Results

Contingency Tables

Here we conduct a chi-square test to see if time pressure is associated with the ability to detach from work. In this example, put the variable time_pressure into the box called Rows, detachment into the box called Columns, and frequency into the box called Counts.

Contingency Tables
detachment
time_pressure   Low Detachment Very Low Detachment Total
No Time Pressure Count 84.000 94.000 178.000
Expected count 75.512 102.488 178.000
% within row 47.191 % 52.809 % 100.000 %
% within column 11.586 % 9.553 % 10.415 %
% of total 4.915 % 5.500 % 10.415 %
Pearson residuals 0.977 -0.838
Low Time Pressure Count 89.000 94.000 183.000
Expected count 77.633 105.367 183.000
% within row 48.634 % 51.366 % 100.000 %
% within column 12.276 % 9.553 % 10.708 %
% of total 5.208 % 5.500 % 10.708 %
Pearson residuals 1.290 -1.107
Medium Time Pressure Count 147.000 175.000 322.000
Expected count 136.600 185.400 322.000
% within row 45.652 % 54.348 % 100.000 %
% within column 20.276 % 17.785 % 18.841 %
% of total 8.602 % 10.240 % 18.841 %
Pearson residuals 0.890 -0.764
High Time Pressure Count 206.000 267.000 473.000
Expected count 200.658 272.342 473.000
% within row 43.552 % 56.448 % 100.000 %
% within column 28.414 % 27.134 % 27.677 %
% of total 12.054 % 15.623 % 27.677 %
Pearson residuals 0.377 -0.324
Very High Time Pressure Count 199.000 354.000 553.000
Expected count 234.596 318.404 553.000
% within row 35.986 % 64.014 % 100.000 %
% within column 27.448 % 35.976 % 32.358 %
% of total 11.644 % 20.714 % 32.358 %
Pearson residuals -2.324 1.995
Total Count 725.000 984.000 1709.000
Expected count 725.000 984.000 1709.000
% within row 42.422 % 57.578 % 100.000 %
% within column 100.000 % 100.000 % 100.000 %
% of total 42.422 % 57.578 % 100.000 %
Chi-Squared Tests
  Value df p
Χ² 15.550 4 0.004
N 1709  
Note.  Continuity correction is available only for 2x2 tables.

The chi-squared test is highly significant, χ2 (4) = 15.55, p = .004, indicating that the profile of low-detachment and very low-detachment responses differed significantly across different time pressures.


Looking at the standardized residuals in the Contingency Tables, the only time pressure for which these are significant is very high time pressure, which showed the greatest split of whether the employees experienced low detachment (36%) or very low detachment (64%). Within the other time pressure groups all of the standardized residuals are lower than 1.96 (thus, not significant). It’s interesting to look at the direction of the residuals (i.e., whether they are positive or negative). For all time pressure groups except very high time pressure, the residual for ‘low detachment’ was positive but for ‘very low detachment’ was negative; these are, therefore, people who responded more than we would expect that they experienced low detachment from work and less than expected that they experienced very low detachment from work. It was only under very high time pressure that the opposite pattern occurred: the residual for ‘low detachment’ was negative but for ‘very low detachment’ was positive; these are, therefore, people who responded less than we would expect that they experienced low detachment from work and more than expected that they experienced very low detachment from work.

In short, there are similar numbers of people who experience low detachment and very low detachment from work when there is no time pressure, low time pressure, medium time pressure and high time pressure. However, when time pressure was very high, significantly more people experienced very low detachment than low detachment.