Correction to: Humanities and Social Sciences Communications https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02418-y, published online 03 January 2024

In the note sections of tables 9–12, there was an error regarding how the size of the symbols (“” and “”) used in the table were displayed. In the original publication they were all the same size.

Corrections have been made to rectify the sizes of the symbols in Tables 9 to 11 to show differing sizes.

The correct tables are shown below.

Table 9 Condition configuration of employees’ high work engagement

 

Solution

H1a

H1b

H2a

H2b

H3a

H2b

H3c

Openness to experience (KFX)

  

 

Neuroticism (SJZ)

  

 

Agreeableness (YRX)

 

Conscientiousness (JZX)

 

Extraversion (WXX)

 

Self-efficacy (GS)

 

 

Technostress creators (TC)

  

Consistency

0.980

0.982

0.987

0.982

0.976

0.982

0.991

Raw coverage

0.551

0.533

0.438

0.537

0.418

0.546

0.332

Unique coverage

0.022

0.014

0.008

0.010

0.009

0.015

0.003

Overall solution consistency

0.960

Overall solution coverage

0.721

Note: In the table, “” represents the presence of a condition as a core condition, “” represents the absence of a condition as a core condition, “” represents the presence of a condition as a peripheral condition, “” represents the absence of a condition as a peripheral condition, and a blank space indicates that the presence or absence of a condition has no impact on the occurrence of the outcome. If all preceding conditions are blank, the configuration is considered a logical remainder.

Table 10 Condition configuration of employees’ low work engagement

 

Solution

NH1a

NH1b

NH1c

NH2a

NH2b

NH2c

Openness to experience (KFX)

 

Neuroticism (SJZ)

Agreeableness (YRX)

 

Conscientiousness (JZX)

 

Extraversion (WXX)

 

Self-efficacy (GS)

Technostress creators (TC)

 

Consistency

0.926

0.876

0.868

0.985

0.945

0.860

Raw coverage

0.361

0.330

0.266

0.589

0.335

0.262

Unique coverage

0.008

0.001

0.035

0.280

0.006

0.033

Overall solution consistency

0.901

Overall solution coverage

0.796

Note: In the table, “” represents the presence of a condition as a core condition, “” represents the absence of a condition as a core condition, “” represents the presence of a condition as a peripheral condition, “” represents the absence of a condition as a peripheral condition, and a blank space indicates that the presence or absence of a condition has no impact on the occurrence of the outcome. If all preceding conditions are blank, the configuration is considered a logical remainder.

Table 11 Robustness analysis of employees’ high job engagement configurations

 

Solution

Configuration 1

Configuration 2

Configuration 3

Configuration 4

Configuration 5

Openness to experience (KFX)

 

Neuroticism (SJZ)

  

Agreeableness (YRX)

Conscientiousness (JZX)

Extraversion (WXX)

 

Self-efficacy (GS)

 

 

Technostress creators (TC)

 

Consistency

0.982

0.982

0.991

0.993

0.975

Raw coverage

0.537

0.546

0.332

0.311

0.334

Unique coverage

0.107

0.015

0.014

0.004

0.008

Overall solution consistency

0.969

Overall solution coverage

0.679

Note: In the table, “” represents the presence of a condition as a core condition, “” represents the absence of a condition as a core condition, “” represents the presence of a condition as a peripheral condition, “” represents the absence of a condition as a peripheral condition, and a blank space indicates that the presence or absence of a condition has no impact on the occurrence of the outcome. If all preceding conditions are blank, the configuration is considered a logical remainder.

Table 12 Robustness analysis of employees’ low job engagement configurations

 

Solution

Configuration 1’

Configuration 2’

Configuration 3’

Configuration 4’

Configuration 5’

Openness to experience (KFX)

 

Neuroticism(SJZ)

Agreeableness (YRX)

 

Conscientiousness (JZX)

Extraversion (WXX)

 

Self-efficacy (GS)

Technostress creators (TC)

Consistency

0.986

0.945

0.915

0.868

0.860

Raw coverage

0.647

0.308

0.310

0.266

0.262

Unique coverage

0.317

0.004

0.012

0.045

0.039

Overall solution consistency

0.914

Overall solution coverage

0.804

Note: In the table, “” represents the presence of a condition as a core condition, “” represents the absence of a condition as a core condition, “” represents the presence of a condition as a peripheral condition, “” represents the absence of a condition as a peripheral condition, and a blank space indicates that the presence or absence of a condition has no impact on the occurrence of the outcome. If all preceding conditions are blank, the configuration is considered a logical remainder.