and social relationships; and (5) strong long-term time orientation as opposed to short-term horizons consistent with cultural respect for past traditions and widespread belief in supernatural forces controlling transgenerational, future outcomes of events (Hofstede 1997; Ronen and Shenkar 1985). Cultural values can influence how OCB is perceived and whether employees would be willing to demonstrate OCB. For example, while going above and beyond the call of duty for the good of the group may be seen as normative in Indian (collectivist) cultures, it may be seen as exceptional in Western (individualistic) cultures (Earley 1989; Moorman and Blakely 1995; Paine and Organ 1999). Since Indians are socialized through strong family ties and extended family relationships, they are more likely to develop stronger affiliative tendencies (Krishnan 2011). This means that job-related decisions are influenced more by interpersonal considerations than by task demands. Organ’s (1988) five-dimensional framework has the longest history, and is one of the most popular conceptualizations of OCB and forms the foundation of other popular conceptualization of OCB like Williams and Anderson’s (1991) OCBO/OCBI framework (Podsakoff et al. 2009). Most of the research that has happened in the Indian context has either not used the 5-dimensional OCB framework or has not established its factor structure. Table 1 presents a review of the OCB research that has been published in the last decade. From Table 1, we see that none of the studies published on OCB in reputed OB and HRM journals and that have happened in the Indian context have tested the factor structure of Organ’s (1988) 5-dimensional OCB framework. Studies have either explored/confirmed the factor structure of other popular conceptualization of OCB like Moorman and Blakely’s (1995)–interpersonal helping, individual initiative, personal industry and loyal boosterism, Williams and Anderson’s (1991)–OCBI, OCBO, In-Role Behaviors or have tested only a few dimensions out of the 5 dimensions of Organ’s (1988) conceptualization (e.g. Biswas and Varma 2007; Markose and Jayachandran 2008; Moideenkutty et al. 2005). Table 1 suggests that there is a need to study whether the 5-dimensional OCB conceptualization is valid for the Indian business context. In a review of the nature and dimensionality of OCB, LePine et al. (2002) observed that there has been less consistency, with respect to the specific behaviours studied, among other measures of OCB. The downside of this is that there has been less effort focusing on replicating and conducting studies that systematically extend previous empirical work. Review of research studies that have happened in Indian context reveals a similar trend. Table 1 demonstrates that research has tested different frameworks without


395

Table 1 Summary of OCB research in Indian context Paper title

Authors, journal, year, volume, page no.

“All in a day’s work”: how follower Kamdar, D., McAllister, D. J., and individual differences and justice Turban, D. B. Journal of Applied perceptions predict OCB role Psychology, 2006, 91, 841–855 definitions and behavior Climate profile and OCBs of teachers in Garg, P., and Rastogi, R. public and private schools of India International Journal of Educational Management, 2006, 20, 529–541. Good citizens to the end? it depends: Joireman, J., Kamdar, D., Daniels, empathy and concern with future D., and Duell, B. Journal of consequences moderate the impact of Applied Psychology, 2006, 91, a short-term time horizon on organi1307–1320. zational citizenship behaviors In-role perceptions buffer the negative Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D., impact of low LMX on helping and Joireman, J. Journal of Applied enhance the positive impact of high Psychology, 2008, 93, 1195–1207. LMX on voice Organizational citizenship and Kwantes, C. T. (2003) International withdrawal behaviors in the USA and Journal of Cross Cultural India Management, 2003, 3, 5–26. Organizational citizenship behaviour as Jain, A. K. Indian Journal of a potential source of social power Industrial Relations, 2010, 45, 396–410.

OCB framework used

Factor test Technique performed used

OCBO (Loyal Boosterism), OCBI Yes (Interpersonal Helping) (Moorman and Blakely’s 1995 measure)

CFA

Organ’s (1988) 5-dimensional OCB framework (DiPaola and Hoy, 2004 measure)

No

–

Organ’s (1988) 5-dimensional OCB framework (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter’s, 1990 measure)

No

–

Helping and Voice (Van Dyne & LePine’s, 1998 measure)

Yes

CFA

Interpersonal helping, individual Yes initiative, personal industry and loyal boosterism (Moorman and Blakely’s 1995 measure) Combination of Bateman and Organ Yes (1983), Smith et al. (1983), Organ (1988), Van Dyne et al. (1994), Moorman and Blakely (1995), and Chattopadhyay (1999) measures OCBI, OCBO, In-Role Behaviors No (Williams and Anderson 1991 measure)

CFA

Outcomes of intention to quit of Indian Krishnan, S. K., & Singh, M. IT professionals Human Resource Management, 2010, 49, 421–437. Psychological climate and individual Biswas, S., & Varma, A. Employee Conscientiousness, Courtesy, Altruism, performance in India: test of a Relations, 2007, 29, 664–676. Civic Virtue (Moorman’s 1993 mediated model measure) Relationship of organizational Moideenkutty, U., Blau, G., Kumar, Sportsmanship, Civic Virtue (Podsakoff, citizenship behavior and objective R., Nalakath, A. International MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter, 1990 productivity to managerial evaluations Journal of Commerce and measure) of performance in India Management, 2005, 15, 221–229 Social power as a means of increasing Jain, A. K., Giga, S. I., Cooper, C. L. Combination of Bateman and Organ personal and organizational Journal of Management & (1983), Smith et al. 1983, Organ (1988), effectiveness: the mediating role of Organization, 2011, 17, 412–432. Van Dyne et al. (1994), Moorman and organizational citizenship behavior Blakely (1995), and Chattopadhyay (1999) measures The impact of organizational citizenship Markose, B., and Jayachandran, S. Civic Virtue, Sportsmanship, Altruism, behaviours on goal orientation and International Journal of Business Conscientiousness (MacKenzie et al. performance of salespeople Insights and Transformation, 2008, 1993) scale 16–27. Trust as a mediator of the relationship Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., and Chen, Tsui et al.’s (1997) measure of OCBO; between organizational justice and Z. X. Journal of Organizational Williams and Anderson (1991), Van work outcome: test of a social Behavior, 2002, 23, 267–285. Dyne and LePine (1998), and Smith et exchange model al. (1983) measure of OCBI LMX-citizenship behavior relationship: Bhal, K. T. Leadership & Loyalty (Van Dyne et al. 1994) sevenjustice as a mediator Organization Development item scale Journal, 2006, 22, 106–117 Exploring the relative relevance of Jain, A. K. Journal of Indian Combination of Bateman and Organ organizational citizenship behavior Academy of Applied Psychology, (1983), Smith et al. (1983), Organ and emotional intelligence 2009, 35, 87–97. (1988), Van Dyne et al. (1994), Moorman and Blakely (1995), and Chattopadhyay (1999) measures Work-family enrichment as a mediator Baral, R., and Bhargava, S. Journal Lee and Allen’s (2002) 8-item scale between organizational interventions of Managerial Psychology, 2010, for work-life balance and job 25, 274–300. outcomes.

EFA

–

No

–

Yes

EFA

Yes

EFA

Yes

CFA

Yes

CFA

No

–

Yes

EFA

No

–

396


Table 1 (continued) Paper title

Authors, journal, year, volume, page no.

OCB framework used

Factor test Technique performed used

Antecedents and consequences of work–family enrichment among Indian managers Interpersonal trust and organizational citizenship behavior

Bargava, S., and Baral, R. Psychological Studies, 2009, 54, 213–225 Singh, U. & Srivastava, K. B. L. Psychological Studies, 2009, 54, 65–76 Bhal, K. T., Gulati, N. and Ansari, M. A. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 2009, 30, 106–125.

Lee and Allen’s (2002) 8-item scale

No

Leader-member exchange and subordinate outcomes: test of a mediation model

establishing the similarities or differences between different OCB conceptualization. The present study is important from this aspect also. By testing the factor structure of 5 factor OCB framework, we intend to establish the conceptual differences or similarities that might exist between Organ’s (1988) 5-factor conceptualization and other popular OCB frameworks like the OCBI/OCBO framework. In light of the above arguments, we state our research objective as: Research Objective 1: Study of the suitability of five factor (helping, compliance, sportsmanship, courtesy, civic virtue) model of OCB for the Indian business context. Research Objective 2: Development of a concise measure of OCB for the Indian business context.

Proposed Approach In the present study, we present a confirmatory approach to factor analysis where we hypothesize and test a measurement model. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) results include estimates of covariances between factors, loadings of the indicators on their respective factors, and the amount of measurement error (unique variance) for each indicator. If the researcher’s apriori measurement model is reasonably correct, then one should see the following pattern of results: (1) indicators specified to measure a common underlying factor all have relatively high standardized loadings on that factor, and (2) estimated correlations between the factors are not excessively high. The former result indicates convergent validity, while the latter discriminant validity (Kline 2005). If the results of CFA do not support the researcher’s a priori hypotheses, the measurement model can be respecified and reanalyzed. The measurement model that fits best to the data is selected. The indicators that load significantly onto the

Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1989) 20 item Yes scale measuring 5-factor OCB (manufacturing and service sector context) Loyalty (Van Dyne et al. 1994 scale) NA

– EFA

NA

factor constitute the scale for the measurement of that particular hypothetical construct. The indicators measuring the construct should have adequate internal consistency (also called as reliability) and item-to-total correlation. Cutoff values of 0.70 and 0.30 have been suggested in the literature (Nunnally 1978) for reliability and item-total correlation respectively. CFA was performed using LISREL 8.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom 1993). The best conceptualization was chosen and its validity was tested with organizational justice, organizational identification and job tenure. Schumacker and Lomax (1996) suggested that a ratio of 5 responses per variable would be sufficient for normal distributions. Kline (2005) suggested that at least three indicators are required to estimate each factor thereby ensuring that the sample size used in the present study would be sufficient for convergence and proper solutions of the CFA models. Other researchers have adopted a similar approach (ratio of 5:1) when fixing the sample sizes for their studies (e.g. Moorman and Blakely 1995; Rich et al. 2010; Walumbwa et al. 2008). Moreover, there are studies that have used similar sample sizes to test the factor structure of measurement scales (e.g. Thurston and McNall 2010 tested the factor structure of performance appraisal justice scale consisting of 50 items using a sample size of 188). Given that the OCB questionnaire tested in present study had 30 items sample size of 181 was, therefore, considered to be adequate for performing CFA. To assess model fit, we report the overall model chisquare measure, the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Standardised Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) (Hooper et al. 2008; Hu and Bentler 1999). Relative χ2 (χ2/df) less than 2, RMSEA less than 0.08, CFI greater than 0.95, GFI greater than 0.90, SRMR less than 0.08, and NNFI (TLI) greater than 0.95 were taken as acceptable threshold levels (Hooper et al. 2008; Hu and Bentler 1999).


Sample The questionnaire containing measures of organizational justice, organizational identification and OCB was uploaded on a website. The sample used in this study comprised of professionals working in Indian subsidiaries of multinational corporations, Indian private and public sector organizations operating in the domain of IT, electronics, and telecommunications. An email was sent out to the employees directing them to the web site and asking them for their assistance in completing the questionnaire. All the respondents had access to the internet at their workplace. The online questionnaire enabled the respondents to fill out the questionnaire in their free time avoiding any problems of being noticed by other colleagues or their supervisors. To encourage honesty, participant anonymity was maintained. Participation was both confidential and voluntary. One hundred ninety seven completed questionnaires were received. Sixteen responses had to be pruned resulting in a usable sample size of 181. Ninety five percent of the respondents had university education with engineering being the predominant undergraduate degree. Eighty eight percent of the respondents were male. The average reported job tenure was 3.5 years with a standard deviation of 2.3 years. Almost all the respondents were engineers (about 84 %) and were working in knowledge-based organizations operating in IT, electronics (semiconductor design, hardware) and telecommunications.

397

and which dimensions of OCB he/she has actually displayed, a self-report measure may be more appropriate than supervisor or peer-ratings (Coyne and Ong 2007). Allen et al. (2000) also found that mean supervisor and self-ratings of OCB did not differ significantly even though both were consistently higher than mean subordinate ratings. In line with the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fishbein 1977) that individuals must first intend to perform the behaviour before the activity can occur, we followed the approach adopted by other researchers (Williams et al. 2002) and operationalized OCB as an employee’s intent to perform specific organizationally desirable activities that was measured through self-report. Organizational Justice The justice items were adapted from Colquitt (2001). For the present study, organizational justice was modelled as a unidimensional construct. The alpha-reliability of the scale was 0.92. Organizational Identification Information on organizational identification was obtained using seven items developed by Van Dick et al. (2004) that have been shown to be a reliable and economical measure with regard to the assessment of different forms of identification. Sample items were ‘I identify myself with my organization’ and ‘My organization is positively judged by outsiders.’ The alpha-reliability of the scale was 0.80.

Measures Job Tenure Participants responded to multi-item scale questions on a 5point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). While OCB scale items were used for measuring the dimensionality of OCB, organizational justice and organizational identification scales were used to test the validity of final OCB conceptualization.

Job tenure was recorded as a continuous variable. The average reported job tenure was 3.5 years with a standard deviation of 2.3 years.

Results Organizational Citizenship Behaviour Confirmatory Factor Analysis Five dimensions of OCB as conceptualized by Organ (1988) were measured using a 30-item scale. Helping and Compliance were measured using 16 item scale developed by Smith et al. (1983) and Courtesy, Sportsmanship and Civic virtue were measured using 14 item scale developed by Konovsky and Organ (1996). All measures were adapted into a selfreport format and randomly ordered. Although multi-source ratings are advised it has been suggested that, as OCB is discretionary and has multiple recipients, supervisors and peers might observe only part of an individual’s total OCB (Allen et al. 2000; Williams et al. 2002). As the participant himself/herself will be the only person to know how much

We assessed the fit of our data to a measurement model. To assess the structure of the OCB scale in this sample, we specified a 5-factor model and tested its fit using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The items that were meant to measure the latent factors were specified. The model showed poor fit (χ2[395] 0 648.29; CFI 0 0.88; NNFI 0 0.87; RMSEA 0 0.063; GFI 0 0.79 and SRMR 0 0.087). The result indicated that the five factor model is not suitable for the Indian context. We observed a strong inter-correlation between latent factors 1 (i.e. helping), 3 (sportsmanship), and 5 (civic virtue). The average correlation between them was 0.73 suggesting poor

398


discriminant validity, model having too many factors (Kline 2005) and commonality suggestive of a single factor instead of three separate factors. We next specified another measurement model (model 2) combining the items of latent factors 1, 3 and 5 (i.e. helping, sportsmanship and civic virtue). We also pruned the items that had standardized loadings of less than 0.30 onto the individual latent factor to which they were originally assigned. The model showed excellent fit (χ2[85] 0 116.69 (p 0 0.013); CFI 0 0.97; NNFI 0 0.96; RMSEA 0 0.048; GFI 0 0.91 and SRMR 0 0.075) in the absolute sense and in relative sense (Δχ2[310] 0 531.6, p