0.408. While the construct definitions and corresponding measurements in this
study are not identical to those found in the MLQ, the concepts are similar, and an
inter-factor correlation of 0.408 is not radically different from Avolio and Bass’s
0.550 estimate for European employees.
Finally, regarding Hypothesis 2 (ML→DSB), there is no prior research with which
to compare the effect size for this relationship. The DSB (Discretionary Service
Behaviour) construct is a relatively new conceptualisation, developed by Blancero
and Johnson (1997, 2001) and operationalised by Simons and Roberson (2003).
Simons and Roberson’s (2003) study is the only known empirical application of
the DSB construct and those researchers measured the influence of Affective
Commitment on DSB, finding this path significant with an en effect size of 0.260
(p. 440).
Summary of effect sizes
Summarising the above, we find that there are few prior empirical findings with
which to compare the effect sizes in the current research. This is not surprising
considering that the research is largely exploratory (insofar as it is examining
research questions hitherto not addressed in hospitality contexts^19 ) and therefore
falls into what Kline (p. 122) refers to as a “new research area”. In such
circumstances, Kline recommends the guidelines on interpreting effect sizes
provided by (Cohen 1988). Specifically, these guidelines suggest that:
effects sizes less than 0.1 = small effects;
effect sizes around 0.3 = medium effects; and
effect sizes around 0.5 or greater = large effects.
(Kline 2005: 122)
Based on these guidelines the relevant effect sizes from Models 2 and 5b (and
summarised in Table 7 - 35 above) are interpreted as follows (ranked in
descending order of magnitude):
H 24 (EM→EPA) = 0.626 = large.
H 3 (ML→ME) = 0.558 = large;
H 2 (ML→DSB) = 0.403 = medium to large;
H 1 (ML→JP) = 0.315 = medium;
19
And in the case of the newly formed EPA construct, is entirely novel