Read the article below and answer the questions.

Excerpt from article

This research focused on one type of exchange-based proactive behavior, namely, helping behavior, which refers to giving resources (i.e., love, information, money, goods, and services) to others or acting altruisticallyin general (Foa & Foa, [37]). Newcomers help others, and this act of provision of resources is reciprocated by the recipient or a third party (Yamagishi & Cook, [111]). Additionally, coworkers, either recipients or third parties, may attribute a newcomer's helping behavior to certain motives. Studies have mainly identified and distinguished two helping motives: prosocial motives and impression management motives (Rioux & Penner, [89]). Employees with a prosocial motive act as "good soldiers" (Grant & Mayer, [44]). By contrast, employees with an impression management motive act as "good actors" to attempt to create positive self-images and bolster favorable reputations as helpful contributors (Bolino, [18]). Thus, we used a generalized dyadic perspective and considered both behaviors by newcomers and the attributions of coworkers in influencing the adjustment of newcomers.

Sample participants were employed by a telecommunications company in China. Data were collected from two sources (newcomers and their coworkers) and in three phases using internet-based surveys with an interval of one month to minimize potential common method bias and reduce respondent fatigue (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, [86]). Surveys were distributed to these employees by email. At Time 1 (the first week of newcomers working), we collected data on newcomers' proactive personality and demographic data (education level, age, and gender). Time 2 surveys measured newcomers' helping behavior (newcomers self-reported) and coworker-attributed motives of newcomers' helping behavior (coworker reported). Coworkers were randomly selected to participate by the human resource department.[1] At Time 3, we collected data on the outcome variables (newcomers self-reported): task mastery, social integration, and organization commitment. One hundred and twenty-three newcomers were invited to participate in the research. Because of missing data, nine of the surveys returned were unusable. The final sample was 114 matched newcomers and coworkers. The response rate was 93%. Nearly two-thirds of the participants were female, and their average age was 25.6 years. Two-thirds of the participants had at least a bachelor's degree.

Further explanation

The newcomers were evaluated and data were collected both from them and from a coworker.

Measured variables included:

• Proactive personality (7-point scale, no example given)
• Age (5 categories)
• Gender (male/female)
• Education (5 categories)
• Mentor (Were you assigned one? yeso)
• Helping behavior (7-point scale, example: "In the past month I helped colleagues solve work-related problems.")
• Task mastery (7-point scale, example: "I feel competent conducting my job assignments.")
• Social integration (7-point scale, example: "Group members are friendly.")
• Prosocial motives (motivated by kindness, 7-point scale, example: "Because he/she feels it is critical to help those in need.")
• Impression management motives (motivated to bolster self-image, scale not given, example: "To avoid looking bad in front of others.")
• Organizational commitment (7-point scale, example: "I feel emotionally attached to the organization.")

On all numeric scales lower numbers signified negative responses and higher numbers were the most positive response. Table 1 shows the means, SDs, and correlation coefficients.

E Helping others makes me fit bett X + X C A Not secure | web.a.ebscohost.com.trevecca.idm.oclc.org/bsi/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=dae1fc23-a33e-44db-8634-7143d71e... @ Not syncing > Helping others makes me fit better: effects of helping behavior by newcomer... Contents 7 of 17 Q + 0 Page view | A Read aloud | \\ Draw Highlight Erase Table 1 Descriptive statistics, alpha coefficients, and correlations Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 Proactive personality 3.96 0.67 2 Age 1.71 0.44 -0.01 3 Gender 1.64 0.48 0.01 0.45** 4 Education 2.69 0.48 02 0.59** 0.21* 5 Mentor 1.28 0.44 0.02 0.14 0.23* 0.13 6 Helping behavior 5.23 0.84 0.28** - 0.18 -0.12 - 0.19 0.08 7 Task mastery 3.72 0.38 -0.01 - 0.01 0.08 0.05 - 0.04 0.25** 8 Social integration 3.91 0.57 0.07 -0.01 0.06 - 0.02 0.05 0.33 0.42* 9 Prosocial motives 6.48 0.88 0.14 -0.01 -0.10 -0.01 0.02 0.27** 0.02 0.19* 10 Impression management motives 4.52 1.25 - 0.06 0.05 0.01 - 0.10 -0.05 -0.02 -0.02 0.01 0.10 11 Organizational commitment 3.87 0.62 0.05 -0.13 -0.05 - 0.10 -0.11 0.24* 0.28** 0.40** 0.23 0.06 N= 114. For gender, 1 = male, 2 = female; For age, 1 = 18-24 years old, 2 =25-29 years old, 3 =30-34 years old, 4=35-39 years old, 5 = above 40 years old; For educational level, 1 = middle school, 2 = high school, 3 = bachelor, 4 = postgraduate, 5 = PhD; For mentorship, 1 = yes, I have a mentor, 2 =No, I do not have a mentor *p<.05 p two-tailed test activate windows go to settings>