Table 1

Descriptives
  Gender Department

N 339 339
Missing 0 0
Mean 0.499 0.994
Median 0 1
Standard deviation 0.501 0.818
Minimum 0 0
Maximum 1 2
Skewness 0.00593 0.0109
Std. error skewness 0.132 0.132
Kurtosis -2.01 -1.50
Std. error kurtosis 0.264 0.264
Shapiro-Wilk W 0.636 0.793
Shapiro-Wilk p < .001 < .001

 Since the skewness and kurtosis values for gender and department fall in the – 1 and + 1 band, and -3 and +3 band
respectively, we can infer that the data set is normally distributed. However, the Shapiro-Wilk p-value is <.001.
H0: There is no significant relationship between Benefits and Job Satisfaction

1
H : there is a significant relationship BETWEEN benefits and Job satisfaction.

Correlation Matrix
    Job Satisfaction Benefits

Job Satisfaction Pearson's r —  

  p-value —  
  95% CI Upper —  
  95% CI Lower —  
Benefits Pearson's r 0.062 —
  p-value 0.266 —
  95% CI Upper 0.169 —
  95% CI Lower -0.047 —

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

 Since the p-value is greater than 0.05, we can infer that there is no significant
relationship between Benefits and Job Satisfaction. The correlation between Job
Satisfaction and Benefits was not statistically significant, r =0.062, 95% CI [-0.047, 0.169].
According to the criteria provided by Cohen (1988), the size of this correlation has
almost no effect therefor we can infer that there is no association between job
satisfaction and benefits.

Since the p-value is greater than 0.05, we can infer that there is no significant
relationship between Job Satisfaction and Benefits. Therefore, we fail to reject the
hypothesis. therefore, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
H0: There is no significant relationship between work environment and Job Satisfaction

1
H : there is a significant relationship BETWEEN work environment and Job satisfaction.

Correlation Matrix

    Job Satisfaction Work environment

Job Satisfaction Pearson's r —  

  p-value —  
  95% CI Upper —  
  95% CI Lower —  

Work environment Pearson's r 0.166 ** —

  p-value 0.002 —
  95% CI Upper 0.269 —
  95% CI Lower 0.060 —

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

 Since the p-value is greater than 0.05, we can infer that there is no significant
relationship between Benefits and Job Satisfaction. The correlation between Job
Satisfaction and work environment was not statistically significant, r = 0.166, 95% CI [-
0.060, 0.269]. According to the criteria provided by Cohen (1988), the size of this
correlation has almost no effect. The sign of the correlation was positive.

1Since the p-value is greater than 0.05, we can infer that there is no significant
relationship between Job Satisfaction and Benefits. Therefore, we fail to reject the
hypothesis.
H0: There is no significant relationship between Co-workers and Job Satisfaction

1
H : there is a significant relationship BETWEEN Co-workers and Job satisfaction.

Correlation Matrix

    Job Satisfaction Co-workers

Job Satisfaction Pearson's r —  

  p-value —  

Co-workers Pearson's r -0.116 * —

  p-value 0.036 —

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

 The correlation between Job Satisfaction and Co-workers was not statistically significant,

r = -0.116, 95% CI [-0.222, 0.169]. According to the criteria provided by Cohen (1988),
the size of this correlation has a small effect. The sign of the correlation was negative.

Since the p-value is greater than 0.05, we can infer that there is no significant
relationship between Job Satisfaction and Co-workers. Therefore, we fail to reject the
hypothesis. therefore, we reject the null hypothesis.