keim2014

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology © 2014 American Psychological Association
2014, Vol. 19, No. 3, 269 –290 1076-8998/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036743
Why Do Employees Worry About Their Jobs? A Meta-Analytic Review of

Predictors of Job Insecurity
Alaina C. Keim Ronald S. Landis

Bellarmine University Illinois Institute of Technology
Charles A. Pierce David R. Earnest

University of Memphis Towson University
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
We used psychological contract theory as a framework to meta-analytically review subjective and

objective predictors of employees’ perceived job insecurity. Seventy-six samples from 68 studies were
included in our review. Results revealed that lower levels of job insecurity are associated with having an
internal locus of control, lower amounts of role ambiguity and role conflict, greater amounts of
organizational communication, less organizational change, younger employees, and white-collar and
permanent work. Moderator analyses further revealed that relations between job insecurity and age,
gender, education, and formal contracts are moderated by unemployment rates, countries of origin, and
type of job insecurity measure. We discuss theoretical and practical implications for psychological
contract theory and occupational health, and offer directions for future research.
Keywords: job insecurity, job security, meta-analysis, psychological contract, organizational communi-
cation
During a recession or economic downturn, individuals often organizational stress and health literature (e.g., Ashford, Lee, &
worry about the stability of their employment. Conditions for job Bobko, 1989; De Cuyper & De Witte, 2006; Probst, 2005; Sverke
insecurity, or the overall apprehension of the continuing of one’s & Hellgren, 2002; Sverke, Hellgren, & Näswall, 2002), although
job, may fluctuate as the economy strengthens and weakens, but no meta-analytic integration of the literature on predictors of job
they will not disappear (Jacobson & Hartley, 1991). Job insecurity insecurity has been published. Accordingly, the goal of the present
is one of the more important job stressors, because it “influences study was to conduct a meta-analytic review of predictors of job
a much broader range of feelings, attitudes and behaviors than insecurity to provide a better understanding of the direction and
those related simply to performance” (Klandermans, van Vuuren, strength of the relations between relevant predictors and job inse-
& Jacobson, 1991, p. 44). Not surprisingly, job insecurity has curity while offering the theory of psychological contracts (Rous-
received significant attention in the literature since Greenhalgh and seau, 1995) as a conceptual framework on which to interpret our
Rosenblatt’s (1984) seminal article on the topic, which called for accumulated knowledge.
a psychometrically sound measure of the construct, a better un-
derstanding of predictors and consequences of job insecurity, and
a closer examination of the relation between job insecurity and Conceptualization and Operationalization
individual differences. Subsequent research has generally an- of Job Insecurity
swered this call, as job insecurity research has flourished in the Research has shown that anticipating the sudden loss of one’s
job is stress inducing, traumatic, and life disrupting (Greenhalgh &
Rosenblatt, 2010). Importantly, stress is defined as “any circum-
stance (stressor) that places special physical and/or psychological
This article was published Online First May 5, 2014. demands on an organism leading to physiological, psychological
Alaina C. Keim, Department of Psychology, Bellarmine University; and behavioral outcomes; [i]f these demands persist over time,
Ronald S. Landis, Department of Psychology, Illinois Institute of Tech- long-term or chronic undesirable outcomes (strains) may result”
nology; Charles A. Pierce, Department of Management, University of (Sulsky & Smith, 2005, p. 6). Researchers have conceptualized job
Memphis; David R. Earnest, Department of Psychology, Towson Univer- insecurity as a stressor with important negative outcomes (strains)
sity. for employees and employers (Cheng & Chan, 2008; Sverke et al.,
We thank Riannon Hazell and Maggie Spivak for their help with data
2002). In line with Lazarus (1991), in order for stress to occur, one
coding. An earlier version of this article was presented in April 2012 at the
meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San
has to perceive a threat to his or her goals (primary appraisal) and
Diego, California. then decide that he or she does not have enough resources to cope
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alaina C. with that threat (secondary appraisal). Job insecurity involves the
Keim, Department of Psychology, Bellarmine University, 2001 Newburg appraisal of one’s job continuing (primary appraisal) and an af-
Road, Louisville, KY 40205. E-mail: ackeim@bellarmine.edu fective reaction to that threat (secondary appraisal). As such, an
269
270 KEIM, LANDIS, PIERCE, AND EARNEST
employee’s level of job insecurity depends on how that person ously by organizations, the predictors of insecurity have yet to be
interprets and evaluates the surrounding work environment (Jacob- summarized meta-analytically. The following section provides a
son, 1991). theoretical foundation (i.e., psychological contract theory) on
Figure 1 summarizes this conceptualization and offers examples which to ground a review and meta-analytic integration of prior
of operationalizations of job insecurity based on Sverke and Hell- research on the predictors of job insecurity.
gren’s (2002) comprehensive review. Traditionally, job insecurity
has been defined from two perspectives: a global view and a
Psychological Contract Theory and Job Insecurity
multidimensional view. The global view reflects the conceptual-
ization of insecurity as an overall concern about the continued A psychological contract includes expectations of the employ-
existence of a particular job (De Witte, 1999). Alternatively, the ment relationship between an employee and an employer beyond
multidimensional view emphasizes that insecurity perceptions are any formal contract (Smithson & Lewis, 2000). Since the intro-
largely driven by the threat of job loss, the desire for continuity in duction of psychological contract theory, job security has been
employment, the risk of losing desirable job features, and the identified as an important aspect of the employer⫺employee ex-
powerlessness to be able to do anything to change the situation change (e.g., Argyris, 1960). From an employee’s perspective, the
(Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984, 2010). The global view often psychological contract guarantees job security, fair wages, bene-
focuses on either cognitive (perceived likelihood of job loss) or fits, and a sense of self-worth for doing a job well. The employer
affective (fear of job loss) aspects of job insecurity (e.g., Borg & obtains and retains dedicated employees who perform their jobs
Elizur, 1992; Hellgren, Sverke, & Isaksson, 1999). Those adopting well, are satisfied with their jobs, and are committed to the orga-
a multidimensional view focus on cognitive components, affective nization. A function of the psychological contract is a reduction of
components, or both (Sverke & Hellgren, 2002), in the latter case insecurity, because not all aspects of the relationship between
confounding job loss and the detrimental consequences of that job employer and employee can be written into a formal contract
loss (Böckerman, 2004). (Shore & Tetrick, 1994). Not surprisingly, psychological contract
Not surprisingly, these two perspectives produce different op- theory is frequently used as a framework for understanding job
erationalizations of job insecurity. Those adopting a global view insecurity and its relations with other constructs (e.g., De Cuyper
typically measure insecurity with single- and multi-item measures, & De Witte, 2005; George, 2003). In fact, psychological contract
whereas those adopting a multidimensional view use complex theory is the most prevalent framework used in primary-level
multi-item measures (Sverke & Hellgren, 2002). Despite important studies focused on predictors of job insecurity (e.g., De Cuyper &
conceptual and operational differences, however, the global and De Witte, 2005; George, 2003).
multidimensional views consider job insecurity to be a subjective Recently, psychological contract theory researchers have pro-
experience. Thus, two individuals who have the same job with posed that because economics (e.g., downsizing, globalization)
identical objective cues (e.g., downsizing, rumors about layoffs) and politics (e.g., deregulation) are changing the way organizations
working in the same organization can have different levels of job function, the psychological contract is changing (Millward &
insecurity owing to unique perceptions of their work environment Brewerton, 2000), with job security being replaced with employ-
(Jacobson, 1991). ability (i.e., the perceived chance of finding alternative employ-
In contrast to the present study, previous integrations of the job ment; Silla, De Cuyper, Gracia, Peiró, & De Witte, 2009). Empir-
insecurity literature have focused on outcomes of job insecurity. ical support for the acceptance of this “new” psychological
Specifically, in two meta-analyses (Cheng & Chan, 2008; Sverke contract and its operationalization is unclear (De Cuyper & De
et al., 2002), job insecurity was negatively related to outcomes Witte, 2007a). Some researchers have suggested that employabil-
such as employees’ psychological health and physical health, job ity does not replace job insecurity, but rather reduces the negative
satisfaction, trust, job involvement, and organizational commit- consequences of job insecurity (Silla et al., 2009). Thus, despite
ment, and positively related to turnover intentions. Cheng and the introduction of the employability concept, job insecurity re-
Chan (2008) also observed that job insecurity was negatively mains a crucial piece of any psychological contract. With the
related to job performance. previous considerations in mind, the present meta-analytic review
Although this prior meta-analytic evidence lends support to the relies on psychological contract theory as a conceptual framework
notion that job insecurity is a stressor and should be taken seri- to understand job insecurity and its predictors.
Job Insecurity Aspects

Affective Cognitive
(Fear of job loss) (Likelihood of job loss)
• Johnson et al (1984) • Van Vuuren (1990)
Global View • Mohr (2000)
Dimension • Hellgren et al (1999) • Hellgren et al (1999)

Multidimensional • Kinnunen et al (1999) • Kinnunen et al (1999)
View • Borg & Elizur (1992)
• Ashford et al (1989)
Figure 1. Conceptualization and operationalization of job insecurity. Conceptualization of job insecurity from
either a global or a multidimensional view, focusing on either affective and/or cognitive aspects. Citations are
example measures from Sverke and Hellgren (2002).
PREDICTORS OF JOB INSECURITY 271
Predictors of Job Insecurity ical contract breach is defined as increased perceptions of a failure
to meet promised obligations (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). As
Predictors for the current meta-analysis were those previously discussed next, previous studies have identified several subjective
identified as “predictors” or “antecedents” to job insecurity in the predictors that may threaten one’s sense of control and weaken the
literature. For example, Kinnunen and Nätti (1994) identified psychological contract, thus serving as potential predictors of job
potential antecedents to job insecurity such as gender, age, educa- insecurity (e.g., Hellgren & Sverke, 2001; Probst, 2003).
tion, employment relationship, and organizational climate. Ito and Locus of control. LOC reflects the extent to which individu-
Brotheridge (2007) labeled locus of control (LOC) and organiza- als view events in their lives as determined primarily by their own
tional change as potential antecedents to job insecurity. In addi- behaviors (internal LOC) or factors in the environment (external
tion, Ashford, Lee, and Bobko (1989) identified organizational LOC) (Rotter, 1966). Several studies have reported significant
change, role ambiguity, role conflict, and LOC as possible predic- relations between LOC and perceived job insecurity (e.g., Ashford
tors. Sverke and Hellgren (2002) offered an integrated model of et al., 1989). Specifically, employees with an internal LOC feel
job insecurity and categorized potential predictors of job insecurity they have more power over life events (Ashford et al., 1989) and
as either subjective (e.g., perceived control) or objective (e.g.,
perceive the continuing of their employment as being up to them

employment contract), a view adopted by the current study (see
and not the organization, resulting in less uneasiness about job

Figure 2). Specifically, subjective predictors are LOC, role ambi- loss. High internals are less likely to perceive psychological con-
guity, role conflict, and organizational communication, and objec- tract breach (Raja, Johns, & Ntalianis, 2004). As a result, these
tive predictors are organizational change, age, gender, education, individuals are less likely to perceive a loss of job control and,
job type, nature of the formal contract, and employment status. therefore, less job insecurity. Thus, we tested the following hy-
Taken together, some previous research has indicated common pothesis:
directionality of the relation between job insecurity and potential
predictors but with varying strengths (e.g., role ambiguity), while Hypothesis 1: A negative relation will be observed between
other research has provided mixed results of directionality and employees’ LOC and job insecurity such that individuals
strength (e.g., age, type of contract). Unlike any single study, our expressing an internal LOC will report less job insecurity than
meta-analysis was intended to identify the overall direction, mag- individuals expressing an external LOC.
nitude, and significance of these relations. Using the theoretical
lens of psychological contracts, we next provide a review of the Role ambiguity and role conflict. Role ambiguity occurs
relevant findings with respect to commonly studied predictors and when an individual does not know his or her responsibilities and
offer specific hypotheses. goals for the job (Sawyer, 1992). Role conflict occurs when
employees experience demands from various sources resulting in
increased uncertainty (Ameen, Jackson, Pasewark, & Strawser,
Subjective Predictors of Job Insecurity
1995). Employees with high levels of role ambiguity and role
Psychological contracts give employees a sense of control or conflict are unsure of what their jobs are or how to do their jobs
predictability (Ashford et al., 1989). Threats to an employee’s well. This could lead to an increase in anxiety because employees
sense of control on the job can lead to negative outcomes, includ- might not know how to fulfill their part of the psychological
ing an increase in job-related stressors and strains as well as contract, resulting in a perceived lack of control over the future
detrimental individual health outcomes (Karasek, 1979). Any per- (Ashford et al., 1989). Many studies have reported a significant
ceived variables that threaten this control can induce feelings of relation between role conflict and role ambiguity with job insecu-
job insecurity (Ashford et al., 1989). That is, when an employee rity (e.g., Ameen et al., 1995; Hellgren & Sverke, 2001; Iverson,
perceives less control over his or her job future, psychological 1996; Probst, 2003). Therefore, we tested the following hypothe-
contract breach and lower job insecurity can co-occur. Psycholog- ses:
Moderators
Objective situation • Individual differences
• Labor market characteristics • Fair treatment
• Organizational change • Social support
• Employment contract
• Uncertain future for the
organization Consequences
Job insecurity
• Well-being
• Threats to job loss
• Job attitudes
• Threats to job
• Organizational attitudes
Subjective characteristics
• Perceived employability
• Perceived control
• Family responsibility
• Need for security
Figure 2. Sverke and Hellgren’s (2002) model of job insecurity. From “The nature of job insecurity:
Understanding employment uncertainty on the brink of a new millennium” by M. Sverke and J. Hellgren, 2002,
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, p. 37. Copyright 2002 by the John Wiley and Sons.
Hypothesis 2: A positive relation will be observed between Hypothesis 5: A positive relation will be observed between
employees’ perceptions of role ambiguity and job insecurity organizational change and job insecurity such that employees
such that individuals experiencing higher levels of role ambi- who do not experience or anticipate experiencing an organi-
guity will report greater job insecurity than individuals expe- zational change will report less job insecurity than employees
riencing lower levels of role ambiguity. who experience or anticipate experiencing organizational
change.
Hypothesis 3: A positive relation will be observed between
employees’ perceptions of role conflict and job insecurity Age. Conflicting results have been observed with respect to
such that individuals experiencing greater levels of role con- the relation between employees’ age and job insecurity. For ex-
flict will report greater job insecurity than individuals expe- ample, Kinnunen and Nätti (1994) reported a nonsignificant rela-
riencing lower levels of role conflict. tion between age and job insecurity, while others (e.g., Roskies &
Louis-Guerin, 1990) have reported that younger employees expe-
Organizational communication. Perceptions of poor organi-
rience greater job insecurity than older employees. Additionally,
zational communication have been associated with higher levels of
Fullerton and Wallace (2007) identified a curvilinear relation be-
job insecurity (Mauno & Kinnunen, 2002). Burke (1998) reported

tween age and job insecurity, whereby younger and older workers
that recent business school graduates who had observed “danger

felt more secure in their jobs and middle-aged workers felt less
signs” in their organizations (e.g., informal rumors, changes in
secure about their jobs. However, older employees may be more
technologies) reported greater levels of job insecurity. Access to
reliant on their jobs than younger employees for financial stability
information and the quality of organizational communication have
and family obligations and, therefore, may experience greater
been associated with lower levels of job insecurity (Kinnunen &
financial instability (Cheng & Chan, 2008). Older employees have
Nätti, 1994; Parker, Axtell, & Turner, 2001), supporting the notion
also been shown to have lower levels of perceived job mobility
that the greater the communication in an organization (in fre-
(Kuhnert & Vance, 1992), which leads to greater job dependence
quency and accuracy), the less job insecurity an employee will
and greater susceptibility to perceiving their job as insecure
experience. Thus, poor organizational communication can weaken
(Cheng & Chan, 2008). Job displacement for older workers may
the psychological contract by making an employee question what
cause more loss of wages and more difficulty finding work be-
is expected of them by the organization. Greater communication
cause of the occupation-specific skills many older workers have,
strengthens the psychological contract, offering control, predict-
driving fear of job loss and its detrimental consequential effect
ability, and hence more job security (Anderson & Schalk, 1998;
(Farber, 2011; Böckerman, 2004). In addition, older employees are
Conway & Briner, 2005). Thus, we tested the following hypoth-
more likely to perceive psychological contract breach than
esis:
younger employees, perhaps because older employees have differ-
Hypothesis 4: A negative relation will be observed between ent expectations from their employers (Bocchino, Hartman, &
organizational communication and job insecurity such that Foley, 2003). In fact, older employees are likely to have “strong”
employees who experience greater communication in an or- psychological contracts with high demands from both employer
ganization will report less job insecurity than employees who and employee, while younger employees are likely to have “unat-
experience less communication. tached” psychological contracts with lower expectations (Janssens,
Sels, & Van Den Brande, 2003). In other words, older employees
Objective Predictors of Job Insecurity have greater employer expectations and are more likely to expe-
Previous research has suggested that some individuals (e.g., rience breach when those expectations are not met. Given the
older, female) are more likely to experience psychological contract entirety of the literature in this area and particularly the studies
breach (Bocchino, Hartman, & Foley, 2003; Turnley & Feldman, grounded in psychological contract theory, we tested the following
2000). Because job security is a crucial piece of any psychological hypothesis:
contract, the propensity to experience breach is likely to co-occur Hypothesis 6: A positive relation will be observed between
with greater job insecurity perceptions. Unlike the predictors iden- employees’ age and job insecurity such that older individuals
tified in the previous section, these variables are more objective in will report greater job insecurity than younger individuals.
nature. These include organizational change and type of employ-
ment contract (Sverke & Hellgren, 2002), as well as demographic Gender. Research related to gender differences and percep-
variables such as employee age, gender, and education (Kinnunen tions of job insecurity has also been somewhat unclear. Some
& Natti, 1994). studies have shown that women experience greater job insecurity
Organizational change/downsizing/reorganization. Experi- than men (e.g., Mauno & Kinnunen, 2002; Emberland & Rundmo,
encing downsizing, layoffs, and other organizational changes can 2010). Other studies, however, have not observed gender differ-
make employees feel that the psychological contract they have with ences in job insecurity (e.g., Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990; Bern-
their employer is broken (Probst & Lawler, 2006). The lack of tson, Näswall, & Sverke, 2010). Even within a single study,
predictability and control during times of uncertainty may be associ- Näswall and De Witte (2003) observed conflicting results in their
ated with a breached psychological contract and greater job insecurity analysis of the relation between gender and job insecurity, with
perceptions (Armstrong-Stassen, 2005; Østhus, 2007; Probst & only one of their four samples, grouped by country, revealing a
Lawler, 2006). Even anticipated organizational change has been significant relation. Because women often have less power in the
shown to be positively associated with perceived job insecurity (e.g., labor market (N. B. Johnson, Bobko, & Hartenian, 1992), they
Burke, 1998; Ito & Brotheridge, 2007). Thus, we tested the following might experience less control over their own employment futures,
hypothesis: perceive job loss to be more stressful, and expect more from their
relation with their employer (Bellou, 2009). Research has shown Nature of formal job contract and employment status. Not
that women are more likely to experience psychological contract surprisingly, temporary (e.g., Kinnunen & Nätti, 1994) and part-
violations and have fewer met expectations from their employer time employees (e.g., Felstead & Gallie, 2004) have reported
(Edwards, Rust, McKinley, & Moon, 2003; Turnley & Feldman, greater levels of job insecurity than their permanent and full-time
2000). Thus, we tested the following hypothesis: counterparts. This may be because temporary and part-time em-
ployees are not as attached to an organization (Näswall & De
Hypothesis 7: A positive relation will be observed between Witte, 2003) or as protected by the organization (Sparks, Faragher,
employees’ gender and job insecurity such that women will & Cooper, 2001). When downsizing or restructuring occurs, part-
report greater job insecurity than men. time employees feel that the organization will only retain full-time
employees (Näswall & De Witte, 2003). In a similar vein, em-
Education. Studies have shown that employees with more
ployees hired for a fixed term (i.e., hired for the duration of a
education feel more secure in their jobs than those with less
single project) and on-call employees have reported higher levels
education (e.g., Hellgren & Sverke, 2003; Moore, Grunberg, &
of job insecurity than part-time and full-time employees
Greenberg, 2004), though some studies have reported opposite
(Bernhard-Oettel, Sverke, & De Witte, 2005), suggesting that

results (e.g., Kinnunen, Mauno, & Siltaloppi, 2010). Employees
employees who are “less employed” by an organization (i.e., do

with more education may feel they have more options in the labor
not have a full-time or permanent contract) have greater levels of
market (Näswall & De Witte, 2003) and greater expectations from
job insecurity.
their employer with regard to the psychological contract (Bellou,
Temporary employees are more likely to have a different frame
2009). Those employees with less education are likely to form a
of reference for their psychological contracts than permanent em-
“loyal” psychological contract in which employee loyalty is ex-
ployees (Schalk et al., 2010). Some research has suggested that
changed for long-term involvement (i.e., job security; Janssens et
temporary employees discount the probability of job loss when
al., 2003). Therefore, we tested the following hypothesis:
they accept a finite contract (Böckerman, 2004). Despite tempo-
rary employees knowing their employment contract is finite and
Hypothesis 8: A negative relation will be observed between
voluntarily choosing that contract, they may experience low job
employees’ education and job insecurity such that individuals
control and low predictability (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2007a). In
with less education will report greater job insecurity than
addition, employers are more likely to make promises to perma-
individuals with more education.
nent employees (e.g., job security) and keep those promises
Job type. Previous research has indicated that white-collar (Schalk et al., 2010), suggesting psychological contract breach is
employees have less job insecurity than blue-collar employees more likely to occur for temporary employees. Although some
(e.g., Fullerton & Wallace, 2007). Perhaps this is because blue- research has suggested that temporary employees have a more
collar employees traditionally work in industries that are more intact and fulfilled psychological contract (Guest, Isaksson, &
prone to layoffs (e.g., manufacturing) and that have an increasingly De Witte, 2010; Isaksson, Bernhard-Oettel, & De Witte, 2010),
smaller demand for less-skilled workers due to technological the assumption that temporary employees’ psychological con-
changes and international trade (Krugman & Lawrence, 1993). tracts are more transactional and less likely to include job
Blue-collar workers may also have fewer resources to find another security as a basic tenet has received little empirical support
job should they lose their current one (Näswall & De Witte, 2003). (Schalk et al., 2010). Thus, we tested the following hypotheses:
Because of the nature of their work (e.g., factory tasks), blue-collar
Hypothesis 10: A positive relation will be observed between
employees are less likely to rely heavily on communication and
employees’ type of job contract and job insecurity such that
feedback for task completion than white-collar employees (Ellis,
temporary employees will report greater job insecurity than
2007), leaving more room for ambiguity. In addition, white-collar
permanent employees.
employees might actively seek performance feedback from super-
visors whereas blue-collar employees might gain automatic per- Hypothesis 11: A positive relation will be observed between
formance feedback (e.g., factory machine functions properly; Ellis, employees’ employment status and job insecurity such that
2007). White-collar employees’ greater reliance on communica- part-time employees will report greater job insecurity than
tion might help to strengthen the psychological contract with the full-time employees.
employer, indicating less job insecurity. Similar to education,
blue-collar workers might form “loyal” psychological contracts Hypothesized Moderators
where employee loyalty is exchanged for long-term involvement
(i.e., job security; Janssens et al., 2003). Considering the recent In the preceding sections, we offered hypotheses on expected
increased prevalence of high unemployment, underemployment, relations between numerous predictor variables and perceptions of
and underutilization in the labor force (Sum & Khatiwada, 2010), job insecurity. Importantly, these relations may differ as a function
it is possible that highly educated individuals are in blue-collar of the broader contexts in which the primary data were collected.
positions and, therefore, we separately tested the following hy- As a result, we considered the degree to which cultural and
pothesis: economic conditions may serve as moderators of these hypothe-
sized relations.
Hypothesis 9: A positive relation will be observed between Psychological contracts are shaped by individuals, organiza-
employees’ job type and job insecurity such that individuals in tions, and societal influences (e.g., freedom in negotiating con-
traditionally blue-collar jobs will report greater job insecurity tracts, employment protection, governmental regulations; Rous-
than individuals in traditionally white-collar jobs. seau & Schalk, 2000). Although some nations might be more
similar to one another with regard to culture, work aspects, and ployment rate allow for between- and within-country comparisons.
employment opportunities (Guest et al., 2010), research has found We thus tested the following hypotheses:
that psychological contracts differ by country, including by prom-
ises, obligations, fulfillment, and violation (Claes, Schalk, & De Hypothesis 13: Unemployment rate will moderate the rela-
Jong, 2010). For example, psychological contracts in Belgium tions between predictors and employees’ perceptions of job
emphasize loyalty, compromise, and uncertainty avoidance (Sels, insecurity. Specifically, the expected relations will be stronger
Janssens, Van den Brande, & Overlaet, 2000). In the Netherlands, when the unemployment rate is high compared to when it is
there is an inherent dualism to psychological contracts, with free- low.
dom and flexibility weighed against security and stability (Freese
Hypothesis 14: Annual changes in the unemployment rate will
& Schalk, 2000). Lastly, psychological contracts in the United
moderate the relations between predictors and employees’
States emphasize mutuality and tolerate more uncertainty (Rous-
perceptions of job insecurity. Specifically, the expected rela-
seau, 2000). The differences in psychological contracts across
tions will be stronger when the unemployment rate increases.
countries are likely due to differences in social safety nets pro-
vided to employees, in conditions of employment, and the extent to

which employees hold bargaining power (Rousseau & Schalk, Method

2000). For example, in some countries (e.g., Sweden, Finland,
Germany), labor laws, social insurance programs, and unions Study Selection
protect employees against termination, creating a social safety net
that produces different expectations in the psychological contract. Studies for the present meta-analysis were collected using var-
In other countries (e.g., United States, Switzerland), employment ious approaches. First, consistent with previous meta-analyses on
law offers employees little protection from termination (Rousseau, the outcomes of job insecurity (i.e., Cheng & Chan, 2008; Sverke
2000). et al., 2002), databases were searched for the terms job insecurity
Research on job insecurity has been conducted in various coun- and job security. The current meta-analysis differs from these
tries, including the United States (e.g., Kraimer, Wayne, Liden, & previous meta-analyses on job insecurity in that we sought articles
Sparrowe, 2005), Australia (e.g., Iverson, 1996), China (e.g., that included predictors of job insecurity previously identified in
Probst, 2005), and elsewhere, with a large number of studies the literature (e.g., Ashford et al., 1989) and not outcomes of job
reporting European data (e.g., Näswall & De Witte, 2003). Al- insecurity. The databases searched include: ABI/INFORM, Busi-
though researchers have examined the extent to which job insecu- ness Source Premier, Dissertation Abstracts, ERIC, Sociological
rity and its correlates generalize across many different settings Abstracts, PsycArticles, Social Sciences Full Text, and Web of
(e.g., Probst, 2005), examination of cross-cultural factors as Science. The search consisted of scholarly journals published in
higher-level moderators could explain some of the observed vari- English from 1980 to summer 2012. Studies were also identified
ability across primary studies (Debus, Probst, König, & Klein- by manually searching relevant articles in peer-reviewed journals
mann, 2012; König, Probst, Staffen, & Graso, 2011). In fact, (e.g., Academy of Management Journal, Anxiety, Stress and Cop-
research has shown that country-level variables (e.g., governmen- ing: An International Review, European Journal of Work, Applied
tal policies and programs) buffer the negative effects of job inse- Psychology: An International Review, European Journal of Work
curity, suggesting that individual-level stressors can be affected by and Organizational Psychology, Human Relations, The Interna-
macroeconomic factors (Debus et al., 2012). tional Journal of Human Resource Management, Journal of Ap-
Following Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt’s (2010) recommenda- plied Psychology, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Journal of
tion that we further our knowledge of the cultural effects of job Occupational Health Psychology, Journal of Occupational and
insecurity, we tested the following hypothesis: Organizational Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Personnel Psychology, Psycho-
Hypothesis 12: Country of data collection, as a proxy for logical Bulletin, Social Science & Medicine, Stress Medicine, and
culture, will moderate the relations between predictors and Work & Stress). Reference lists of prominent articles on job
employees’ perceptions of job insecurity. insecurity (e.g., reviews, meta-analyses) were also manually re-
viewed for other relevant articles that were not identified by other
Unemployment rate may also serve as a moderator of the methods. In an attempt to obtain unpublished studies, calls for
relation between job insecurity and its predictors. A country’s or papers were posted on the Occupational Health Psychology distri-
region’s unemployment rate acts as an objective measure of job bution listserv. Despite this attempt, most of the studies included in
security (Böckerman, 2004; Otto, Hoffman-Biencourt, & Mohr, the analysis were published. Additional articles were sent to us via
2010). During times of high unemployment, many individuals email from other researchers.
might perceive that their job prospects are tightening and respond Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they (a) measured
with greater perceptions of job insecurity regardless of other job insecurity, (b) measured at least one of the primary predictor
factors (Debus et al., 2012). In support of this assertion, Anderson variables of interest, and (c) reported correlations or other statistics
and Potunsson (2007) reported that job insecurity was higher in that could be converted into a correlation coefficient. A total of
countries with high unemployment rates and for manual skilled 157 studies were identified in the search process, of which 68 met
workers. Furthermore, recent changes to a country’s unemploy- all three criteria and were included in the current meta-analysis.
ment rate, either an increase or a decrease, can influence an These 68 studies are marked with an asterisk in the References
individual’s feelings of insecurity (Böckerman, 2004). Therefore, section. Most of the included articles were cross-sectional studies
a country’s unemployment rate and annual change in the unem- from a variety of industries (e.g., health care, manufacturing,
technology), in public and private sectors, from countries around & Schmidt, 2004). Correlations corrected for attenuation were calcu-
the world, and thus highly representative. For any longitudinal lated for all studies and outcomes that provided sufficient reliabilities,
studies, only Time 1 data were coded. and are reported as rc throughout the remainder of the article. In
addition, for each focal relation, we report the number of studies (k)
Coding of Studies that contributed to the calculation of the meta-analytic correlation and
the cumulative sample size (N).
We coded the following information for each independent sam- The presence of moderators was evaluated using two pieces of
ple: sample size, type of job insecurity scale (global/multidimen- information. First, 80% credibility intervals (CV) were constructed
sional), scale reliability, source, and number of items. We also around each of the corrected meta-analytic correlations (rc). The
coded the predictor variables of job insecurity and effect sizes (see credibility intervals estimate the variability of the individual cor-
Appendix). For each predictor variable, coders noted the type of relations from the population of studies (Whitener, 1990). The
measure, source, number of scale items, and reliability estimate. inclusion of zero in this interval is interpreted as evidence that
Each independent sample was coded by at least two individuals moderators may be present and a more specific search is warranted
who were either undergraduate students or one of the authors. (Whitener, 1990). Additionally, we conducted homogeneity anal-
Initial rater agreement was 92%. Discrepancies were resolved yses in which we evaluated the variance across study results
through discussion. relative to the sample error variance (i.e., the Q statistic; Hedges &
Unemployment rates and annual change in unemployment rates Olkin, 1985). Q (i.e., the total variability) includes between-groups
were derived from the Organization for Economic Cooperation (QB) and within-group (QW) components. Q is approximately
and Development statistical database using the provided year of distributed as a chi-square with the degrees of freedom for QB
data collection and country. If no year was given, unemployment equal to g ⫺ 1 (where g is the number of groups) and the degrees
rates were calculated using the year data collection was assumed to of freedom for QW equal to k ⫺ 1 (where k is the number of
have occurred (i.e., 2 years prior to publication). The standard correlations in a particular group) (Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Lipsey
deviation of unemployment rates for all studies in the meta- & Wilson, 2001).
analysis was used to approximate the following categories: An Excel-based software program (Bosco & Aguinis, 2012) was
0 – 4.9%, 5–7%, 7.1– 8.2%, 8.3–9.3%, and 9.4% or higher. The used to conduct all meta-analytic calculations.
changes in unemployment rates were calculated by comparing the
unemployment rate for the year of data collection and the prior
Results
year. Country of origin was recorded for each study that provided
the information about the study’s sample. Table 1 displays the overall meta-analytic results based on
sample-size weighted mean correlations (rs).
Meta-Analytic Procedures
Hypothesis Testing
We used the Hunter⫺Schmidt meta-analytic approach and cor-
rected observed correlations from each study for sampling error and Subjective predictors. In support of Hypothesis 1, results
measurement error (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). By adopting a random- indicated that job insecurity was related to LOC, r ⫽ ⫺.19, p ⬍
effects approach, we estimated a weighted mean effect size for each .01, 95% CI [⫺.30, ⫺.08], such that those with an internal LOC
bivariate relation of interest (r) along with a 95% confidence interval experienced less job insecurity. Also, job insecurity was related to
(CI) around each estimate. The CI allows for the interpretation of higher amounts of role ambiguity, r ⫽ .23, p ⬍ .01, 95% CI [.19,
whether weighted correlations differ significantly from zero (Hunter .27], supporting Hypothesis 2. Individuals who were unclear about
Table 1
Meta-Analytic Results for Predictors of Job Insecurity
Predictor k N r rc 95% CI 80% CV Q
Subjective predictors
Locus of control (internal) 5 1,520 ⫺.19 ⫺.25 [⫺.30, ⫺.08] [⫺.46, ⫺.05] 26.15ⴱ
Role ambiguity 14 6,117 .23 .28 [.19, .27] [.16, .39] 43.94ⴱ
Role conflict 12 4,261 .16 .20 [.10, .21] [.05, .34] 40.63ⴱ
Organizational communication 8 5,460 ⫺.20 ⫺.24 [⫺.29, ⫺.12] [⫺.43, ⫺.05] 93.97ⴱ
Objective predictors
Organizational change 9 5,389 .15 .18 [.05, .24] [⫺.07, .43] 164.52ⴱ
Age 45 33,739 ⫺.06 ⫺.07 [⫺.09, ⫺.03] [⫺.21, .07] 385.68ⴱ
Gender (female) 39 35,643 ⫺.03 ⫺.03 [⫺.05, .00] [⫺.12, .06] 191.94ⴱ
Education 21 20,872 ⫺.03 ⫺.04 [⫺.07, .02] [⫺.21, .12] 179.85ⴱ
Job type (blue collar) 11 10,496 .18 .19 [.12, .23] [.07, .31] 99.91ⴱ
Nature formal contract (temporary) 22 24,000 .20 .29 [.07, .32] [⫺.25, .83] 2,201.78ⴱ
Employment status (part-time) 11 11,726 .04 .05 [⫺.03, .10] [⫺.14, .25] 139.02ⴱ
Note. Variables for which the confidence interval does not include zero are italicized. k ⫽ number of samples; r ⫽ sample size weighted mean correlation;
rc ⫽ correlation corrected for reliability; CI ⫽ confidence interval; CV ⫽ credibility interval; Q ⫽ homogeneity statistic.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.
their responsibilities and goals for their job were more likely to be Hypothesis 11, concerning full- versus part-time employees, r ⫽
apprehensive about the continuation of their employment. Simi- .04, p ⬎ .05, 95% CI [⫺.03, .10], was not supported. Of note, the
larly, consistent with Hypothesis 3, greater role conflict, r ⫽ .16, CV associated with the tests of Hypotheses 10 and 11 suggested
p ⬍ .01, 95% CI [.10, .21], was also related to greater job evidence of possible moderators (Whitener, 1990).
insecurity. Employees who experienced demands from multiple
sources and an uncertainty of what their role on the job should be
were more likely to be insecure in their job. In support of Hypoth- Moderator Analyses
esis 4, job insecurity was significantly related to organizational There was evidence to support moderation of the relation be-
communication, r ⫽ ⫺.20, p ⬍ .01, 95% CI [⫺.29, ⫺.12], such
tween organizational change and job insecurity (see Table 2).
that those who reported greater communication in an organization
During lower levels of unemployment (5–7%), organizational
reported less job insecurity.
change and job insecurity were positively related, r ⫽ .14, p ⬍ .05,
Objective predictors. There was support for Hypothesis 5,
95% CI [.02, .26]. In addition, after unemployment rates have
which stated that those who experienced organizational change
increased, organizational change and job insecurity were positively
would have more job insecurity, r ⫽ .15, p ⬍ .01, 95% CI [.05,

related, r ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .05, 95% CI [.03, .33]. Organizational change
.24]. Hypothesis 6, r ⫽ ⫺.06, 95% CI [⫺.09, ⫺.03], hypothesis 7,

and job insecurity were positively related in the United States, r ⫽
r ⫽ ⫺.03, 95% CI [⫺.05, .00], and hypothesis 8, r ⫽ ⫺.03, 95%
CI [⫺.07, .02], were not supported. These hypotheses addressed .14, p ⬍ .05, 95% CI [.02, .26], with single-item, r ⫽ .12, p ⬍ .01,
relations between age (Hypothesis 6), gender (Hypothesis 7), and 95% CI [.08, .16], and multi-item measures, r ⫽ .16, p ⬍ .05, 95%
education (Hypothesis 8) with job insecurity. Of note, the relation CI [.02, .29], and with multidimensional scales, r ⫽ .19, p ⬍ .01,
between age and job insecurity was significant but in the opposite 95% CI [.11, .27]. The moderator analyses for organizational
direction from what was predicted. That is, older workers reported change included a small number of samples, however, limiting the
less job insecurity than younger workers. Importantly, there was degree to which firm conclusions can be drawn.
evidence of possible moderators as the CV for each of these Table 3 displays significant moderators between age and job
variables contained zero, suggesting that the mean correlation may insecurity, including low unemployment rates of 0 – 4%, r ⫽ ⫺.08,
be the mean of several subpopulations (Whitener, 1990). p ⬍ .01, 95% CI [⫺.11, ⫺.04], and 5–7%, r ⫽ ⫺.07, p ⬍ .01, 95%
There was a significant relation between job type (white- and CI [⫺.12, ⫺.03], and a decrease in unemployment rates from the
blue-collar employees) and job insecurity, r ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .01, 95% previous year, r ⫽ ⫺.08, p ⬍ .01, 95% CI [⫺.13, ⫺.03]. There
CI [.12, .23], offering support for Hypothesis 9. That is, blue-collar was also evidence of a moderating effect of country on the relation
employees reported greater job insecurity than their white-collar between age and job insecurity for Belgium, r ⫽ ⫺.08, p ⬍ .01,
counterparts. Also, there was a significant relation between the 95% CI [⫺.14, ⫺.02], and Spanish samples, r ⫽ ⫺.27, p ⬍ .01,
nature of the formal contract (temporary and permanent employ- 95% CI [⫺.31, ⫺.23]. In addition, age and job insecurity showed
ment) and job insecurity, r ⫽ .20, p ⬍ .01, 95% CI [.07, .32], with a significant negative relation for global, r ⫽ ⫺.06, p ⬍ .05, 95%
temporary employees reporting greater job insecurity than those CI [⫺.11, ⫺.01], and multidimensional measures, r ⫽ ⫺.07, p ⬍
with permanent employment, offering support for Hypothesis 10. .01, 95% CI [⫺.11, ⫺.03].
Table 2
Moderator Results for Organizational Change and Job Insecurity
Moderator k N r rc 95% CI 80% CV QB QW
All samples 11 6,152 .15 .18 [.05, .24] [⫺.07, .43] 164.52ⴱ
Unemployment rate 101.04ⴱ
0⫺4% 2 763 .23 .28 [.23, .23] [.28, .28] 0.00
5⫺7% 3 1,947 .14 .16 [.02, .26] [.01, .32] 21.49ⴱ
Change unemployment rate 22.14ⴱ
Unemployment increased 2 1,143 .18 .19 [.03, .33] [.03, .35] 17.46ⴱ
Unemployment decreased 4 3,125 .07 .09 [⫺.09, .23] [⫺.18, .35] 83.93ⴱ
No change 2 763 .23 .28 [.23, .23] [.28, .28] 0.00
Country 4.32ⴱ
United States 3 1,947 .14 .16 [.02, .26] [.01, .32] 21.49ⴱ
Finland 2 763 .23 .28 [.23, .23] [.28, .28] 0.00
Job insecurity measure
Item(s) 1.90
Single-item 2 1,867 .12 .14 [.08, .16] [.14, .14] 1.56
Multi-item 8 4,009 .16 .19 [.02, .29] [⫺.11, .50] 159.78ⴱ
Scale 7.18ⴱ
Global scale 6 3,882 .12 .16 [⫺.02, .27] [⫺.15, .46] 135.49ⴱ
Multidimensional scale 5 2,270 .19 .21 [.11, .27] [.08, .35] 20.21ⴱ
rc ⫽ correlation corrected for reliability; CI ⫽ confidence interval; CV ⫽ credibility interval; QB ⫽ homogeneity statistic between groups; QW ⫽
homogeneity statistic within groups.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.
Table 3
Moderator Results for Age and Job Insecurity
All samples 45 33,739 ⫺.06 ⫺.07 [⫺.09, ⫺.03] [⫺.21, .07] 385.68ⴱ
0⫺4% 7 6,207 ⫺.08 ⫺.08 [⫺.11, ⫺.04] [⫺.14, ⫺.03] 15.56ⴱ
5⫺7% 8 10,459 ⫺.07 ⫺.08 [⫺.12, ⫺.03] [⫺.17, .00] 46.22ⴱ
7.1⫺8.2% 10 4,931 ⫺.09 ⫺.10 [⫺.18, .00] [⫺.29, .08] 102.80ⴱ
8.3⫺9.3% 9 6,710 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 [⫺.08, .06] [⫺.15, .13] 75.53ⴱ
ⱖ9.4% 6 3,626 ⫺.09 ⫺.10 [⫺.23, .04] [⫺.33, .13] 101.69ⴱ
Unemployment Increased 15 11,306 ⫺.06 ⫺.07 [⫺.11, .00] [⫺.21, .08] 129.41ⴱ
Unemployment decreased 20 14,535 ⫺.08 ⫺.09 [⫺.13, ⫺.03] [⫺.23, .06] 173.44ⴱ
No change 2 1,826 .00 .00 [⫺.22, .22] [⫺.22, .22] 45.99ⴱ
Country 95.26ⴱ
Belgium 10 10,730 ⫺.08 ⫺.09 [⫺.14, ⫺.02] [⫺.22, .04] 105.43ⴱ

Sweden 9 5,298 ⫺.04 ⫺.05 [⫺.09, .00] [⫺.13, .04] 28.09ⴱ
Italy 3 858 ⫺.05 ⫺.05 [⫺.26, .16] [⫺.31, .21] 30.01ⴱ
United States 3 4,290 ⫺.03 ⫺.04 [⫺.10, .03] [⫺.11, .03] 14.23ⴱ
Canada 3 994 .01 .01 [⫺.10, .11] [⫺.09, .11] 8.44ⴱ
Spain 3 1,875 ⫺.27 ⫺.30 [⫺.31, ⫺.23] [⫺.30, ⫺.30] 2.73
Item(s) 50.15ⴱ
Single-item 4 2,155 .07 .08 [⫺.02, .17] [⫺.04, .20] 20.06ⴱ
Multi-item 36 26,758 ⫺.08 ⫺.09 [⫺.12, .05] [⫺.22, .04] 276.01ⴱ
Scale 0.49
Global scale 14 8,721 ⫺.06 ⫺.07 [⫺.11, ⫺.01] [⫺.20, .06] 82.72ⴱ
Multidimensional scale 28 24,050 ⫺.07 ⫺.08 [⫺.11, ⫺.03] [⫺.21, .06] 263.69ⴱ
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.
There was partial evidence of moderators between gender and under low unemployment rates (0 – 4%), r ⫽ ⫺.24, p ⬍ .01, 95%
job insecurity (see Table 4). Men experienced more job insecurity CI [⫺.40, ⫺.09]. Permanent employees reported less job insecu-
in times of low unemployment (0 – 4%), r ⫽ ⫺.05, p ⬍ .01, 95% rity under moderate unemployment rates (5–7%), r ⫽ .38, p ⬍ .01,
CI [⫺.08, ⫺.03], in the United States, r ⫽ ⫺.05, p ⬍ .01, 95% CI 95% CI [.34, .43], and when unemployment increased from the
[⫺.07, ⫺.03], and Israel, r ⫽ ⫺.15, p ⬍ .01, 95% CI [⫺.26, ⫺.04], previous year, r ⫽ .19, p ⬍ .05, 95% CI [.04, .35], and decreased
and when job insecurity was assessed with a global measure, from the previous year, r ⫽ .39, p ⬍ .01, 95% CI [.31, .47].
r ⫽ ⫺.04, p ⬍ .05, 95% CI [⫺.08, ⫺.01]. Permanent employment and job insecurity were also positively
There was partial evidence of moderators on the relation be- related in certain countries (e.g., Belgium), r ⫽ .36, p ⬍ .01, 95%
tween job insecurity and education (see Table 5). Those who were CI [.28, .44], with single-item, r ⫽ .32, p ⬍ .01, 95% CI [.25, .40],
more educated reported feeling more insecure in their jobs during and multi-item measures, r ⫽ .16, p ⬍ .05, 95% CI [.02, .30], and
moderate unemployment rates (5–7%), r ⫽ ⫺.05, p ⬍ .01, 95% CI with multidimensional scales, r ⫽ .24, p ⬍ .01, 95% CI [.10, .38].
[⫺.07, ⫺.03]; (7.1– 8.2%), r ⫽ ⫺.11, p ⬍ .05, 95% CI
[⫺.21, ⫺.02], when unemployment decreased from the year be-
Discussion
fore, r ⫽ ⫺.10, p ⬍ .01, 95% CI [⫺.18, ⫺.02], and when job
insecurity was measured with a single-item measure, r ⫽ ⫺.14, The goal of the present study was to provide a meta-analytic
p ⬍ .01, 95% CI [⫺.24, ⫺.04]. Those who were less educated integration of the literature on predictors of employees’ perceived
reported more job insecurity under higher levels of unemployment job insecurity and moderators of these predictor⫺job insecurity
(⬎9.4%), r ⫽ .04, p ⬍ .01, 95% CI [.03, .04], and when unem- relations. The present meta-analytic review provides support for
ployment rates had not changed from the previous year, r ⫽ .02, hypothesized relations between job insecurity and several predic-
p ⬍ .01, 95% CI [.02, .03]. For purposes of the current study, high tors. Specifically, results indicated that job insecurity is directly
levels of unemployment were operationalized as 1 SD above the associated with the following predictors: an internal LOC, less role
average unemployment rate for all studies in the current meta- ambiguity and role conflict, younger workers, white-collar and
analysis. permanent positions, less organizational change, and greater orga-
There was no evidence that employment status and job insecu- nizational communication. In addition to the previously summa-
rity were moderated by any variables included in the present study rized bivariate relations, country of data collection moderated the
(see Table 6). However, there was evidence of moderators between relation between age, gender, nature of the formal contract, and
job insecurity and the nature of the formal contract (see Table 7). organizational change with job insecurity. That is, job insecurity
Specifically, temporary employees reported less job insecurity was differentially related to these variables across countries, where
Table 4
Moderator Results for Gendera and Job Insecurity
All samples 39 35,643 ⫺.03 ⫺.03 [⫺.05, .00] [⫺.12, .06] 191.94ⴱ
0⫺4% 6 8,390 ⫺.05 ⫺.06 [⫺.08, ⫺.03] [⫺.08, ⫺.04] 8.14
5⫺7% 8 11,352 ⫺.02 ⫺.02 [⫺.06, .02] [⫺.10, .05] 39.05ⴱ
7.1⫺8.2% 9 5,000 ⫺.06 ⫺.06 [⫺.12, .01] [⫺.18, .06] 49.38ⴱ
8.3⫺9.3% 8 6,565 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 [⫺.04, .02] [⫺.06, .03] 14.90ⴱ
ⱖ9.4% 5 3,249 .03 .04 [⫺.06, .12] [⫺.10, .17] 36.48ⴱ
Change unemployment rate 1.58
Unemployment increased 13 13,310 ⫺.03 ⫺.03 [⫺.07, .01] [⫺.13, .06] 69.54ⴱ
Unemployment decreased 21 16,300 ⫺.02 ⫺.02 [⫺.05, .01] [⫺.11, .07] 86.37ⴱ
No change 2 4,946 ⫺.04 ⫺.04 [⫺.11, .03] [⫺.11, .02] 12.40ⴱ
Country 26.39ⴱ
Belgium 10 10,730 .01 .01 [⫺.04, .05] [⫺.08, .09] 53.30ⴱ

Sweden 7 4,982 ⫺.04 ⫺.04 [⫺.08, .00] [⫺.09, .00] 12.18
United States 5 8,936 ⫺.05 ⫺.06 [⫺.07, ⫺.03] [⫺.06, ⫺.06] 3.45
Finland 4 6,098 ⫺.02 ⫺.02 [⫺.08, .04] [⫺.11, .06] 26.35ⴱ
Italy 3 858 ⫺.05 ⫺.06 [⫺.29, .20] [⫺.36, .24] 40.47ⴱ
Israel 2 588 ⫺.15 ⫺.16 [⫺.26, ⫺.04] [⫺.24, ⫺.08] 3.97ⴱ
Item(s) 1.21
Single-item 3 2,471 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 [⫺.04, .03] [⫺.01, ⫺.01] 3.78
Multi-item 34 29,728 ⫺.03 ⫺.03 [⫺.05, .00] [⫺.13, .07] 186.99ⴱ
Scale 4.73ⴱ
Global scale 10 11,314 ⫺.04 ⫺.05 [⫺.08, ⫺.01] [⫺.11, .01] 31.05ⴱ
Multidimensional scale 29 24,329 ⫺.02 ⫺.02 [⫺.05, .01] [⫺.12, .08] 156.11ⴱ
a
Gender coded as 1 ⫽ female and 0 ⫽ male.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.
the procedures, employment laws, and culture of organizational interpreted with caution. Job insecurity and education were posi-
communication are likely to differ. For example, temporary em- tively related when unemployment was high or consistent with the
ployment and job insecurity were related in Spanish samples. previous year. Employees with higher levels of education have
Temporary employment has doubled in Spain in the public sector been shown to have less job insecurity (Kinnunen & Nätti, 1994)
since 1987, which likely increases feelings of job insecurity for the and also, in general, perceive that they have more options in the
Spanish population (Silla, Gracia, Mañas, & Peiró, 2010). Em- labor market (Näswall & De Witte, 2003). Janssens et al. (2003)
ployees in Spain are likely to experience job insecurity differently found that highly educated and younger employees were likely to
than employees in other countries (e.g., Finland) because of the have “unattached” psychological contracts and higher levels of
unique culture, job market, and social safety net in each country. employability. However, higher unemployment rates are associ-
These results, however, must be interpreted with caution because ated with lower employability (Green, 2011). Perhaps for highly
two of the studies (Sora, Caballer, Peiró, & De Witte, 2009, and educated and younger individuals their levels of employability are
Sora, Caballer, Peiró, Silla, & Gracia, 2010) may include overlap- lowered during times of high unemployment. This lower employ-
ping Spanish samples (i.e., are not independent). The issue of ability leads to a breach of the psychological contract, reflected by
nonindependence of samples is discussed in the Limitations and higher levels of job insecurity.
Directions for Future Research section. The type of job insecurity measure (single- and multi-item;
Unemployment rate moderated the relation between job insecu- global and multidimensional scale) did not offer significantly
rity and a few predictors. Specifically, job insecurity was signifi- different results for any of the predictor⫺job insecurity relations
cantly and negatively correlated with education and age under tested. However, for some of the variables tested (i.e., gender,
levels of low unemployment and when unemployment rates de- education, formal contract, and organizational change), only one
creased from the year before. Perhaps when unemployment rates type of measure produced evidence of significant moderation. This
are lower (i.e., ⬎8.2%), those younger employees with less edu- suggests that the choice of job insecurity measure may be associ-
cation begin to question the strength of the psychological contract ated with slightly different results.
they have with their employers. Similar to a point noted earlier,
three of the studies used in the estimation of meta-analytic corre-
Theoretical Implications
lations for age and gender (Sora et al., 2009; Sora et al., 2010;
Bernhard-Oettel, De Cuyper, Schreurs, & De Witte, 2011) may As mentioned previously, Sverke and Hellgren (2002) offered
have included overlapping samples, so these results should be an integrated model of job insecurity, where objective and subjec-
Table 5
Moderator Results for Education and Job Insecurity
All samples 21 20,872 ⫺.03 ⫺.04 [⫺.07, .01] [⫺.21, .12] 179.85ⴱ
0⫺4% 4 8,016 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 [⫺.10, .09] [⫺.19, .17] 76.10ⴱ
5⫺7% 5 6,814 ⫺.05 ⫺.08 [⫺.07, ⫺.03] [⫺.08, ⫺.08] 3.31
7.1⫺8.2% 4 2,113 ⫺.11 ⫺.16 [⫺.21, ⫺.02] [⫺.32, .00] 21.06ⴱ
8.3⫺9.3% 3 1,962 .00 .00 [⫺.17, .17] [⫺.28, .28] 45.84ⴱ
ⱖ9.4% 3 1,325 .04 .06 [.03, .04] [.06, .06] 0.03
Unemployment increased 9 9,757 .00 .00 [⫺.05, .04] [⫺.12, .11] 42.15ⴱ
Unemployment decreased 8 6,587 ⫺.10 ⫺.15 [⫺.18, ⫺.02] [⫺.35, .05] 85.14ⴱ
No change 2 3,886 .02 .03 [.02, .03] [.03, .03] 0.03
Country 5.39ⴱ
Belgium 5 4,157 ⫺.05 ⫺.07 [⫺.16, .06] [⫺.30, .15] 67.36

United States 5 8,829 ⫺.04 ⫺.06 [⫺.12, .03] [⫺.22, .10] 65.31ⴱ
Sweden 2 1,096 ⫺.11 ⫺.16 [⫺.24, .01] [⫺.32, .00] 9.08ⴱ
Canada 2 326 ⫺.03 ⫺.05 [⫺.14, .08] [⫺.06, ⫺.02] 2.02
Item(s) 49.03ⴱ
Single-item 3 3,315 ⫺.14 ⫺.20 [⫺.24, ⫺.04] [⫺.36, ⫺.04] 28.62ⴱ
Multi-item 18 17,557 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 [⫺.04, .03] [⫺.14, .12] 103.09ⴱ
Scale 6.13ⴱ
Global scale 8 10,768 ⫺.04 ⫺.07 [⫺.11, .02] [⫺.23, .10] 85.68ⴱ
Multidimensional scale 13 10,104 ⫺.01 ⫺.02 [⫺.06, .04] [⫺.18, .15] 88.12ⴱ
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.
tive predictors lead to greater insecurity perceptions, which affect which individual differences should be considered as predictors of
important organizational outcomes, moderated by various factors job insecurity (e.g., age in the current study) or moderators be-
(e.g., social support). The present study supports this integrated tween job insecurity and certain outcomes (as suggested by Sverke
model by identifying which of the subjective and objective pre- & Hellgren, 2002) is not clear. In sum, our results indicate that
dictors of job insecurity are significant (see Figure 3). Although these relations might not be as simple and linear as predicted, and
most of the meta-analytic results are supportive of Sverke and more well-designed, longitudinal studies should be used to better
Hellgren’s model, modifications to the model may be needed. For understand job insecurity as a significant work stressor (Green-
example, our results suggest cultural and societal variables (i.e., halgh & Rosenblatt, 2010).
unemployment rates and country of origin) are moderators of the Psychological contract theory can help shape our understanding
relation between predictors and job insecurity. Also, the extent to of the complexities of job insecurity. Shore and Tetrick (1994)
Table 6
Moderator Results for Employment Statusa and Job Insecurity
All samples 11 11,726 .04 .05 [⫺.03, .10] [⫺.14, .25] 139.02ⴱ
5⫺7% 4 6,414 .06 .08 [⫺.07, .19] [⫺.16, .33] 112.36ⴱ
7.1⫺8.2% 2 2,067 ⫺.02 ⫺.03 [⫺.10, .05] [⫺.11, .05] 6.10ⴱ
8.3⫺9.3% 2 1,728 .03 .04 [⫺.03, .09] [⫺.01, .09] 3.07
ⱖ9.4% 2 1,336 .06 .08 [⫺.03, .15] [⫺.01, .18] 5.54ⴱ
Unemployment increased 3 3,363 .12 .16 [⫺.06, .30] [⫺.14, .47] 88.53ⴱ
Unemployment decreased 8 8,363 .01 .01 [⫺.03, .04] [⫺.07, .09] 22.99ⴱ
Country 51.38ⴱ
Belgium 5 7,144 .00 .00 [⫺.03, .03] [⫺.05, .05] 9.89ⴱ
Sweden 3 2,682 .15 .22 [⫺.04, .34] [⫺.11, .54] 80.06ⴱ
Note. k ⫽ number of samples; r ⫽ sample size weighted mean correlation; rc ⫽ correlation corrected for reliability; CI ⫽ confidence interval; CV ⫽
credibility interval; QB ⫽ homogeneity statistic between groups; QW ⫽ homogeneity statistic within groups.
a
Employment status coded as 1 ⫽ part-time and 0 ⫽ full-time.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.
Table 7
Moderator Results for Nature of Formal Contracta and Job Insecurity
All samples 22 24,000 .27 .29 [.07, .32] [⫺.25, .83] 2,201.78ⴱ
0⫺4% 2 3,684 ⫺.24 ⫺.36 [⫺.40, ⫺.09] [⫺.57, ⫺.16] 50.63ⴱ
5⫺7% 5 5,255 .38 .56 [.34, .43] [.48, .64] 21.26ⴱ
7.1⫺8.2% 3 2,594 .18 .25 [⫺.13, .49] [⫺.25, .76] 213.05ⴱ
8.3⫺9.3% 6 8,330 .20 .29 [⫺.02, .42] [⫺.22, .80] 676.05ⴱ
ⱖ9.4% 4 2,975 .34 .51 [.13, .56] [.10, .91] 190.75ⴱ
Unemployment increased 6 4,965 .19 .27 [.04, .35] [⫺.08, .63] 195.83ⴱ
Unemployment decreased 11 8,823 .39 .57 [.31, .47] [.34, .80] 210.14ⴱ
No change 3 9,050 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 [⫺.38, .35] [⫺.63, .60] 947.84ⴱ
Country 792.17ⴱ
Belgium 8 7,902 .36 .52 [.28, .44] [.32, .72] 135.77ⴱ

Finland 3 9,050 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 [⫺.38, .35] [⫺.63, .60] 947.84ⴱ
Italy 2 610 .21 .31 [.05, .37] [.08, .54] 8.76ⴱ
Sweden 2 1,728 .29 .43 [.18, .39] [.30, .55] 11.83ⴱ
Spain 2 1,639 .52 .77 [.34, .71] [.53, .99] 55.56ⴱ
Item(s) 96.16ⴱ
Single-item 2 4,504 .32 .47 [.25, .40] [.38, .57] 16.40ⴱ
Multi-item 19 18,840 .16 .24 [.02, .30] [⫺.35, .83] 2,015.09ⴱ
Scale 86.73ⴱ
Global scale 6 9,170 .11 .17 [⫺.13, .36] [⫺.41, .75] 883.57
Multidimensional scale 15 13,888 .24 .34 [.10, .38] [⫺.16, .85] 1,170.67
a
Formal contract coded as 1 ⫽ temporary and 0 ⫽ permanent.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.
suggested the functions of the psychological contract are to reduce ical contract and produce feelings of betrayal or deception (Rob-
insecurity by establishing what is expected, to direct employee inson & Rousseau, 1994). By gaining a greater understanding of
behavior by implying certain behavior will be rewarded, and to the implicitness of psychological contracts, we can better explain
give employees a sense of control over their own job future. how job insecurity perceptions might change nonlinearly over
Through an increase in communication and role clarity and a time. That is, because the psychological contract is dynamic and
reduction in ambiguity, employees should experience fewer per- changing (Rousseau, 1995), the relations between stressors and
ceptions of job insecurity. Greater perceptions of security should, strains, like job insecurity, might be dynamic as well.
in turn, be associated with more positive employee behavior and Job insecurity is likely an interaction of objective and subjective
attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction, job involvement, job performance; characteristics (Sverke & Hellgren, 2002). Psychological contract
Cheng & Chan, 2008). Effectively communicating with employees theory can help explain when and where certain individuals will
lessens the probability that employers will breach the psycholog- experience more job insecurity (i.e., when and where breach is
Moderators
• Unemployment rate
• Change in
unemployment
• Country of origin
Objective predictors
• Organizational change
• Age
• Job type
• Formal contract
Subjective predictors Job insecurity

• Locus of control
• Role ambiguity
• Role conflict
• Organizational
communication
Figure 3. Significant predictors and moderators of job insecurity from the present meta-analysis.
likely to occur). In fact, because of the fluidity and subjectivity of & Briner, 2005). Rousseau (1995) has suggested ways that orga-
the psychological contract, this theory seems especially suited for nizations can successfully transform psychological contracts after
highlighting “the limitations of studies that generalize the effects change, including communicating the changes in advance, involv-
of stressors to all employees” (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2007a, p. ing employees in the design of new roles, and reinforcing of new
100), challenging researchers to think critically about when and contracts through greater communication. If during times of major
under what conditions stressors and strains are related. organizational change employees are treated in a procedurally just
manner (e.g., timely feedback, justification for decisions), the
psychological contract between employer and employee can re-
Practical Implications
main intact (Korsgaard, Sapienza, & Schweiger, 2002).
Stress management in organizations includes identifying com-
mon stressors and either eliminating or reducing their influence
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
(Sulsky & Smith, 2005). By identifying the known predictors of
job insecurity, as well as the conditions under which these predic- Several expected relations between hypothesized predictors
tors are stronger, results from the present study offer organizations and job insecurity were not observed. For example, the present
specific factors to address to reduce job insecurity and subsequent study does not offer support for older adults having more
strains. Although an individual’s LOC, age, type of job (e.g., perceived job insecurity than younger adults. As noted in our
white- vs. blue-collar), and formal contract are not likely to be literature review, many studies do offer conflicting results on
malleable, several of the other significant predictors are more the existence, strength, and direction of this relation. The cur-
likely to be under an organization’s control. For example, access to vilinear results reported by Fullerton and Wallace (2007) may
meaningful information is associated with greater feelings of se- provide a reason for these inconsistent findings, where middle-
curity. Sharing of information and engaging in meaningful dia- aged workers felt less secure about their jobs than older and
logue with peers, supervisors, and customers can help to create a younger workers. This could be explained by the fact that
predictable and unambiguous work setting, thereby potentially middle-age workers often have more responsibilities with chil-
lowering one’s apprehension about losing his or her job. Petzall, dren and family obligations and, therefore, may feel more
Parker, and Stoeberl (2000) have suggested that an open dialogue vulnerable to potential job loss. In addition, there was no
between employers and employees can build trust and communi- significant linear relation between gender and job insecurity.
cate fairness. Because job insecurity is a subjective phenomenon, This result is consistent with previous research, as Cheng and
it is important for employees to perceive that the balance between Chan (2008) found that job insecurity is equally stressful for
their efforts and the offerings of the organization are fair. Research men and women. Perhaps the differing significant relations
has suggested that even though some groups of employees (e.g., between gender and age with job insecurity previously found in
temporary employees) are more likely to experience job insecurity, the literature are due to other factors, such as the varying social
this does not preclude members of other groups from also expe- safety nets in countries where job insecurity is studied or the
riencing job insecurity. In fact, permanent employees may react number of wage earners in a household (De Witte, 1999).
more negatively when feeling insecure about their jobs than tem- Future research should investigate the extent to which individ-
porary employees (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2007a). This suggests ual differences are related to job insecurity nonlinearly or in
that effective communication can benefit all employees, even those moderated relations.
who experience less job insecurity. In addition, employees can There were limitations to the present study, including the small
take an active part in managing their psychological contracts by number of unpublished studies in the meta-analysis. Some critics
clarifying with their employers what promises are being made and have raised concerns about this file-drawer problem in meta-
monitoring the emotions and behaviors of their employers (Con- analysis, because unpublished studies may be more likely to in-
way & Briner, 2005). clude nonsignificant results, resulting in positively skewed meta-
In addition, role ambiguity and role conflict can be lessened by analytic results (i.e., publication bias; Rothstein, McDaniel, &
an increase in communication between employers and employees. Borenstein, 2001). However, research has shown that the file-
More meaningful and effective communication means less ambi- drawer problem may not be as problematic in applied psychology
guity about what an individual’s goals or responsibilities are and as researchers once believed (Dalton, Aguinis, Dalton, Bosco, &
less confusion about what a person’s role is and what is expected Pierce, 2012). Nevertheless, we computed Egger, Smith, Sch-
of him or her. Also, with greater communication, those individuals neider, and Minder’s (1997) test for publication bias for each
with an external LOC (who view events in their lives as deter- bivariate relation (r) between our predictors and job insecurity.
mined by factors in their environment) may be less likely to Egger et al.’s (1997) regression-based test for publication bias
experience job insecurity because they would view those factors in measures the asymmetry of a funnel plot of effect sizes (rs).
their environment to be less threatening and more transparent. Results indicated that none of the predictor-criterion relations
Perhaps one way to lessen the negative effects of job insecurity is revealed evidence of publication bias: LOC, t(3) ⫽ ⫺0.36, p ⬎
to increase meaningful communication between employees and .05, formal contract, t(20) ⫽ 0.89, p ⬎ .05, role ambiguity,
their supervisors. Research has suggested that social support (e.g., t(12) ⫽ ⫺0.81, p ⬎ .05, role conflict, t(10) ⫽ ⫺0.54, p ⬎ .05,
supervisor support) can buffer the relationship between stressors age, t(43) ⫽ ⫺0.17, p ⬎ .05, gender, t(37) ⫽ 0.51, p ⬎ .05,
and strains (e.g., Frese, 1999; Viswesvaran, Sanchez, & Fisher, education, t(19) ⫽ ⫺0.46, p ⬎ .05, employment status, t(9) ⫽
1999), including stressors such as job insecurity (Lim, 1996). 0.01, p ⬎ .05, organizational change, t(9) ⫽ 1.09, p ⬎ .05,
Major organizational change is often unavoidable for companies organizational communications, t(6) ⫽ ⫺0.93, p ⬎ .05, and job
and these changes can affect the psychological contract (Conway type, t(9) ⫽ ⫺0.63, p ⬎ .05.
Some researchers have called into question the use of nonex- analysis does not have an adverse effect on the results” (p. 886).
perimental data in meta-analysis (Egger, Schneider, & Smith, The authors further concluded that “. . . proceeding under the
1998). However, researchers have contested meta-analytic tech- assumption of independence is not so risky as previously thought,
niques for observational studies as appropriate insomuch as the because the means, medians, standard deviations, and confidence
meta-analysis is done systematically (e.g., complete literature intervals in a correlational meta-analysis are not affected by non-
searches, detailed criteria for inclusion) (Egger et al., 1998). Like independence of data” (pp. 886 – 887).
previous meta-analyses on the outcomes of job insecurity (Cheng Organizational research should follow the methodologies of
& Chan, 2008; Sverke et al., 2002), the studies included in the economic research (e.g., Böckerman, Ilmakunnas, & Johansson,
current analysis are correlational studies, which do not allow for 2011; Clark & Postel-Vinay, 2009) by addressing the potential
inferences of causality. Despite the difficulty in establishing a endogeneity of the predictors of job insecurity. Many of the
causal relationship between job insecurity and its predictors (e.g., predictors of job insecurity are unobserved attributes that might be
education cannot be randomly assigned to conditions and manip- explained by other variables. For example, choosing a highly
ulated to determine its effect on job insecurity), previous research volatile job might relate to risk-taking behavior, and risk-taking
has labeled them as antecedents (e.g., Kinnunen & Nätti, 1994). behavior might shape perceptions of job insecurity as well as
Future research on job insecurity will benefit greatly from exper- influence its predictors (e.g., education). The relation between job
imental studies (wherever random assignment and manipulation insecurity and temporary contracts could be caused by socioeco-
are possible) and longitudinal studies that can more appropriately nomic status (SES), such that lower SES might be associated with
test the causal and temporal nature between job insecurity and its temporary employment and influence fears of job loss. Future
predictors (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 2010). research should consider using longitudinal data with a fixed-
In addition, although psychological contract theory offers a effects approach to minimize the number of explanatory variables
useful framework for understanding the relations between job and determine the causal nature of these variables (D’Addio,
insecurity and its predictors, it is not necessarily the only theoret- Eriksson, & Frijters, 2007). Focusing on longitudinal data can also
ical foundation on which job insecurity can be understood, nor address how job insecurity perceptions progress nonlinearly over
does it mean that the relations between variables are perfectly time (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 2010). Additionally, many of the
predicted. For example, it is not the case that all employees who countries used as moderators in the analysis are economically
experience role ambiguity are guaranteed to experience psycho- small from a global perspective (e.g., Belgium, Sweden) and the
logical contract breach, a loss of control, and hence more job data estimated from these countries were not weighted (i.e., using
insecurity. In short, the effect sizes between job insecurity and its gross domestic product) to adjust for this disparity. Therefore, the
predictors remain quite small and the causal sequence of these results of these moderation analyses might not be representative.
variables remains unclear. Finally, the present study was only able to test for a few
Some of the articles in this meta-analysis were part of a grant moderators, because there was insufficient evidence from the
from the European Union to determine how employment contracts
literature to include more moderator variables. Future analyses
affect employee well-being (EU Research on Social Sciences and
should explore the complex relations between job insecurity and
Humanity, 2007). This project included thousands of participants
its predictors. One previously studied moderator between job in-
from organizations in Europe and multiple empirical research
security and its outcomes is organizational justice: the perceptions
articles have been published from these data (e.g., Bernhard-Oettel
employees have about the fairness of the organization (Colquitt,
et al., 2011; De Cuyper & De Witte, 2005). Therefore, some
Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Organizational justice was
overlap in samples almost certainly exists in the current meta-
shown to moderate job insecurity relations with outcome variables
analysis. For example, Bernhard-Oettel et al. (2011), De Cuyper
such as job satisfaction and turnover intentions (Sora et al., 2010).
and De Witte (2005), Sora et al. (2009), and Sora et al. (2010) used
Unfortunately, the vast majority of studies in the current meta-
the Belgian sample, or part of it, collected in the PSYCONES
analysis did not measure organizational justice. Thus, future re-
study. The Bernhard-Oettel et al. (2011) study included 559 par-
search should explore the possibility of organizational justice as a
ticipants with 302 from six Belgian organizations and the De
moderator between job insecurity and its predictors.
Cuyper and De Witte (2005) study reported 656 participants with
302 from seven retail organizations. Unfortunately, there is no
direct evidence from either study that these 302 cases are the same Conclusion
participants. Additionally, each of these articles collapsed the data
from all organizations into one correlation matrix, making it dif- The present meta-analytic review contributes to the literature by
ficult to determine whether nonindependence is present. Similarly, providing evidence for the extent to which several predictors are
Sora et al. (2009) and Sora et al. (2010) used the Spanish sample, related to employees’ perceived job insecurity. Specifically, an
or part of it, collected in the PSYCONES study. There are online internal LOC, less role ambiguity and role conflict, white-collar
resources that describe the PSYCONES study (http://www.uni- and permanent positions, less organizational change, and greater
leipzig.de/~apsycho/rigotti/Psycones_finalreport.pdf, http://www organizational communication were significantly related to less
.uv.es/~psycon/), but they do not clarify with certainty which perceived job insecurity. Job insecurity was also significantly
samples are independent or nonindependent. Notwithstanding po- predicted by employees’ age, education, and temporary work for
tential concerns about sample overlap in a few studies included in some subpopulations. Although this represents only a limited
our meta-analysis, Tracz, Elmore, and Pohlmann (1992) concluded number of predictors of job insecurity, it does provide strong
from results of their Monte Carlo simulation that “. . . combining evidence that these variables are in fact related across samples,
the statistics from nonindependent data in a correlational meta- time, and organizations.
The degree of job insecurity varies from person to person Bellou, V. (2009). Profiling the desirable psychological contract for dif-
because job insecurity is a subjective phenomenon, the result of an ferent groups of employees: Evidence from Greece. The International
imbalance in the psychological contract between employee and Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 810 – 830. doi:10.1080/
employer. Organizational communication is the key to restoring 09585190902770711
ⴱ
balance and reducing job insecurity, especially in times of change Bernhard-Oettel, C., De Cuyper, N., Schreurs, B., & De Witte, H. (2011).
Linking job insecurity to well-being and organizational attitudes in
and uncertainty (e.g., high unemployment, country-specific poli-
Belgian workers: The role of security expectations and fairness. The
tics). The present study also offers organizations verification that International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 1866 –1886.
effective organizational communication can have an impact on doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.573967
employees and can help to buffer the negative effects of stress ⴱ
Bernhard-Oettel, C., Sverke, M., & De Witte, H. (2005). Comparing three
caused by higher levels of job insecurity. By creating a work alternative types of employment with permanent full-time work: How do
environment with less ambiguity in job roles, responsibilities, and employment contract and perceived job conditions relate to health com-
duties, and less role conflict through greater communication, or- plaints? Work & Stress, 19, 301–318. doi:10.1080/02678370500408723
ⴱ
ganizations could lessen employees’ perceived job insecurity and Berntson, E., Näswall, K., & Sverke, M. (2010). The moderating role of
strengthen the psychological contract that exists between employ- employability in the association between job insecurity and exit, voice,
ees and their employers. The present meta-analysis adds to the job loyalty and neglect. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31, 215–230.
insecurity and psychological contract theory literature by identi- doi:10.1177/0143831X09358374
Bocchino, C. C., Hartman, B. W., & Foley, P. F. (2003). The relationship
fying important predictors and moderators of job insecurity as well
between person– organization congruence, perceived violations of the
as ways to reduce employees’ stress and prevent psychological
psychological contract, and occupational stress symptoms. Consulting
contract breach (i.e., through a reduction in job insecurity). Fur- Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55, 203–214. doi:10.1037/
ther, should a breach occur, results offer some insight into how to 1061-4087.55.4.203
repair that breach (e.g., less ambiguity, increase communication), Böckerman, P. (2004). Perceptions of job instability in Europe. Social
thereby restoring a sense of balance, trust, and identification be- Indicators Research, 67, 283–314. doi:10.1023/B:SOCI.0000032340
tween the organization and its employees (Restubog, Hornsey, .74708.01
Bordia, & Esposo, 2008). Böckerman, P., Ilmakunnas, P., & Johansson, E. (2011). Job security and
employee well-being: Evidence from matched survey and register data.
References Labour Economics, 18, 547–554. doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2010.12.011
Borg, I., & Elizur, D. (1992). Job insecurity: Correlates, moderators and
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the measurement. International Journal of Manpower, 13, 13–26. doi:
meta-analysis. 10.1108/01437729210010210
ⴱ Bosco, F. A., & Aguinis, H. (2012). MPMA: Multi-Purpose Meta-Analysis
Albrecht, S., & Travaglione, A. (2003). Trust in public sector manage-
(Version 4.20) [Software]. Retrieved from http://www.frankbosco.com
ment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14,
Burke, R. J. (1998). Job insecurity in recent business school graduates:
76 –92. doi:10.1080/09585190210158529
ⴱ
Ameen, E. C., Jackson, C., Pasewark, W. R., & Strawser, J. R. (1995). An Antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Stress Manage-
empirical investigation of the antecedents and consequences of job ment, 5, 113–119. doi:10.1023/A:1022959815313
ⴱ
insecurity on the turnover intentions of academic accountants. Issues in Caverley, N., Cunningham, J., & MacGregor, J. (2007). Sickness presen-
Accounting Education, 10, 65– 82. teeism, sickness absenteeism. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 304 –
Anderson, C. J., & Potunsson, J. (2007). Workers, worries and welfare 319. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00690.x
ⴱ
states: Social protection and job insecurity in 15 OECD countries. Chawla, A., & Kelloway, E. K. (2004). Predicting openness and commit-
European Journal of Political Research, 46, 211–235. doi:10.1111/j ment to change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25,
.1475-6765.2007.00692.x 485– 498. doi:10.1108/01437730410556734
Anderson, N., & Schalk, R. (1998). The psychological contract in retro- Cheng, G. H. L., & Chan, D. K. S. (2008). Who suffers more from job
spect and prospect. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 637– 647. insecurity? A meta-analytic review. Applied Psychology: An Interna-
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(1998)19:1⫹⬍637::AID-JOB986⬎3.0 tional Review, 57, 272–303. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00312.x
ⴱ
.CO;2-H Chirumbolo, A., & Areni, A. (2005). The influence of job insecurity on
Argyris, C. (1960). Understanding organizational behavior. Homewood, job performance and absenteeism: The moderating effect of work atti-
IL: Dorsey. tudes. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 31, 65–71.
Armstrong-Stassen, M. (2005). Coping with downsizing: A comparison of Claes, R., Schalk, R., & De Jong, J. (2010). International comparisons of
executive-level and middle managers. International Journal of Stress employment contracts, psychological contracts, and worker well-being.
Management, 12, 117–141. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.12.2.117 In D. E. Guest, K. Isaksson, & H. De Witte (Eds.), Employment con-
ⴱ tracts, psychological contracts, and employee well-being: An interna-
Arnold, H. J., & Feldman, D. C. (1982). A multivariate analysis of the
determinants of job turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 350 – tional study (pp. 213–230). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
360. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.350 doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199542697.003.0009
ⴱ Clark, A., & Postel-Vinay, F. (2009). Job security and job protection.
Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes and conse-
quences of job insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test. Oxford Economic Papers, 61, 207–239. doi:10.1093/oep/gpn017
Academy of Management Journal, 32, 803– 829. doi:10.2307/256569 Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y.
ⴱ (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of
Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2009). Why is organizational change related
to workplace bullying? Role conflict and job insecurity as mediators. organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–
Economic and Industrial Democracy, 30, 348 –371. doi:10.1177/ 445. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425
0143831X09336557 Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2005). Understanding psychological con-
ⴱ
Barling, J., & Macewen, K. E. (1992). Linking work experiences to facets tracts at work: A critical evaluation of theory and research. Oxford,
of marital functioning. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 573– England: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/
583. doi:10.1002/job.4030130604 9780199280643.001.0001
D’Addio, A. C., Eriksson, T., & Frijters, P. (2007). An analysis of the EU Research on Social Sciences and Humanity. (2007). Psychological
determinants of job satisfaction when individuals’ baseline satisfaction contracts across employment situations: PSYCONES. Retrieved from
levels may differ. Applied Economics, 39, 2413–2423. doi:10.1080/ http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~apsycho/rigotti/Psycones_finalreport.pdf
00036840600707357 Farber, H. (2011, May). Job loss in the Great Recession: Historical
Dalton, D. R., Aguinis, H., Dalton, C. M., Bosco, F. A., & Pierce, C. A. perspective from the displaced workers survey, 1984 –2010 (NBER
(2012). Revisiting the file drawer problem in meta-analysis: An assess- Working Paper No. 17040). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Eco-
ment of published and non-published correlation matrices. Personnel nomic Research.
Psychology, 65, 221–249. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01243.x Felstead, A., & Gallie, D. (2004). For better or worse? Non-standard jobs and high
Debus, M. E., Probst, T. M., König, C. J., & Kleinmann, M. (2012). Catch involvement work systems. The International Journal of Human Resource
me if I fall! Country-level resources in the job insecurity-job attitudes Management, 15, 1293–1316. doi:10.1080/0958519042000238464
ⴱ
link. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 690 – 698. doi:10.1037/ Finegold, D., Mohrman, S., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2002). Age effects on the
a0027832 predictors of technical workers’ commitment and willingness to turn-
ⴱ over. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 655– 674. doi:10.1002/
De Cuyper, N., Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity,
perceived employability and targets’ and perpetrators’ experiences of job.159
workplace bullying. Work & Stress, 23, 206 –224. doi:10.1080/ Freese, C., & Schalk, R. (2000). Psychological contracts in the Nether-
02678370903257578 lands: Dualism, flexibility, and security. In D. M. Rousseau & R. Schalk

ⴱ
De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2005). Job insecurity: Mediator or (Eds.), Psychological contracts in employment: Cross-national perspec-
moderator of the relationship between type of contract and various tives (pp. 176 –194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/
outcomes? SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 31, 79 – 86. doi: 9781452231273.n10
10.4102/sajip.v31i4.211 Frese, M. (1999). Social support as a moderator of the relationship between
ⴱ
De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2006). The impact of job insecurity and work stressors and psychological dysfunctioning: A longitudinal study
contract type on attitudes, well-being and behavioural reports: A psy- with objective measures. Journal of Occupational Healthy Psychology,
chological contract perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organi- 4(3), 179 –192. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.4.3.179
ⴱ
zational Psychology, 79, 395– 409. doi:10.1348/096317905X53660 Fried, Y., Slowik, H. L., Franz, Z., Ben-David, H. A., Avital, N., &
De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2007a). Job insecurity and employability Yeverechyahu, U. (2003). The moderating effect of job security on the
relation between role clarity and job performance: A longitudinal field
among temporary workers: A theoretical approach based on the psycho-
study. Human Relations, 56, 787– 805. doi:10.1177/00187267030567002
logical contract. In K. Näswall, J. Hellgren, & M. Sverke (Eds.), The ⴱ
Frone, M. R. (2008). Are work stressors related to employee substance
individual in the changing working life (pp. 71–130). Cambridge, Eng-
use? The importance of temporal context in assessments of alcohol and
land: Cambridge University Press.
ⴱ illicit drug use. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 199 –206. doi:
De Cuyper, N. D., & De Witte, H. (2007b). Job insecurity in temporary
10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.199
versus permanent workers: Associations with attitudes, well-being, and
Fullerton, A. S., & Wallace, M. (2007). Traversing the flexible turn: US
behavior. Work & Stress, 21, 65– 84. doi:10.1080/02678370701229050
ⴱ workers’ perceptions of job security, 1977–2002. Social Science Re-
De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., Kinnunen, U., & Natti, J. (2010). The
search, 36, 201–221. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2005.09.005
relationship between job insecurity and employability and well-being ⴱ
Gaunt, R., & Benjamin, O. (2007). Job Insecurity, stress and gender: The
among Finnish temporary and permanent employees. International Stud-
moderating role of gender ideology. Community, Work & Family, 10,
ies of Management & Organization, 40, 57–73. doi:10.2753/IMO0020-
341–355. doi:10.1080/13668800701456336
8825400104 ⴱ
ⴱ
George, E. (2003). External solutions and internal problems: The effects
De Cuyper, N., Notelaers, G., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity and
of employment externalization on internal workers’ attitudes. Organi-
employability in fixed-term contractors, agency workers, and permanent zation Science, 14, 386 – 402. doi:10.1287/orsc.14.4.386.17488
workers: Associations with job satisfaction and affective organizational Green, F. (2011). Unpacking the misery multiplier: How employability
commitment. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 193–205. modifies the impacts of unemployment and job insecurity on life satis-
doi:10.1037/a0014603 faction and mental health. Journal of Health Economics, 30, 265–276.
De Witte, H. (1999). Job insecurity and psychological well-being: Review doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2010.12.005
of the literature and exploration of some unresolved issues. European ⴱ
Greenberg, L., & Barling, J. (1999). Predicting employee aggression
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 155–177. doi: against coworkers, subordinates and supervisors: The roles of person
10.1080/135943299398302 behaviors and perceived workplace factors. Journal of Organizational
Edwards, J. C., Rust, K. G., McKinley, W., & Moon, G. (2003). Business Behavior, 20, 897–913. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199911)20:
ideologies and perceived breach of contract during downsizing: The role 6⬍897::AID-JOB975⬎3.0.CO;2-Z
of the ideology of employee self-reliance. Journal of Organizational Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward concep-
Behavior, 24, 1–23. doi:10.1002/job.177 tual clarity. The Academy of Management Review, 9, 438 – 448.
Egger, M., Schneider, M., & Smith, G. D. (1998). Spurious precision? Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (2010). Evolution of research on job
Meta-analysis of observational studies. British Medical Journal, 316, insecurity. International Studies of Management & Organization, 40,
140 –144. doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7125.140 6 –19. doi:10.2753/IMO0020-8825400101
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in Guest, D., Isaksson, K., & De Witte, H. (2010). Employment contracts,
meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical psychological contracts, and worker well-being: An international study.
Journal, 315, 629 – 634. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/
Ellis, J. B. (2007). Psychological contracts: Does work status affect per- 9780199542697.001.0001
ceptions of making and keeping promises? Management Communication Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis.
Quarterly, 20, 335–362. doi:10.1177/0893318906298929 Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
ⴱ ⴱ
Emberland, J. S., & Rundmo, T. (2010). Implications of job insecurity Hellgren, J., & Sverke, M. (2001). Unionized employees’ perceptions of
perceptions and job insecurity responses for psychological well-being, roll stress and fairness during organizational downsizing: Consequences
turnover intentions and reported risk behavior. Safety Science, 48, 452– for job satisfaction, union satisfactions and well-being. Economic and
459. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2009.12.002 Industrial Democracy, 22, 543–567. doi:10.1177/0143831X01224005
ⴱ ⴱ
Hellgren, J., & Sverke, M. (2003). Does job insecurity lead to impaired Kinnunen, U., & Nätti, J. (1994). Job insecurity in Finland: Antecedents
well-being or vice versa? Estimation of cross-lagged. Journal of Orga- and consequences. European Work and Organizational Behavior, 4,
nizational Behavior, 24, 215–236. doi:10.1002/job.184 297–321. doi:10.1080/13594329408410490
ⴱ
Hellgren, J., Sverke, M., & Isaksson, K. (1999). A two-dimensional ap- Kivimäki, M., Vahtera, J., Thomson, L., Griffiths, A., & Cox, T. (1997).
proach to job insecurity: Consequences for employee attitudes and Psychosocial factors predicting employee sickness absence during eco-
well-being. European Journal of Work and Organization Psychology, 8, nomic decline. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 858 – 872. doi:
179 –195. doi:10.1080/135943299398311 10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.858
ⴱ Klandermans, B., van Vuuren, T., & Jacobson, D. (1991). Employees and
Hui, C., & Lee, C. (2000). Moderating effects of organization-based
self-esteem on organizational uncertainty: Employee response relation- job insecurity. In J. Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans, & T. van
ships. Journal of Management, 26, 215–232. doi:10.1177/ Vuuren (Eds.), Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk (pp. 40 – 64).
014920630002600203 London, England: Sage.
ⴱ
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Cor- Ko, J., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1997). Assessment of Meyer and
recting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Allen’s three-component model of organizational commitment in South
CA: Sage. Korea. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 961–973. doi:10.1037/0021-
Isaksson, K., Bernhard-Oettel, C., & De Witte, H. (2010). The role of the 9010.82.6.961
ⴱ
formal employment contract in the range and fulfillment of the psycho- König, C., Debus, M., Häusler, S., Lendenmann, N., & Kleinmann, M.
logical contract: Testing a layered model. European Journal of Work (2010). Examining occupational self-efficacy, work locus of control and
and Organizational Psychology, 19, 696 –716. doi:10.1080/ communication as moderators of the job insecurity–job performance
13594320903142617 relationship. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31, 231–247. doi:
ⴱ
Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2007). Exploring the predictors and 10.1177/0143831X09358629
consequences of job insecurity’s components. Journal of Managerial König, C. J., Probst, T. M., Staffen, S., & Graso, M. (2011). A Swiss-US
Psychology, 22, 40 – 64. doi:10.1108/02683940710721938 comparison of the correlates of job insecurity. Applied Psychology: An
ⴱ
Iverson, R. D. (1996). Employee acceptance of organizational change: The International Review, 60, 141–159. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010
role of organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human .00430.x
Korsgaard, M. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Schweiger, D. M. (2002). Beaten
Resource Management, 7, 122–149. doi:10.1080/09585199600000121
before begun: The role of procedural justice in planning change. Journal
Jacobson, D. (1991). The conceptual approach to job insecurity. In J.
of Management, 28, 497–516. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(02)00141-1
Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans, & T. van Vuuren (Eds.), Job ⴱ
Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2005). The
insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk (pp. 23–39). London, England: Sage.
role of job security in understanding the relationship between employ-
Jacobson, D., & Hartley, J. (1991). Mapping the context. In J. Hartley, D.
ees’ perceptions of temporary workers and employees’ performance.
Jacobson, B. Klandermans, & T. van Vuuren (Eds.), Job insecurity:
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 389 –398. doi:10.1037/0021-9010
Coping with jobs at risk (pp. 1–22). London, England: Sage.
.90.2.389
Janssens, M., Sels, L., & Van Den Brande, I. (2003). Multiple types of
Krugman, P., & Lawrence, R. (1993). Trade, jobs, and wages (Working
psychological contracts: A six-cluster solution. Human Relations, 56,
Paper No. 4478). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Re-
1349 –1378. doi:10.1177/00187267035611004
search.
Johnson, C. D., Messe, L. A., & Crano, W. D. (1984). Predicting job
Kuhnert, K. W., & Vance, R. J. (1992). Job insecurity and moderators of
performance of low income workers: The Work Opinion Questionnaire.
the relationship between job insecurity and employee adjustment. In
Personnel Psychology, 37, 291–299. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1984
J. C. Quick, L. R. Murphy, & J. J. Hurrell Jr. (Eds.), Stress and well
.tb01451.x
being at work: Assessments and interventions for occupational mental
Johnson, N. B., Bobko, P., & Hartenian, L. S. (1992). Union influence on health (pp. 48 – 63). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ-
local union leaders’ perceptions of job insecurity: An empirical test. ation. doi:10.1037/10116-004
British Journal of Industrial Relations, 30, 45– 60. doi:10.1111/j.1467- Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford
8543.1992.tb00763.x University Press.
Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Lim, V. K. G. (1996). Job insecurity and its outcomes: Moderating effects
Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, of work-based and nonwork-based social support. Human Relations,
285–308. doi:10.2307/2392498 49(2), 171–194. doi:10.1177/001872679604900203
ⴱ
Kausto, J., Elo, A. L., Lipponen, J., & Elovainio, M. (2005). Moderating Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand
effects of job insecurity in the relationships between procedural justice Oaks, CA: Sage.
and employee well-being: Gender differences. European Journal of ⴱ
Lord, A., & Hartley, J. (1998). Organizational commitment and job
Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 431– 452. doi:10.1080/ insecurity in a changing public service organization. European Journal
13594320500349813 of Work and Organizational Psychology, 7, 341–354. doi:10.1080/
Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S., Nätti, J., & Happonen, M. (1999). Perceived job 135943298398745
insecurity: A longitudinal study among Finish employees. European ⴱ
Mantler Keil, J., Armstrong-Stassen, M., Cameron, S. J., & Horsburgh,
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 243–260. doi: M. E. (2000). Part-time nurses: The effect of work status congruency on
10.1080/135943299398348 job attitudes. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 227–
ⴱ
Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S., Nätti, J., & Happonen, M. (2000). Organiza- 236. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00012
tional antecedents and outcomes of job insecurity: A longitudinal study Mauno, S., & Kinnunen, U. (2002). Perceived job insecurity among dual-
in three organizations in Finland. Journal of Organizational Behavior, earner couples: Do its antecedents vary according to gender, economic
21, 443– 459. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200006)21:4⬍443::AID- sector and the measure used? Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
JOB24⬎3.0.CO;2-N tional Psychology, 75, 295–314. doi:10.1348/096317902320369721
ⴱ ⴱ
Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S., & Siltaloppi, M. (2010). Job insecurity, recov- McAulay, B. J. (1999). Work commitment in a turbulent career environ-
ery and well-being at work: Recovery experiences as moderators. Eco- ment: Job insecurity’s effect on psychological attachment to organiza-
nomic and Industrial Democracy, 31, 179 –194. doi:10.1177/ tion and profession. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A.
0143831X09358366 Humanities and Social Sciences, 60(7A), 2695.
ⴱ
Millward, L. J., & Brewerton, P. M. (2000). Psychological contracts: Reisel, W. D. (2003). Validation and measurement of perceived environ-
Employee relations for the twenty-first century? In C. L. Cooper & I. T. mental threat as an antecedent to job insecurity. Psychological Reports,
Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational 93, 359 –364. doi:10.2466/pr0.2003.93.2.359
psychology (pp. 1– 61). Chichester, England: Wiley. Restubog, S. L. D., Hornsey, M. J., Bordia, P., & Esposo, S. R. (2008).
ⴱ
Mohr, G. B. (2000). The changing significance of different stressors after Effects of psychological contract breach on organizational citizenship
the announcement of bankruptcy: A longitudinal investigation with behavior: Insights from the group value model. Journal of Management
special emphasis on job insecurity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Studies, 45, 1377–1400. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00792.x
ⴱ
21, 337–359. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200005)21:3⬍337::AID- Richter, A., Näswall, K., & Sverke, M. (2010). Job insecurity and its
JOB18⬎3.0.CO;2-G relation to work-family conflict: Mediation with a longitudinal data set.
ⴱ
Moore, S., Grunberg, L., & Greenberg, E. (2004). Repeated downsizing Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31, 265–280. doi:10.1177/
contact: The effects of similar and dissimilar layoff experiences on work 0143831X09358370
and well-being outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological
9, 247–257. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.9.3.247 contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational
ⴱ
Näswall, K., & De Witte, H. (2003). Who feels insecure in Europe? Predict- Behavior, 15, 245–259. doi:10.1002/job.4030150306
ⴱ
ing job insecurity from background variables. Economic and Industrial Rosenblatt, Z., Talmud, I., & Ruvio, A. (1999). A gender-based frame-
Democracy, 24, 189 –215. doi:10.1177/0143831X03024002003 work of the experience of job insecurity and its effects on work attitudes.
ⴱ
Näswall, K., Sverke, M., & Hellgren, J. (2005). The moderating role of European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 197–217.
personality characteristics on the relationship between job insecurity and doi:10.1080/135943299398320
strain. Work & Stress, 19, 37– 49. doi:10.1080/02678370500057850 Roskies, E., & Louis-Guerin, C. (1990). Job insecurity in managers:
Østhus, S. (2007). For better or worse? Workplace changes and the health Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11,
and well-being of Norwegian workers. Work, Employment and Society, 345–359. doi:10.1002/job.4030110503
21, 731–750. Rothstein, H. R., McDaniel, M. A., & Borenstein, M. (2001). Meta-
Otto, K., Hoffman-Biencourt, A., & Mohr, G. (2010). If there a buffering analysis: A review of quantitative cumulation methods. In N. Schmitt &
effect of flexibility for job attitudes and work-related strain under F. Drasgow (Eds.), Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp.
conditions of high job insecurity and regional unemployment rate? 534 –570). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Economic and Industrial Democracy, 32, 609 – 630. doi:10.1177/ Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal verses external
0143831X10388531 control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Ap-
ⴱ
Parker, S. K., Axtell, C. M., & Turner, N. (2001). Designing a safer plied, 80, 1–28. doi:10.1037/h0092976
workplace: Importance of job autonomy, communication quality and Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Un-
supportive supervisors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, derstanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA:
211–228. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.6.3.211 Sage.
ⴱ
Parker, S. K., Griffin, M. A., Sprigg, C. A., & Wall, T. D. (2002). Effect Rousseau, D. M. (2000). Psychological contracts in the United States:
of temporary contracts on perceived work characteristics and job strain: Diversity, individualism, and associability in the marketplace. In D. M.
A longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 55, 689 –719. doi:10.1111/ Rousseau & R. Schalk (Eds.), Psychological contracts in employment:
j.1744-6570.2002.tb00126.x Cross-national perspectives (pp. 250 –282). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
ⴱ
Pasewark, W. R., & Strawser, J. R. (1996). The determinants and out- doi:10.4135/9781452231273.n14
comes associated with job insecurity in a professional accounting envi- Rousseau, D. M., & Schalk, R. (2000). Introduction. In D. M. Rousseau &
ronment. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 8, 92–113. R. Schalk (Eds.), Psychological contracts in employment: Cross-
Petzall, B. J., Parker, G. E., & Stoeberl, P. A. (2000). Another side to national perspectives (pp. 1–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:
downsizing: Survivors’ behavior and self-affirmation. Journal of Busi- 10.4135/9781452231273.n1
ness and Psychology, 14, 593– 603. doi:10.1023/A:1022990214073 Sawyer, J. E. (1992). Goal and process clarity: Specification of multiple
ⴱ
Piccoli, B., & De Witte, H. (2011). Job insecurity and organizational constructs of role ambiguity and a structural equation model of their
consequences: How justice moderates this relationship. Romanian Jour- antecedents and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 130 –
nal of Applied Psychology, 13, 37– 49. 142. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.2.130
ⴱ
Preuss, G. A., & Lautsch, B. A. (2002). The effect of formal versus Schalk, R., De Jong, J., Rigotti, T., Mohr, G., Peiró, J. M., & Caballer, A.
informal job security on employee involvement programs. Industrial (2010). The psychological contracts of temporary and permanent work-
Relations, 57, 517–539. doi:10.7202/006888ar ers. In D. E. Guest, K. Isaksson, & H. De Witte (Eds.), Employment
ⴱ
Probst, T. M. (2003). Exploring employee outcomes of organizational contracts, psychological contracts and employee well-being. An inter-
restructuring: A Solomon four-group study. Group & Organization national study (pp. 89 –120). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Management, 28, 416 – 439. doi:10.1177/1059601102250825 doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199542697.003.0005
ⴱ ⴱ
Probst, T. M. (2005). Countering the negative effects of job insecurity Schreurs, B., van Emmerik, H., & Notelaers, G. (2010). Job insecurity and
through participative decision making: Lessons from the demand⫺con- employee health: The buffering potential of job control and job self-
trol model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 320 –329. efficacy. Work & Stress, 24, 56 –72.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.320 Sels, L., Janssens, M., Van den Brande, I., & Overlaet, B. (2000). Belgium: A
Probst, T. M., & Lawler, J. (2006). Cultural values as moderators of culture of compromise. In D. M. Rousseau & R. Schalk (Eds.), Psycho-
employee reactions to job insecurity: The role of individualism and logical contracts in employment: Cross-national perspectives (pp. 47–
collectivism. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 234 – 66). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781452231273.n3
254. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00239.x Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an
ⴱ
Proenca, E. J. (1999). Employee reactions to managed care. Health Care explanatory framework in the employment relationship. In C. L. Cooper
Management Review, 24, 57–70. doi:10.1097/00004010-199904000- & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp.
00006 91–109). New York, NY: Wiley.
ⴱ
Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on Silla, I., De Cuyper, N., Gracia, F. J., Peiró, J. M., & De Witte, H. (2009).
psychological contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 350 – Job insecurity and well-being: Moderation by employability. Journal of
367. doi:10.2307/20159586 Happiness Studies, 10, 739 –751. doi:10.1007/s10902-008-9119-0
ⴱ
Silla, I., Gracia, F. J., Mañas, M. A., & Peiró, J. M. (2010). Job insecurity Sverke, M., & Hellgren, J. (2002). The nature of job insecurity: Under-
and employees’ attitudes: The moderating role of fairness. International standing employment uncertainty on the brink of a new millennium.
Journal of Manpower, 31, 449 – 465. doi:10.1108/01437721011057029 Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 23– 42. doi:10.1111/
ⴱ
Silla, I., Gracia, F. J., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Job insecurity and health-related 1464-0597.0077z
outcomes among different types of temporary workers. Economic and Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Näswall, K. (2002). No security: A meta-
Industrial Democracy, 26, 89 –117. doi:10.1177/0143831X05049404 analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of
Smithson, J., & Lewis, S. (2000). Is job insecurity changing the psycho- Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 242–264. doi:10.1037/1076-
logical contract? Personnel Review, 29, 680 –702. doi:10.1108/ 8998.7.3.242
00483480010296465 Tracz, S. M., Elmore, P. B., & Pohlmann, J. T. (1992). Correlational
ⴱ
Sora, B., Caballer, A., Peiró, J. M., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity meta-analysis: Independent and nonindependent cases. Educational
climate’s influence on employees’ job attitudes: Evidence from two and Psychological Measurement, 52, 879 – 888. doi:10.1177/
European countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational 0013164492052004007
Psychology, 18, 125–147. doi:10.1080/13594320802211968 Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2000). Re-examining the effects of
ⴱ
Sora, B., Caballer, A., Peiró, J. M., Silla, I., & Gracia, F. J. (2010). Moder- psychological contact violations: Unmet expectations and job dissatis-
ating influence of organizational justice on the relationship between job factions as mediators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 25– 42.
insecurity and its outcomes. A multilevel analysis. Economic and Industrial doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200002)21:1⬍25::AID-JOB2⬎3.0.CO;
Democracy, 31, 613– 637. doi:10.1177/0143831X10365924 2-Z

ⴱ
Sparks, K., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). Well-being and occu- Vander Elst, T., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2010a). The role of
pational health in the 21st century workplace. Journal of Occupational perceived control in the relationship between job insecurity and psycho-
and Organizational Psychology, 74, 489 –509. doi:10.1348/ social outcomes: Moderator or mediator? Stress & Health, 27, e215–
096317901167497 e227. doi:10.1002/smi.1371
ⴱ ⴱ
Spratt, A. D., & Dickson, K. E. (2008). Change factors affecting the Vander Elst, T., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2010b). The role of
transition to an EMR system in a private physicians practice: An ex- organizational communication and participation in reducing job insecurity
ploratory study. Academy of Health Care Management Journal, 4, and its negative association with work-related well-being. Economic and
41– 88. Industrial Democracy, 31, 249 –264. doi:10.1177/0143831X09358372
ⴱ
Stewart, W., & Barling, J. (1996). Fathers’ work experiences effect van Vuuren, T. (1990). Met ontslag bedreigd: Werknemers in onzekerheid
children’s behaviors via job-related affect and parenting behaviors. over hun arbeidsplaats bij veranderingen in de organisatie. Amsterdam,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 221–232. doi:10.1002/ The Netherlands: VU Uitgeverij.
(SICI)1099-1379(199605)17:3⬍221::AID-JOB741⬎3.0.CO;2-G Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social
Sulsky, L., & Smith, C. (2005). Work stress. Belmont, CA: Thompson support in the process of work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Wadsworth. Vocational Behavior, 54, 314 –334. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1998.1661
Sum, A., & Khatiwada, I. (2010). The nation’s underemployed in the Whitener, E. M. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility
“Great Recession” of 2007– 09. Monthly Labor Review, November, intervals in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 315–321.
3–15. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.315
ⴱ ⴱ
Sverke, M., & Hellgren, J. (2001). Exit, voice and loyalty reactions to job Zeytinoglu, I. U., Denton, M., & Plenderleith, J. M. (2011). Flexible
insecurity in Sweden: Do unionized and non-unionized employees dif- employment and nurses’ intention to leave the profession: The role of
fer? British Journal of Industrial Relations, 39, 167–182. doi:10.1111/ support at work. Health Policy, 99, 149 –157. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol
1467-8543.00195 .2010.07.017
(Appendix follows)
Appendix
Summary of Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis and Coding for Moderators
Subjective predictors Objective predictors Moderators

Unempl Unempl JI JI
Study LOC RA RC Com Age Gender Education PT Blue Temp Change rate change Country item scale
Albrecht &
Travaglione
(2003) Org 1 ⫺.4 Multi Global
Albrecht &
Travaglione
(2003) Org 2 ⫺.42 Multi Global
Ameen et al.
(1995) .31 .33 6.9 2 U.S. Multi Multi

Arnold & Feldman
(1982) .07 .02 ⫺.04 7.5 1 Canada Single Global
Ashford, Lee, &
Bobko (1989) ⫺.29 .44 .31 .46 6.1 1 U.S. Multi Multi
Baillien & De
Witte (2009) .27 .19 .01 .01 .14 8.5 1 Belgium Multi Multi
Barling &
Macewen
(1992) .06 ⫺.03 ⫺.01 8.1 1 Canada Multi Multi
Berntson, Näswall,
& Sverke
(2010) ⫺.08 ⫺.01 ⫺.05 7.7 1 Sweden Multi Multi
Bernhard-Oettel, et
al. (2005) ⫺.07 ⫺.03 .37 6.8 1 Sweden Multi Multi
Bernhard-Oettel et
al. (2011) ⫺.14 ⫺.03 ⫺.03 .31 .37 7.9 1 Belgium Multi Multi
Caverley,
Cunningham, &
MacGregor
(2007) .14 7.7 1 Canada Single Global
Chawla &
Kelloway
(2004) ⫺.25 Multi Multi
Chirumbolo &
Areni (2005) ⫺.31 .17 .33 6.1 2 Italy Multi Global
De Cuyper,
Baillien, & De
Witte (2009) .02 ⫺.12 ⫺.1 .44 7.5 2 Belgium Multi Multi
De Cuyper & De
Witte (2005) .34 Multi Multi
De Cuyper & De
Witte (2006) .54 7.5 1 Belgium Multi Multi
De Cuyper et al.
(2010) .34 9.1 3 Finland Single Global
De Cuyper & De
Witte (2007b) .38 8.4 1 Belgium Multi Multi
De Cuyper,
Notelaers, & De
Witte (2009) ⫺.13 ⫺.04 ⫺.09 .12 .26 8.5 1 Belgium Multi Multi
Emberland &
Rundmo (2010) ⫺.14 .09 2.5 2 Norway Multi Multi
Finegold
Mohrman, &
Spreitzer (2002) ⫺.06 .04 4.5 1 U.S. Single Global
Fried et al. (2003) ⫺.1 9.3 1 Israel Multi Global
(Appendix continues)
Appendix (continued)

Unempl Unempl JI JI
Frone (2008) .00 ⫺.07 5.8 1 U.S. Multi Global

Gaunt & Benjamin
(2007) ⫺.26 Multi Multi
George (2003) .05 ⫺.02 4.7 1 U.S. Multi Global
Greenberg &
Barling (1999) .06 8.3 2 Canada Multi Multi
Hellgren & Sverke
(2003) .07 .07 ⫺.24 9.2 2 Sweden Multi Global
Hellgren & Sverke
(2001) .32 .06 ⫺.12 7.2 2 Sweden Multi Multi
Hui & Lee (2000) .02 .14 .43 Multi Global

Ito & Brotheridge

(2007) ⫺.17 .29 7.2 2 Canada Multi Global
Iverson (1996) .25 .17 ⫺.03 ⫺.13 .04 ⫺.19 9.7 2 Australia Multi Global
Kausto et al.
(2005) .08 .04 ⫺.39 9.1 3 Finland Single Global
Mantler Keil et al.
(2000) ⫺.16 11.3 1 Canada Multi
Kinnunen et al.
(2000) .21 ⫺.29 17.1 2 Finland Multi Multi
Kinnunen & Natti
(1994) ⫺.05 ⫺.07 .02 ⫺.27 3.4 3 Finland Multi Multi
Kinnunen, Mauno,
& Siltaloppi
(2010) ⫺.16 ⫺.06 .05 .41 Multi Multi
Kivimäki et al.
(1997) women ⫺.17 .23 3.4 3 Finland Multi Multi
Kivimäki et al.
(1997) men ⫺.12 .23 3.4 3 Finland Multi Multi
Ko, Price, &
Mueller (1997)
Org 1 .21 .17 S. Korea Multi Global
Ko et al. (1997)
Org 2 .18 .17 S. Korea Multi Global
König et al.
(2010) ⫺.4 ⫺.36 3.5 2 Switz Multi Global
Kraimer et al.
(2005) .05 6.0 1 U.S. Multi Global
Lord & Hartley
(1998) .05 .21 Single Global
McAulay (1999) .05
Mohr (2000) .38 9.3 2 Germany
Moore, Grunberg,
& Greenberg
(2004) .19 ⫺.12 ⫺.02 ⫺.23 4.9 2 U.S. Multi Global
Näswall & De
Witte (2003)
Belgium .07 .13 .14 .02 .06 .13 9.5 1 Belgium Multi Multi
Näswall & De
Witte (2003)
Italy .12 .01 .12 .17 .12 .10 10.2 2 Italy Multi Multi
Näswall & De
Witte (2003)
Netherlands ⫺.06 ⫺.05 .04 ⫺.04 .14 .24 3.4 2 Neth Multi Multi
Näswall & De
Witte (2003)
Sweden ⫺.07 ⫺.02 .05 .17 .33 8.3 2 Sweden Multi Multi
(Appendix continues)
Appendix (continued)

Unempl Unempl JI JI
Näswall, Sverke,
& Hellgren
(2005) ⫺.03 ⫺.05 ⫺.03 ⫺.05 .15 8.3 2 Sweden Single Global
Parker, Axtell, &
Turner (2001) .04 .02 ⫺.12 ⫺.36 6.3 2 U.K. Multi Global
Parker et al.
(2002) .11 .38 5.4 2 U.K. Multi Global
Pasewark &
Strawser (1996) ⫺.16 .16 .37 .06 6.1 2 U.S. Multi Multi
Piccoli & De
Witte (2011) .02 ⫺.37 7.8 1 Italy Multi Multi

Preuss & Lautsch

(2002) ⫺.03 ⫺.05 .11 5.5 2 U.S. Single Global
Probst (2003) .23 5.0 2 U.S. Multi Global
Probst (2005) ⫺.18 ⫺.07 Multi Global
Proenca (1999) .10 5.0 2 U.S. Multi Multi
Reisel (2003) .28 .23 Multi Global
Richter, Näswall,
& Sverke
(2010) Women ⫺.26 7.6 1 Sweden Multi Global
Richter, Näswall,
& Sverke
(2010) Men ⫺.09 7.6 1 Sweden Multi Global
Rosenblatt,
Talmud, &
Ruvio (1999) ⫺.09 7.7 1 Israel Multi Multi
Schreurs, van
Emmerik, &
Notelaers (2010) ⫺.05 ⫺.07 ⫺.08 ⫺.03 .16 7.0 2 Belgium Multi Multi
Silla et al. (2009) ⫺.27 ⫺.07 ⫺.26 .56 7.5 2 Belgium Multi Multi
Silla, Gracia, &
Peiró (2005) ⫺.31 .03 ⫺.01 11.1 3 Spain Multi Multi
Silla et al. (2010) .68 Multi Multi
Sora et al. (2009)
Belgium ⫺.33 .1 7.5 2 Belgium Multi Multi
Sora et al. (2009)
Spain ⫺.22 ⫺.05 8.3 2 Spain Multi Multi
Sora et al. (2010) .02 .41 11.4 1 Spain Multi Multi
Spratt & Dickson
(2008) ⫺.40 4.6 2 U.S. Multi Global
Stewart & Barling
(1996) ⫺.14 Multi Global
Sverke & Hellgren
(2001) .03 ⫺.11 8.3 2 Sweden Multi Multi
Vander Elst, De
Cuyper, & De
Witte (2010a) ⫺.02 .20 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 .33 7.0 2 Belgium Multi Multi
Vander Elst, De
Cuyper, & De
Witte (2010b) ⫺.16 ⫺.10 .02 .02 .19 .37 7.0 2 Belgium Multi Multi
Zeytinoglu,
Denton, &
Plenderleith
(2011) .02 ⫺.07 7.7 1 Canada Multi Multi
Note. LOC ⫽ locus of control; RA ⫽ role ambiguity; RC ⫽ role conflict; Com ⫽ organizational communication; PT ⫽ part-time employment; Blue ⫽
blue-collar worker; Temp ⫽ temporary contract; Change ⫽ organizational change; Country ⫽ country of origin for study; Unempl rate ⫽ unemployment rate for
country year data were collected for study; Unempl change ⫽ change in unemployment rate from year before data collection; Neth ⫽ Netherlands; Switz ⫽
Switzerland; JI item ⫽ job insecurity measure number of items; JI scale ⫽ type of job insecurity scale; Org 1 ⫽ organization 1; Org 2 ⫽ organization 2.
Received December 14, 2012

Revision received February 5, 2014
Accepted March 19, 2014 䡲

keim2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

keim2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

keim2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology © 2014 American Psychological Association

2014, Vol. 19, No. 3, 269 –290 1076-8998/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036743

Why Do Employees Worry About Their Jobs? A Meta-Analytic Review of

Alaina C. Keim Ronald S. Landis

Charles A. Pierce David R. Earnest

We used psychological contract theory as a framework to meta-analytically review subjective and

Job Insecurity Aspects

Dimension • Hellgren et al (1999) • Hellgren et al (1999)

perceive the continuing of their employment as being up to them

and not the organization, resulting in less uneasiness about job

job insecurity (Mauno & Kinnunen, 2002). Burke (1998) reported

that recent business school graduates who had observed “danger

(Bernhard-Oettel, Sverke, & De Witte, 2005), suggesting that

employees who are “less employed” by an organization (i.e., do

vided to employees, in conditions of employment, and the extent to

which employees hold bargaining power (Rousseau & Schalk, Method

Predictor k N r rc 95% CI 80% CV Q

would have more job insecurity, r ⫽ .15, p ⬍ .01, 95% CI [.05,

.24]. Hypothesis 6, r ⫽ ⫺.06, 95% CI [⫺.09, ⫺.03], hypothesis 7,

Moderator k N r rc 95% CI 80% CV QB QW

Moderator k N r rc 95% CI 80% CV QB QW

Belgium 10 10,730 ⫺.08 ⫺.09 [⫺.14, ⫺.02] [⫺.22, .04] 105.43ⴱ

Moderator k N r rc 95% CI 80% CV QB QW

Belgium 10 10,730 .01 .01 [⫺.04, .05] [⫺.08, .09] 53.30ⴱ

Moderator k N r rc 95% CI 80% CV QB QW

Belgium 5 4,157 ⫺.05 ⫺.07 [⫺.16, .06] [⫺.30, .15] 67.36

Moderator k N r rc 95% CI 80% CV QB QW

Moderator k N r rc 95% CI 80% CV QB QW

Belgium 8 7,902 .36 .52 [.28, .44] [.32, .72] 135.77ⴱ

Subjective predictors Job insecurity

02678370903257578 lands: Dualism, flexibility, and security. In D. M. Rousseau & R. Schalk

Democracy, 31, 613– 637. doi:10.1177/0143831X10365924 2-Z

Subjective predictors Objective predictors Moderators

(1995) .31 .33 6.9 2 U.S. Multi Multi

Subjective predictors Objective predictors Moderators

Frone (2008) .00 ⫺.07 5.8 1 U.S. Multi Global

Hui & Lee (2000) .02 .14 .43 Multi Global

Ito & Brotheridge

Subjective predictors Objective predictors Moderators

Witte (2011) .02 ⫺.37 7.8 1 Italy Multi Multi

Preuss & Lautsch

Received December 14, 2012

You might also like