Discussion Papers In Economics
And Business

Effects of Top Management Team Characteristics on Corporate Charitable Activities:
Evidence from the Board for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in China

Xin Huang, Koichi Nakagawa and Jie Li

Discussion Paper 17-30

Graduate School of Economics andOsaka School of International Public Policy (OSIPP)
Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, JAPANEffects of Top Management Team Characteristics on Corporate Charitable Activities:
Evidence from the Board for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in China

Xin Huang, Koichi Nakagawa and Jie Li

Discussion Paper 17-30

October 2017

Graduate School of Economics andOsaka School of International Public Policy (OSIPP)
Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, JAPANEffects of Top Management Team Characteristics on Corporate Charitable Activities:
Evidence from the Board for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in China*
Xin Huang†, Koichi Nakagawa†, Jie Li†

Abstract
Employing data from Chinese companies listed on the board for small and medium-sized enterprises(SMEs), the research examines the relationship between top management team (TMT) characteristics andcorporate charitable activities in China. My findings confirm: 1) Firms less engaged in charitable activities
are likely to have TMTs characterized by more educational specialty in science and engineering, and morefunctional background in output functions; 2) TMT age heterogeneity has a significant and positive effecton corporate charitable activities, while TMT educational specialty heterogeneity has a negative influence
on corporate charitable activities; 3) TMT age, tenure, educational level and these heterogeneities of tenure,educational level and functional background have little or no influence on corporate charitable activities.
Based on the upper echelons theory, the study can provide evidence for further research on top
management teams and corporate social responsibility in an emerging economy.
JEL: M54, M12, M14
Key words: top management team; charity; heterogeneity; corporate social responsibility; Chinesecompanies*

This study was supported by the China Scholarship Council.
Xin Huang, Doctoral Candidate, Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University
E-mail: koushin_huangxin@yahoo.co.jp†
Koichi Nakagawa, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University†
Jie Li, Assistant Professor, School of Management, Shanghai University†

1. Introduction
With the deepening globalization the societies and communities appeal to corporations to employ their own
resources to help alleviate various social and environmental issues, for instance, some companies wererequired to provide victims with free food and drink. Nowadays, a firm as a citizen living in the world not
only frequently interacts with a wide variety of communities and organizations (Wood, 1991), but can also
obtain a sustainable competitive advantage in the process of implementing corporate social responsibility(CSR) (Porter & Kramer, 2006).
Unlike most of the western countries in which there are many individual donors, in China charitablegiving is mainly relying on corporations. According to authoritative statistics, American and British
companies accounted for only about 5% and 6% respectively of total donations to charities in 2011 (Klein,2014), however, Chinese corporations contributed to non-profit and charitable organizations to amount toapproximately 58% of total giving in 2011(Feng, 2013). Thus, in China, studies on CSR and corporatecharities make more sense. Additionally, it is well known that in China, most of the large enterprises
belong to state-owned or state-controlled enterprises, and these companies are often affected by national
policy and macroeconomic control, while the owners and top managers of listed small and medium-sizedenterprises (SMEs) with less direct interference of state and government have more rights to make theirown strategic decisions.
A top management team (TMT) is the small group of executives making vital strategic decisions within
the organization, and takes the overall responsibility for the company (Finkelstein et al., 2009). As thereactor of enterprise knowledge, the top management team can conduct a comprehensive analysis on the
firm's internal and external environment, and it is effective to reduce economic losses which myopia or
one-sided decision causes (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Therefore, a top management team can build
network relationships and obtain development opportunities based on their strategic decisions such as
product research and development, overseas investment, charitable activities.
In recent years, China has accelerated the pace of building a harmonious society with resource andinformation sharing, and a rising number of companies have been involved in charitable activities. Under
the circumstances, corporate senior executives could consolidate existing guanxi (closed system of
relationship) networks and build new network relationships with communities and governments by meansof fulfilling social responsibility, in order to look for business opportunities and play an important role insociety (Tian et al., 2008; Carpenter, Bauer, & Erdogan, 2009; Dollinger et al., 2010). Thus, in Chinesecompanies some visionary members within these top management teams have realized the importance ofcorporate social responsibility and have regarded social responsibility as a corporate strategy forsustainable development, thereby actively engaging in charitable activities.
2. Theory and Hypotheses
After Bowen (1953), the father of corporate social responsibility, formally presented the view thatenterprises and their operators must take social responsibilities, then some scholars have expanded CSR in
stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984). On the one hand, many of the related research was concentrated on
the definition and model of CSR (Keim, 1978; Carroll, 1979; Wartick & Cochran, 1985; Basu & Palazzo,2008), for example, Carroll’s (1991) the pyramid model, Elkington's (1994) Triple Bottom Line; On theother hand, some of the scholars focused on the relationship between the CSR and firm performance(Cochran & Wood, 1984; Mc Guire, Sundgren & Schneeweis, 1988; Harrison & Freeman, 1999; Mackey
A, Mackey T & Barney, 2007).
When Hambrick and Mason (1984) first proposed the upper echelons theory in 1984, the research on top-1-management teams has developed as one of the most important areas in the management field. While themajority of the research focused on the relationship between the top management team and organizational
outcomes (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990; Michel & Hambrick, 1992; Carpenter, 2002; Nielsen B &Nielsen S, 2013), some of the upper echelon scholars paid attention to strategic outcomes, for example
innovation, internationalization, diversification, risk (Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Qian, Cao & Takeuchi, 2013;
Nielsen B & Nielsen S, 2011; Chen, 2011; Carpenter et al., 2004; Finkelstein et al., 2009; Hambrick, 2005,2007).
Thus it can be seen that there are a large number of literatures related to TMT or CSR, while there is little
research on the relationship between top management teams and corporate social responsibility, especiallya related empirical research. Thomas and Simerly (1995) proposed that researchers could develop the areaof corporate social responsibility in terms of upper echelons. Recently, Strand (2012) found that there exist
CSR chief officers in TMTs and corporations.
2-1. Age of top management team
Top management team age has an impact on corporate strategic decision (Hambrick & Mason, 1984).
Older executives usually consider and make a strategic decision deliberately (Taylor, 1975), and tend toresist facing strategic change (Wiersema & Bantel, 1992) and challenging established routines (Child,1974). In many companies and organizations, moral activities are supported by these established formal
rules and routines, hence older senior managers are likely to comply with the ethical rules and moral norms(Daboub et al., 1995).
Kohlberg (1984), a famous psychologist, believes that with age one individual will reach a certain stageof moral development, that is, people may be disposed to follow universal ethical principles and become
willing to help others. Many of the previous research results suggest that the older persons are, the morethey contribute to charity (Midlarsky & Hannah, 1989; Andreoni et al., 2003). Thus, top management
teams with a higher average age are inclined to follow the ethical rules and have more moral need, thereby
more actively engaging in CSR and charitable activities. Hence, I propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Top management team age has a positive effect on corporate charitable activities.
2-2. Age heterogeneity of top management teamAge heterogeneity of top management team usually relates to cognitive diversity (Finkelstein & Hambrick,1990). Team members who are living in different times experience different social environment and events,
which facilitates the sharing of a variety of information and thoughts and the interaction within the team(Tihanyi et al., 2000; Wei & Lau, 2012; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992), and hence the top management teams
that have these members with different ages are more sensitive to the changing environment andstakeholder groups; in other words, these top management teams with higher age heterogeneity could pay
more attention to stakeholders’ requirements and be more likely to take corporate social responsibility.
Additionally, TMT age heterogeneity can not only generate various perspectives on the strategic issues,
but also contributes to cognitive conflict, which is beneficial to extend the strategic decision making, andtherefore these top management team members with different ages are helpful to discuss the large numberof qualitatively better alternative solutions (Greening & Johnson, 1996, 1997). Thus, top management
teams that have more members with different ages are more likely to reach an agreement on charities. The
reasoning leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Age heterogeneity of top management team has a significantly positive effect on corporatecharitable activities.
-2-2-3. Tenure of top management teamTenure is an important factor influencing the information exchange between team members (Allen &Cohen, 1969). Due to inadequacies in the interactive communication between team members,
shorter-tenured top management teams are more likely to lack cohesion and further may be prone to
making more strategic mistakes (Hambrick & D’aveni, 1992). On the other hand, longer-tenured teammembers are willing to share some knowledge and information from the internal and external
environments through their own communication channels (Zenger & Lawrence, 1989), and hence
longer-tenured top management teams have the ability to identify opportunities that exist in the external
environment (Sutcliffe, 1994). Furthermore, these longer-tenured TMTs tend to promote coordination
rather than creating the clouds of emotional conflict (Michel & Hambrick, 1992; Nielsen B & Nielsen S,
2013; Priem, Lyon & Dess, 1999).
Additionally, top managers with longer tenure would be resistant to initiate illegal actions due to theirconcern for corporate long-term development and reputation (Daboub et al., 1995). Thus, longer-tenured
top management teams are inclined to agree on a long-term development strategy such as getting involved
with charities, so that enterprises can obtain more commercial opportunities by means of establishing good
relationship with external stakeholders (e.g. local community and government). Therefore, I make thefollowing hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Top management team tenure has a positive effect on corporate charitable activities.
2-4. Tenure heterogeneity of top management teamTeam members with different tenure may have a different understanding of organizational environments
and strategies due to their different experience (Katz, 1982). Although tenure heterogeneity may trigger
conflict especially under a complex and uncertain environment (Carpenter, 2002; Pelled, Eisenhardt & Xin,
1999), these conflicts may exert positive impact on corporate outcomes in extreme adverse circumstances(Qian, Cao & Takeuchi, 2013). In addition, TMT tenure heterogeneity can provide organizations withvarious alternatives from different perspectives (Boeker, 1997; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992), and hence these
top management teams with higher tenure heterogeneity are inclined to impel corporations to make a morecomprehensive plan for sustainable development.
Tenure heterogeneity can not only improve the quality of companies’ decision making and teams’ internal
processes, but may also be beneficial to predict potential risk (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Greening &Johnson, 1996). More specially, longer-tenured top managers are likely to decrease external threats(Daboub et al., 1995); one the other hand, top managers with shorter tenure are able to notice external
environments of corporations through relying on their previous experiences (Liu et al., 2012).
Therefore, tenure heterogeneity conduces to help top management teams take into account more external
stakeholders, and further these top management teams with higher tenure heterogeneity are beneficial tocorporate charitable activities. Hence, this assumption leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: Tenure heterogeneity of top management team has a positive effect on corporate charitable
activities.
2-5. Educational level of top management team
Educational level has an important influence on an executive’s cognitive capability (Hitt & tyler, 1991).
Top managers who are highly educated can not only have the better capacity for understanding internal andexternal environmental issues from a variety of perspectives, but are also able to distinguish and process-3-the complex information (Bartunek et al., 1983; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992). Because of the greater ability
to creatively solve the complicated problems (Bantel & Jackson, 1989), top management teams with thehigher educational level can realize that corporations actively engage in charitable activities so as to obtaina long-term competitive advantage.
In addition, an individual’s educational level has a positive influence on moral and cognitive development(Jones et al., 1990). Highly educated persons can have a deep understanding in morality and social
responsibility, so they might be inclined to give more donations to charity (Chua & Wong, 1999). A large
number of related studies indicate that higher educational level persons have, the more they give the
donations to charity (Andreoni et al., 2003). Therefore, the higher educational level top management teams
have, the more willingness they have to participate in charitable activities. Accordingly, I propose thefollowing hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5: Educational level of top management team has a positive effect on corporate charitable
activities.
2-6. Educational level heterogeneity of top management team
Educational level heterogeneity may exert an unfavorable impact on strategic decision making within a top
management team, since educational level heterogeneity is likely to arise affective conflict, which can not
only have a detrimental influence on decision comprehensiveness (Simons, Pelled & Smith, 1999), but alsointerferes with interaction and communication among top management team members and thereby leading
to the difficulty of achieving strategic consensus (Knight et al., 1999) especially under the Chinese cultural
background, most of the Chinese place importance on harmony rather than divergence (Wei et al., 2005).
More specially, more highly educated top managers are more willing to contribute to society by terms of
donations to charity compared to top executives with the lower educational level, and further the differenceof educational level is prone to causing disagreement on charitable decisions and activities. Thus, I suggest
the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 6: Educational level heterogeneity of top management team has a negative effect on corporatecharitable activities.
2-7. Science and engineering education specialty of top management team
Educational specialties of senior executives may have an important influence on strategic decision making(Hitt & Tyler, 1991), since individuals who received formal education can form their own values andcognition. In other words, there exist some cognitive differences in strategic choices between theexecutives who received business education and those who received education in engineering (Hambrick& Mason, 1984).
More specially, top managers with science or engineering degree are inclined to actively invest in
research and development activities and focus on product innovation (Barker & Mueller, 2002; Wiersema& Bantel, 1992), while they have few interest in social relationships and philanthropic plans; on the other
hand, top management teams that comprise the senior executives with the prestigious socio-economic
background have more social capital through building social network to achieve better firm performance(Shipilov & Danis, 2006).
As noted above, the top management teams with more educational specialties related to science andengineering are more willing to contribute to the product development, while they may pay less attention
to the establishment of relationships with external stakeholders by donations to charity. Therefore, thisreasoning provides the following hypothesis:-4-Hypothesis 7: Science and engineering education specialty of top management team has a significant andnegative effect on corporate charitable activities.
2-8. Educational specialty heterogeneity of top management team
Educational specialty heterogeneity is prone to hampering integration within a top management team(Amason, Shrader & Tompson, 2006). More specially, TMT members with different educational specialties
place the importance on different corporate development directions, for instance, senior executives with thedegree in science or engineering often pay more attention to product development and innovation (Barker& Mueller, 2002), while top managers who received education in business and economics are likely tohave interest in enhancing relational capital (Shipilov & Danis, 2006) and thereby building good social
relationships with stakeholders.
However, different concern points lead to ingroup-outgroup phenomenon (Tajfel and Turner, 1986),
which may in turn hinder communication among team members, destroy team cohesion, reduce TMT
member’s satisfaction, and cause emotional conflict (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). Hence, the higher theeducational specialty heterogeneity is, the more difficult it is for a top management team to reach an
agreement on corporate charity activities. Accordingly, the assumption leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 8: Educational specialty heterogeneity of top management team has a salient and negative
effect on corporate charitable activities.
2-9. Output function background of top management team
Top managers’ functional backgrounds can not only affect their own cognitive patterns, but also top
management team effectiveness and corporate strategic choices (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Hitt & Tyler,1991). Output functions include such functional backgrounds as research and development, marketing andsales (Hambrick & Mason, 1984).
More specially, senior executives with these functional experiences in R&D or marketing are more likely
to actively engage in product development, and place more importance on product innovation andcompetition (Barker & Mueller, 2002; Govindarajan, 1989), while they may pay less attention to theestablishment of social relationship network; on the other hand, top managers who had such functional
experiences as law, finance, accounting tend to focus on existing strategies, mergers and acquisitions(M&A) (Finkelstein, 1992; Geletkanycz & Black, 2001), and they are more willing to enhance corporate
advantage and reputation through building relationships with external organizations rather than throughinternal innovative activities.
However, due to the limited resources and different allocation of capital, top management teams whichhave more members with functional backgrounds related to output functions pay more attention to
products and R&D activities rather than CSR and charitable activities. Thus, I make the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 9: Output function background of top management team has a noteworthy and negative effecton corporate charitable activities.
2-10. Functional background heterogeneity of top management teamSenior executives with different functional experience might be disposed to differ in social value, attitudes,
skills and knowledge (Bantel & Jackson, 1989). Although the differences in functional background arelikely to trigger both cognitive and emotional conflict, and thereby affecting the cohesion and consensus
among team members (Bundersonm & Sutcliffe, 2002; Cai, Liu & Yu, 2013; Knight et al., 1999), the-5-

functional background heterogeneity can provide top management teams and corporations with moredifferent information and intelligence, so that they have better capabilities to predict external
circumstances and generate appropriate alternatives to solve complicated problems (Bantel & Jackson,
1989; Lant, Milliken & Batra, 1992; Liu et al., 2012), and further maintain good relations with externalorganizations and stakeholders in order to create a positive corporate image.
Additionally, relying on more effective information processing and external environmental observation,
top management teams with greater functional background heterogeneity can not only avoid human risks(Greening & Johnson, 1996), but also facilitate external communication (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992).
Therefore, these top management teams with higher functional background heterogeneity attach more
importance to external situations and social relationships, and thereby promoting charitable activities.
Hence, I propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 10: Functional background heterogeneity of top management team has a positive effect on
corporate charitable activities.
3. Methods
3-1. Sample
Many of the scholars identify the strategic leaders and the senior executives as top management teammembers in terms of their titles or positions in their companies such as president, chairman, chief executive
officer, chief financial officer, chief operating officer, vice president, general manager, vice generalmanager (Amason & Mooney, 1999; Heavey & Simsek, 2013; Ou et al., 2014; Simons & Peterson, 2000;
Wei & Lau, 2012). Thus, considering the consistency and comparability of the relevant research, I also
define and choose top management team members according to their titles or positions in theircorporations.
The initial sample data set was composed of the listed small and medium-sized enterprises on theShenzhen Stock Exchange of China, and then the final sample of 102 corporations was selected from theinitial samples through weeding out some lacking necessary data and related information. Additionally, allof the data sources in the research were from Chinese financial database-RESSET (www.resset.cn),
corporate prospectuses, websites, and annual reports for the years 2004–2007 since it is necessary to avoid
the detrimental effects of the 2008 financial crisis.
3-2. Measures
3-2-1. Dependent variable
Corporate charitable activities: Some enterprises tend to contribute to the society through donations tocharity, and thereby establishing good relationships with external organizations and communities. As asustainable development strategy, corporate philanthropy can not only enhance the reputation of companies,
but also helps the firms expand commercial opportunities. Corporate charitable activities are often
operationalized as cash donations reported by the companies (Dennis et al., 2007), and the data areprocessed by means of the natural logarithm transformation in order to eliminate the potential risk ofheteroskedasticity and to avoid the situation that firms overstate the amount of cash contributions.
3-2-2. Independent variables
Age of top management team (AGE) is computed by evaluating the average age of top management teammembers.
Age heterogeneity of top management team (AGEHET) is measured by the coefficient of variation that-6-

is the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean, and the larger the value, the greater the heterogeneity is,since the heterogeneity is usually calculated by the coefficient of variation when the variable is continuous(Tihanyi et al., 2000).
Tenure of the top management team (TEN) is calculated by evaluating the average team tenure of top
management team members.
Tenure heterogeneity of top management team (TENHET) is computed by the coefficient of variation,
because tenure is a continuous variable.
Educational level of top management team (EDULEV) is calculated by evaluating the average
educational level of top management team members. Educational level is often categorized into five levels
that are high school graduate or lower, associate, bachelor, master, and doctorate or higher.
Educational level heterogeneity of top management team (EDULEVHET) is measured by the Blau’s(1977) heterogeneity index that isn

H  1   Pi 2i 1,

where P is the proportion of TMT members in a category, and i is the number of different categories thatare represented in the top management team, because the heterogeneity can be computed by the Blau’s
heterogeneity index when the variable is categorical.
Science and engineering education specialty of top management team (SCIENGEDU) is computed byevaluating the proportion of senior executives with the science and engineering education in a top
management team. Educational specialties are usually categorized into five categories that are science andengineering, economics and business, literature and art, law, and others such as education, military science,
non-educational specialty, and each TMT member is further categorized into one of these categories.
Educational specialty heterogeneity of top management team (EDUSPEHET) is calculated by theBlau’s heterogeneity index, since the educational specialty is a categorical variable.
Output function background of top management team (OUTFUN) is computed by evaluating the
proportion of top managers with the output function background in a top management team. Functional
backgrounds are often categorized into seven categories that are production and manufacturing, researchand development, finance and accounting, marketing and sales, law, administration, and government.
Accordingly, I regard the function which each TMT member engaged in for the longest time as his/herfunctional background, and further define the function in research and development, marketing and sales as
output function background according to the definition that was proposed by Hambrick and Mason in
1984.
Functional background heterogeneity of top management team (FUNHET) is measured by the Blau’s
heterogeneity index, because the functional background is also a categorical variable.
3-2-3. Control variables
High-tech industry: Industry difference has a marked impact on disclosure of information related to thecorporate social responsibility (Wanderley et al., 2008), and companies in these industries with the higher
level of innovation and competition consider that they will obtain little profit through CSR activities (Hull& Rothenberg, 2008). Thus, enterprises in high-tech industries are unlikely to have an incentive to actively
pursue charitable activities. Moreover, this control variable is a dummy variable indicating whether a
corporation belongs to the high-tech industries generally including electronics, information technology,
biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. In other words, if a company is in a high-tech industry, it will take the-7-value 1; if not, it will take the value 0.
Firm debt: If an enterprise is confronting the high debt, it will have fewer resources to engage in corporatesocial responsibility and charitable activities (Zyglidopoulos, 1999). Firm debt is calculated by evaluating
the ratio of total debt to total assets.
Firm R&D: Research and development activities may compete with corporate social responsibility
activities for limited resources within a corporation from the resource-based view (Tang et al., 2012),
however the company can obtain a competitive advantage by means of engaging in R&D activities andCSR activities which make multiple stakeholders (e.g. community, society) satisfied, and R&D investment
are positively associated with CSR activities (Padget & Galan, 2010). Although these research results differ,they demonstrate that firm R&D activities have impacts on CSR and corporate charitable activities. Firm
R&D are estimated by the R&D intensity that is measured by evaluating the ratio of R&D expenditure(unit: ten thousand yuan) to the total number of employees (Hill & Snell, 1988).
TMT size: A larger top management team can obtain more resources and cognitive diversity, and thereby
making new strategic decisions for long-term development of the company (Brunninge et al., 2007; Forbes& Milliken, 1999), hence the TMT size is likely to have a positive correlation with CSR and corporatecharitable activities.
4. Analysis and Results
4-1. Disclosure of charitable donation by corporations listed on the SMEs board in China
Table 1 Disclosure of charitable donation by listed SMEs in China
Period ofTotal number of

Number of corporations

Proportion of corporations

annual reportlisteddisclosing data on charitabledisclosing data on charitablecorporations

donation

donation

2004

38

21

55.26%

2005

50

30

60.00%

2006

102

51

50.00%

2007

202

121

59.90%

Average————56.29%

Table 1 indicates that the four-year average level of disclosing charitable donation was at a higher level of
56.29%, and the proportion kept fluctuating between 50% and 60%. Although the China Securities
Regulatory Commission has no explicit regulation on disclosure of corporate charitable donation, morethan half of the Chinese listed small and medium-sized enterprises voluntarily disclosed their cash
donation to charity and actively engage in corporate charitable activities.
Table 2 Descriptive statistics on charitable donation by Chinese listed SMEs (unit: yuan)
Period ofMinimum

Maximum

annual report
-8-

Sum

Mean

2004

1109.653561447.00

7939753.03

378083.48

2005

500.004376037.38

13589389.65

452979.66

2006

600.003119380.00

17270089.54

338629.21

2007

710.006128000.00

70326194.39

581208.22

Average

——

——

——

437725.14

Table 2 reveals a considerable difference in charitable donation between Chinese listed small andmedium-sized enterprises. For instance, in 2007, the most generous corporation donated (more than 6
million yuan) more than 8 thousand times than the least philanthropic company did (only 710 yuan), andits cash donation to charity exceeded approximately 11 times the average (about 580 thousand yuan).
Besides, the total number of cash donation to charity reached 70 million yuan in 2007, while the four-year
average level of the charitable donation was at a lower level of less than 440 thousand yuan. In China, no
uniform regulation related to the disclosure of corporate charitable donation might be a leading cause of
these huge differences.
4-2. The relationship between top management team characteristics and corporate charitable
activities in China<Insert Table 3 around here>
Pearson correlation analysis of variables is first made in order to carry out a preliminary assessment of thelinear correlation between variables. Table 3 illustrates that the charitable donation has linear relationships
with some of the top management team characteristics and control variables, which provides a basis forthese proposed hypotheses to a certain extent, and moreover there are linear relationships between the top
management team characteristics and the control variables. After that, a multiple regression analysis ofvariables is made through the method of ordinary least squares so as to examine the proposed hypotheses
on top management team characteristics and corporate charitable activities in China.
Table 4 Results of multiple regression analysis
Charitable Donation
Variable

Model 1
Coefficients B(t)Model 2
Coefficients B(t)(Constant)

13.204 (15.304)**

18.021 (4.763)**

High-tech industry-1.291 (-3.455)**-1.433 (-3.464)**

Firm debt-0.258 (-3.505)**-0.270 (-3.726)**

Firm R&D

0.139 (1.757)+

0.173 (2.062)*

TMT size-0.004 (-0.068)

0.033 (0.515)

AGE-0.053 (-1.012)

AGEHET

7.535 (2.332)*

TEN

0.095 (0.528)-9-

TENHET

0.609 (1.035)

EDULEV

0.443 (1.036)

EDULEVHET

1.581 (0.886)

SCIENGEDU-1.992 (-1.694)+

EDUSPEHET-3.876 (-1.814)+

OUTFUN-2.458 (-2.078)*

FUNHET-3.974 (-1.096)

R2

0.267

0.412

Adj. R2

0.237

0.318

F

8.836**

4.362**

N=102. +p<0.1, *p<0.05, **p<0.01 (2-tailed).

Table 4 presents the statistical results of the multiple regression analysis, and in the two models, I findthat the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), which shows that both Model 1 and Model 2
are effective and significant. Additionally, after top management team characteristics are added to Model 2,
the fitting coefficient R2 of regression Model 2 is changed from 0.267 to 0.412, and its adjusted R2 is alsochanged from 0.237 to 0.318. These changes indicate that these top management team characteristics as
independent variables have effects on corporate cash donation to charity, and a concrete analysis is made in
the following paragraph.
As illustrated in Model 2, age heterogeneity of top management team has a positive and significant effect(B=7.535, p<0.05) on charitable donation, while TMT Science and engineering education specialty(B=-1.992, p<0.1), TMT educational specialty heterogeneity (B=-3.876, p<0.1) and TMT output function
background (B=-2.458, p<0.05) are negatively associated with charitable donation, and thus, Hypotheses 2,
7, 8 and 9 are confirmed. However, TMT age, TMT tenure, TMT tenure heterogeneity, TMT educational
level, TMT educational level heterogeneity and TMT functional background heterogeneity have little or no
influence on corporate charitable donation, and hence Hypotheses 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 are not supported.
In addition, in Model 1 only including control variables, the evidence indicates that both high-techindustry and firm debt have significantly negative effects on charitable donation, while firm R&D ispositively related to the charitable donation.
5. Conclusion and Implications
To summarize, these main results of this study tend to support a significant linear relationship existing
between top management team characteristics and corporate charitable activities in Chinese listed SMEs,
and moreover the findings can not only provide evidence from the upper echelons perspective for the
research related to human resource management and corporate social responsibility in an emerging market
economy, but also offer some references for Chinese companies in the establishment of top management
teams of reasonable configuration and the corporate strategic choices for sustainable development. Besides,
although there is a considerable difference in charitable donation between Chinese corporations, more thanhalf of the Chinese listed small and medium-sized enterprises actively engaged in charitable activities.
- 10 -

Accordingly, I combine the results of the study with the features of Chinese listed small andmedium-sized enterprises in order to give further explanations about my research findings related to effects
of top management team characteristics on corporate charitable activities.
First, science and engineering education specialty and output function background of top management
team both have negative effects on corporate charitable activities. Both the senior executives with scienceand engineering educational specialty and the top managers with output function background are morefamiliar with corporate products and more likely to place the importance on product research anddevelopment, which may cause that they only focus on corporate self-development and pay less attention
to the interaction and communication with external organizations. Moreover, because of the limited
resources and capital, these enterprises which make substantial investment in research and development
activities may lack the necessary funding to accelerate the corporate social responsibility and charitable
activities, so that it is more difficult for these corporations to establish the good relationships with externalorganizations or stakeholders. Especially in China, if companies would like to have better performance andachieve sustainable development, these top managers need to build guanxi networks and maintain good
relationships with local communities and government (Peng & Luo, 2000; Tsang, 1998) by means of the
donations to charity for the contribution to society.
Second, heterogeneities of top management team characteristics have salient effects on corporatecharitable activities. On the one hand, age heterogeneity among top management team members has asignificantly positive influence on corporate charitable activities. Top managers with different ages may
have deep understanding of the significance of charity and corporate social responsibility throughcommunicating the experiences and sharing the social capitals with each other in a top management team,so that the top management team can regard corporate social responsibility as a corporate sustainable
development strategy and thereby actively engaging in charitable activities. On the other hand, theheterogeneity of educational specialty among TMT members has a negative impact on corporate charitable
activities. Top management team members with different educational specialties are likely to focus on
different development strategies from their own perspectives, and thus it is difficult for the top
management team to reach an agreement on a corporate strategy, especially when the company can not
obtain the direct profits from this kind of strategy such as charity.
Although the heterogeneity of top management team characteristics is beneficial to promote corporate
giving behaviors to some extent, it is more likely to lead to conflict and disagreement within a top
management team under the Chinese social circumstance.
A large number of studies on top management team diversity in the Western enterprises indicate that theheterogeneity of top management team characteristics tends to facilitate corporate strategic decisions andorganizational performance, as TMT heterogeneity may provide a wide variety of information andalternative solutions to a company (Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Cannella, Park & Lee, 2008; Carpenter, 2002;
Greening & Johnson, 1996; Heavey & Simsek, 2013; Nielsen B & Nielsen S, 2011; Tihanyi et al., 2000;
Wiersema & Bantel, 1992). Yet, unlike many of the Western studies, some research findings related toChinese corporations reveal that top management team heterogeneity exerts an unfavorable effect onorganizational outcomes (Li & Hambrick, 2005; Wei et al., 2005), since there may exist big social andcultural differences between China and the West. More specially, Chinese people usually attach importanceto building and maintaining good guanxi (interpersonal relationships or social connections), and thereby
keeping harmony and stability, in other words, they are inclined to encourage similarity rather thandifference (Yang, 1986, 1995), so that it is difficult for Chinese companies to derive benefit from top
management team heterogeneity (Wei et al., 2005).
- 11 -

Therefore, in China, when the listed small and medium-sized enterprises would like to improve thequality of corporate strategic decision making and organizational performance, they should give special
attention to the heterogeneity or difference among top management team members, and endeavor todecrease the affective conflict between factional groups that TMT heterogeneity leads to.
Third, TMT age, TMT tenure, TMT tenure heterogeneity, TMT educational level, TMT educational level
heterogeneity and TMT functional background heterogeneity have little or no influence on corporatecharitable donation. There might be two leading reasons to explain these research results. One of the main
reasons is that these characteristics of top management team may not play direct and critical roles in
influencing the corporate strategic decisions such as CSR and charitable activities, for instance, TMT
tenure has little impact on corporate innovation (Daellenbach, McCarthy & Schoenecker, 1999); anotherreason is that there may be some nonlinear relationships (e.g. a U-shaped relationship) between these top
management team characteristics and strategic choices or performance of companies, for example, there
exists a U-shaped relationship between TMT age and firm performance (Mayr, 2011).
Additionally, it is also found that there are some relationships between control variables and corporatecharitable activities in Chinese listed SMEs. These results show: the companies that belong to high-techindustries donate less to charity than those from other industries, since these high-tech firms are more
willing to invest in product research and development rather than corporate charitable activities; theenterprises with high debt ratio inactively engage in charitable activities, as they may only have a small
amount of cash; For obtain the competitive advantages, the firms that are involved in corporate innovation
are also likely to participate in charitable activities, because they can gain competitive advantages fromboth of these activities.
6. Limitations and Future DirectionsFirst, because I used data mostly from such publications as corporate annual reports and prospectuses ofChinese listed SMEs, corporate charitable activities were measured only by cash donation to charity.
Although this method is usually used to directly reflect charitable giving, some of the companies could
also contribute to society through other charitable behaviors such as in-kind donations, charity auction andvoluntary work in non-profit organizations. In the further study, I will carry out some related investigations
using questionnaires or interviews.
Further, due to the limited sources of information, I could not discuss the effect of birthplaces orhometowns of top management team members on corporate charitable activities under a special period, forexample, a company may give more to charity when an earthquake or a disaster happens in TMT members’
hometowns.
Finally, in this study I only analyzed the possible reasons why not all of heterogeneities of top
management team characteristics are conducive to the corporate strategic decision on charity, for instance,some of the TMT heterogeneities may lead to conflict, yet I did not accurately estimate the frequency andcategories of conflict when top management team members interact and communicate with each other, andin future studies I will actively seek and provide the explanations based on empirical evidence.

References
Allen, T. J., & Cohen, S. I. (1969). Information flow in research and development laboratories.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 12-19.
Amason, A. C., & Mooney, A. C. (1999). The effects of past performance on top management team- 12 -

conflict in strategic decision making. International Journal of Conflict Management, 10(4), 340-359.
Amason, A. C., Shrader, R. C., & Tompson, G. H. (2006). Newness and novelty: Relating top management
team composition to new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(1), 125-148.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product teamperformance. Organization science, 3(3), 321-341.
Andreoni, J., Brown, E., & Rischall, I. (2003). Charitable Giving by Married Couples Who Decides andWhy Does it Matter?. Journal of Human Resources, 38(1), 111-133.
Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: does the compositionof the top team make a difference?. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 107.
Barker III, V. L., & Mueller, G. C. (2002). CEO characteristics and firm R&D spending. Management
Science, 48(6), 782-801.
Bartunek, J. M., Gordon, J. R., & Weathersby, R. P. (1983). Developing “complicated” understanding in
administrators. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 273-284.
Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model ofsensemaking. Academy of management review, 33(1), 122-136.
Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure (Vol. 7). New York:Free Press.
Boeker, W. (1997). Strategic change: The influence of managerial characteristics and organizational
growth. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 152-170.
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibility of the businessman. New York: Harpers and Brothers.
Brunninge, O., Nordqvist, M., & Wiklund, J. (2007). Corporate governance and strategic change in SMEs:
The effects of ownership, board composition and top management teams. Small Business Economics, 29(3),295-308.
Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional
diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. Academy of management journal, 45(5),875-893.
Cai, L., Liu, Q., & Yu, X. (2013). Effects of top management team heterogeneous background andbehavioural attributes on the performance of new ventures. Systems Research and Behavioral
Science, 30(3), 354-366.
Cannella, A. A., Park, J. H., & Lee, H. U. (2008). Top management team functional background diversity
and firm performance: Examining the roles of team member colocation and environmental
uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4), 768-784.
Carpenter, M. A. (2002). The implications of strategy and social context for the relationship between top
management team heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23(3), 275-284.
Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. (2004). Upper echelons research revisited:
Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal ofmanagement, 30(6), 749-778.
Carpenter, M., Bauer, T., & Erdogan, B. (2009). Principles of management. Nyack, NY: Flat World
Knowledge.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy ofmanagement review, 4(4), 497-505.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management oforganizational stakeholders. Business horizons, (34), 39-48.
Chen, H. L. (2011). Does board independence influence the top management team? Evidence from- 13 -

strategic decisions toward internationalization. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(4),334-350.
Child, J. (1974). Managerial and organizational factors associated with company performance partI. Journal of Management studies, 11(3), 175-189.
Chua, V. C., & Ming Wong, C. (1999). Tax incentives, individual characteristics and charitable giving in
Singapore. International Journal of Social Economics, 26(12), 1492-1505.
Cochran, P. L., & Wood, R. A. (1984). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academyof management Journal, 27(1), 42-56.
Daboub, A. J., Rasheed, A. M., Priem, R. L., & Gray, D. (1995). Top management team characteristics andcorporate illegal activity. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 138-170.
Daellenbach, U. S., McCarthy, A. M., & Schoenecker, T. S. (1999). Commitment to innovation: The
impact of top management team characteristics. R&D Management, 29(3), 199-208.
Dennis, B. S., Buchholtz, A. K., & Butts, M. M. (2007). The nature of giving: A theory of planned
behavior examination of corporate philanthropy. Business & Society.
Dollinger, M. J., Li, X., & Mooney, C. H. (2010). Extending the resource-based view to the megaevent:
Entrepreneurial rents and innovation. Management and Organization Review, 6(2): 195–218.
Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable
development. California management review, 36(2), 90.
Feng, X (2013). China’s charitable foundations: Development and policy-related issues. Working Paper No.
485. Stanford Center for International Development.
Finkelstein, S. (1992). Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, andvalidation. Academy of Management journal, 35(3), 505-538.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1990). Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes:
The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative science quarterly, 484-503.
Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. (2009). Strategic leadership: Theory and research on
executives, top management teams, and boards. Oxford University Press.
Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of
directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of management review, 24(3), 489-505.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Geletkanycz, M. A., & Black, S. S. (2001). Bound by the past? Experience-based effects on commitment tothe strategic status quo. Journal of Management, 27(1), 3-21.
Govindarajan, V. (1989). Implementing competitive strategies at the business unit level: Implications ofmatching managers to strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 10(3), 251-269.
Greening, D. W., & Johnson, R. A. (1996). Do Managers and Strategies Matter? A Study In
Crisis*. Journal of Management Studies, 33(1), 25-51.
Greening, D. W., & Johnson, R. A. (1997). Managing Industrial and Environmental Crises The Role ofHeterogeneous Top Management Teams. Business & Society, 36(4), 334-361.
Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Upper echelons theory: Origins, twists and turns, and lessons learned. Great
minds in management: The process of theory development, 109-127.
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of management review, 32(2),334-343.
Hambrick, D. C., & D'Aveni, R. A. (1992). Top team deterioration as part of the downward spiral of large
corporate bankruptcies. Management Science, 38(10), 1445-1466.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top- 14 -

managers. Academy of management review, 9(2), 193-206.
Harrison, J. S., & Freeman, R. E. (1999). Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: empiricalevidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of management Journal, 42(5), 479-485.
Heavey, C., & Simsek, Z. (2013). Top management compositional effects on corporate entrepreneurship:
The moderating role of perceived technological uncertainty. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 30(5), 837-855.
Hill, C. W., & Snell, S. A. (1988). External control, corporate strategy, and firm performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 9(6), 577.
Hitt, M. A., & Tyler, B. B. (1991). Strategic decision models: Integrating different perspectives. Strategic
management journal, 12(5), 327-351.
Hull, C. E., & Rothenberg, S. (2008). Firm performance: The interactions of corporate social performancewith innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic Management Journal, 29(7), 781-789.
Jones, T. M., Thomas, T., Agle, B., & Ehreth, J. (1990). Graduate business education and the moral
development of MBA students: Theory and preliminary results. In annual meeting to the International
Association for Business and Society, San Diego, CA.
Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance.
Administrative science quarterly, 81-104.
Keim, G. D. (1978). Corporate social responsibility: An assessment of the enlightened self-interest
model. Academy of Management Review, 3(1), 32-39.
Klein, P (2014). The coming end of corporate charity, and how companies should prepare. Fromhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2014/07/09/the-coming-end-of-corporate-charity-andhow-companies-should-prepare/#6efa431f1071/
Knight, D., Pearce, C. L., Smith, K. G., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., Smith, K. A., & Flood, P. (1999). Top
management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5),445-465.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages (Vol.
2). Harpercollins College Div.
Lant, T. K., Milliken, F. J., & Batra, B. (1992). The role of managerial learning and interpretation in
strategic persistence and reorientation: An empirical exploration. Strategic Management Journal, 13(8),585.
Li, J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, anddisintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 794-813.
Liu, K., Li, J., Hesterly, W., & Cannella, A. (2012). Top management team tenure and technologicalinventions at post-IPO biotechnology firms. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1349-1356.
Mackey, A., Mackey, T. B., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance:
Investor preferences and corporate strategies. Academy of management review, 32(3), 817-835.
Mayr, R. (2011). Top Management team age structure and firm performance. Doctoral dissertation,
University of St. Gallen.
McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial
performance. Academy of management Journal, 31(4), 854-872.
Michel, J. G., & Hambrick, D. C. (1992). Diversification posture and top management teamcharacteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 9-37.
Midlarsky, E., & Hannah, M. E. (1989). The generous elderly: naturalistic studies of donations across thelife span. Psychology and aging, 4(3), 346.
- 15 -

Nielsen, B. B., & Nielsen, S. (2011). The role of top management team international orientation ininternational strategic decision-making: The choice of foreign entry mode. Journal of World
Business, 46(2), 185-193.
Nielsen, B. B., & Nielsen, S. (2013). Top management team nationality diversity and firm performance: A
multilevel study. Strategic Management Journal, 34(3), 373-382.
Ou, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Kinicki, A. J., Waldman, D. A., Xiao, Z., & Song, L. J. (2014). Humble chief
executive officers’ connections to top management team integration and middle managers’
responses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(1), 34-72.
Padgett, R. C., & Galan, J. I. (2010). The effect of R&D intensity on corporate social
responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(3), 407-418.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work groupdiversity, conflict and performance. Administrative science quarterly, 44(1), 1-28.
Peng, M. W., & Luo, Y. (2000). Managerial ties and firm performance in a transition economy: The natureof a micro-macro link. Academy of management journal, 43(3), 486-501.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social
responsibility. Harvard business review, 84(12), 78-92.
Priem, R. L., Lyon, D. W., & Dess, G. G. (1999). Inherent limitations of demographic proxies in top
management team heterogeneity research. Journal of Management, 25(6), 935-953.
Qian, C., Cao, Q., & Takeuchi, R. (2013). Top management team functional diversity and organizationalinnovation in China: The moderating effects of environment. Strategic Management Journal, 34(1),110-120.
Shipilov, A., & Danis, W. (2006). TMG social capital, strategic choice and firm performance. European
Management Journal, 24(1), 16-27.
Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and decisioncomprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of management journal, 42(6), 662-673.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams:
the pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of applied psychology, 85(1), 102-111.
Strand, R. (2013). The chief officer of corporate social responsibility: A study of its presence in top
management teams. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(4), 721-734.
Sutcliffe, K. M. (1994). What executives notice: Accurate perceptions in top management teams. Academyof Management journal, 37(5), 1360-1378.
Tang, Z., Hull, C. E., & Rothenberg, S. (2012). How corporate social responsibility engagement strategy
moderates the CSR–financial performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7), 1274-1303.
Taylor, R. N. (1975). Age and experience as determinants of managerial information processing anddecision making performance. Academy of Management Journal, 18(1), 74-81.
Thomas, A. S., & Simerly, R. L. (1995, August). Internal determinants of corporate social performance:
The role of top managers. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 1995, No. 1, pp. 411-415).
Academy of Management.
Tian, Z., Gao, H., & Cone, M. (2008). A study of the ethical issues of private entrepreneurs participating inpolitics in China. Journal of Business Ethics,80(3), 627-642.
Tihanyi, L., Ellstrand, A. E., Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. (2000). Composition of the top management
team and firm international diversification. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1157-1177.
Tsang, E. W. (1998). Can guanxi be a source of sustained competitive advantage for doing business in
China?. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(2), 64-73.
- 16 -

Wanderley, L. S. O., Lucian, R., Farache, F., & de Sousa Filho, J. M. (2008). CSR information disclosureon the web: a context-based approach analysing the influence of country of origin and industry
sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 369-378.
Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performancemodel. Academy of management review, 10(4), 758-769.
Wei, L. Q., & Lau, C. M. (2012). Effective teamwork at the top: the evidence from China. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(9), 1853-1870.
Wei, L. Q., Lau, C. M., Young, M. N., & Wang, Z. (2005). The impact of top management teamdemography on firm performance in China. Asian Business & Management, 4(3), 227-250.
Wiersema, M. F., & Bantel, K. A. (1992). Top management team demography and corporate strategicchange. Academy of Management journal, 35(1), 91-121.
Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of management review, 16(4),691-718.
Yang, K. S. (1986). Chinese personality and its change. The psychology of the Chinese people, 106-170.
Oxford University Press.
Yang, K. S. (1995). Chinese social orientation: An integrative analysis. Chinese societies and mental health,19-39. Oxford University Press.
Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects of age andtenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management journal, 32(2), 353-376.
Zyglidopoulos, S. (1999). Initial environmental conditions and technological change. Journal ofManagement Studies, 36(2), 241-262.

- 17 -

Table 3 Correlation of the variables
Variable

Mean

SD

1

1. Charitable donation

12.062

1.837—

2. High-tech industry

0.310

0.466

-0.413**

2.486

**

0.377****

0.399**—

3. Firm debt

3.394

-0.405

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

—
—

4. Firm R&D

1.386

2.241

-0.056

0.268

5. TMT size

13.120

2.649

0.012

-0.070-0.064-0.164—

6. AGE

46.391

3.228-0.127-0.043

0.063

0.017

0.178

—

7. AGEHET

0.193

0.049

0.063

0.177

0.139

0.026

-0.1330.036—

8. TEN

1.336

0.877

0.026

-0.080-0.015-0.083-0.022

0.039

0.038

—

9. TENHET

0.159

0.272

0.017

0.065

0.073

-0.0440.187-0.045-0.0850.169—-0.121*****-0.164-0.0980.041-0.122

0.027

—

*

0.113

-0.1270.112-0.020-0.061-0.236*0.053**-0.382*****-0.313**-0.163**-0.276******10.EDULEV
11.EDULEVHET
12.SCIENGEDU
13.EDUSPEHET
14.OUTFUN
15.FUNHET

3.381
0.627
0.448
0.540
0.415
0.753

Number of samples N=102.

0.441
0.101
0.165
0.087
0.147
0.054

0.095
-0.303**-0.073-0.163-0.033

15

0.463

0.205

0.375

-0.1020.057-0.237

**

*

**

0.376

-0.1150.152-0.239

*

0.227

0.318

*

-0.077-0.2420.132**-0.1190.287-0.315**0.172-0.0610.142-0.030-0.026-0.126

0.009

*

0.241

-0.0230.146-0.0160.075-0.029
0.145
0.037
0.100

0.009

-0.212-0.002**0.036* * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

18

0.282

0.315

-0.202

*

—

0.280

0.126

—

0.258

-0.260—0.486—-0.368**—