The relationship between qualitative job insecurity and subjective well-being in Chinese employees: The role of work

Abstract

The present study investigates how and when qualitative job insecurity influences subjective well-being (i.e., life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect). Specifically, this article examines the mediating role of work–family conflict and the moderating role of work centrality in the association between qualitative job insecurity and subjective well-being. Based on a sample of 500 Chinese employees, the mediating and moderating hypotheses were examined using path analyses and further tested with the bootstrapping method. The results indicated that qualitative job insecurity was negatively related to subjective well-being, and that work–family conflict partially mediated this link (except for positive affect). Surprisingly, the negative effect of qualitative job insecurity on subjective well-being was more pronounced for individuals with low (as opposed to high) work centrality. This study provides preliminary evidence for the spillover effect of qualitative job insecurity on work–family conflict and identifies a group of employees (i.e., those with low work centrality) who may be more vulnerable to the negative effects of qualitative job insecurity on well-being.

Keywords

Job insecurity qualitative job insecurity subjective well-being work centrality work–family conflict

The global economic crisis beginning in late 2007 has resulted in instability of the labor market and increasingly pervasive job insecurity for workers around the globe (Ellonen and Nätti, 2015; Kuroki, 2015). Given the prominence and severity of job insecurity as a stressor in the changing organizational environment, it is not surprising that a large body of literature accumulated over the past three decades has documented the detrimental effects of job insecurity on employee organizational attitudes and behaviors as well as their health and well-being (e.g., Cheng and Chan, 2008; De Witte et al., 2016; Sverke et al., 2002).

Unfortunately, the vast majority of job insecurity research has been conducted in Western societies (Wang et al., 2014). Yet, as the world’s second largest economy, China and its companies and employees have not been spared the job insecurity phenomenon and its negative impacts (Huang et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2014). Thus, it is a pressing empirical and practical question as to whether results of the existing literature based largely on Western employee samples apply to Chinese employees. Some evidence already suggests, for example, that the negative effects of job insecurity may be even more serious for Chinese employees compared to US employees (Probst and Lawler, 2006; Wang et al., 2014) due to the emphasis placed on safety, harmony, and stability within the Chinese culture. Given this, further empirical evidence from Chinese samples is needed to make evidence-based recommendations for understanding the process by which job insecurity results in adverse outcomes among Chinese employees.

In addition to our focus on examining job insecurity within a Chinese context, we also note that prior research in China (and elsewhere) has focused almost exclusively on quantitative job insecurity rather than qualitative job insecurity. Quantitative job insecurity refers to the worries about losing one’s job altogether, while qualitative job-insecure employees are not so much afraid of being fired, but rather fear the deterioration of valued job features, such as decreased salary, lack of career opportunities, and insufficient development of competencies, to name a few (De Witte et al., 2010; Hellgren et al., 1999; Hu and Li, 2010; Richter et al., 2014; Van den Broeck et al., 2014).

Although both quantitative and qualitative job insecurity has negative implications for employees, the majority of previous studies, as noted, have mainly focused on quantitative job insecurity and few studies have paid attention to qualitative job insecurity (De Witte et al., 2010). This is an unfortunate omission in the field because the rapidly changing global labor market has increased the salience of qualitative job insecurity (De Witte et al., 2010; Richter et al., 2014; Stynen et al., 2015; Vander Elst et al., 2014), particularly in China (Hu and Liu, 2017).

Indeed, scholars have argued that although China’s rapid economic growth seems to make it easier for Chinese employees, especially the newer generation employees, to secure a job, frequent organizational changes and highly competitive corporate cultures may make employees experience a high level of qualitative job insecurity (Hu and Liu, 2017). Unfortunately, an empirical investigation among Chinese employees shows that compared to quantitative job insecurity, qualitative job insecurity has a more pronounced impact on employee organizational attitudes and behaviors as well as well-being (Hu and Zuo, 2007).

Yet, as noted by Hayes (2012), for any field to progress, it is not only important to demonstrate that an effect exists, but also critical to understand why it exists. Therefore, in response to recent calls for more research about qualitative job insecurity and its negative impacts (e.g., Callea et al., 2016a; De Witte et al., 2010; Stynen et al., 2015; Van den Broeck et al., 2014; Vander Elst et al., 2014), the present study investigated one potential mediating mechanism (work–family conflict; WFC) explaining the relationship between qualitative job insecurity and subjective well-being (SWB) among Chinese employees. Work–family conflict represents a form of inter-role conflict in which role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). We propose, when experiencing qualitative job insecurity, individuals might attempt to conserve the loss of valued job features and consequently have fewer resources available to invest in the family domain (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001), thus inevitably leading to work–family conflict, which in turn relates to lower SWB.

Additionally, in our study, we tested a potential moderating variable to determine whether the job insecurity–subjective well-being relationship is stronger among Chinese employees with greater work centrality. Similar to the limitations regarding mediating mechanisms of qualitative job insecurity, previous studies on the boundary conditions under which job insecurity may affect SWB have mainly focused on quantitative job insecurity (Vander Elst et al., 2014). Yet, in order to counteract the consequences of qualitative job insecurity, it is important to understand the conditions under which qualitative job insecurity may result in negative outcomes.

Specifically, we propose that certain employees may be more vulnerable to the consequences of qualitative job insecurity. According to the identity salience theory, negative effects of stress in a certain role (e.g., work) on well-being may be exacerbated when that role is more salient or important to the individual (i.e., high work centrality; Martire et al., 2000; Noor, 2004). Thus, we propose that the negative effects of qualitative job insecurity on SWB may be stronger among employees with high levels of work centrality. Figure 1 summarizes our overarching model and theoretical propositions.

Figure 1.

The proposed theoretical model.

Taken together, this study contributes to the job insecurity literature in three main ways. First, by providing evidence of the negative relationship between qualitative job insecurity and SWB in a Chinese sample, this study expands our limited knowledge about the phenomenon of qualitative job insecurity within an Asian country that comprises 20% of the global population. Second, by investigating the mediating role of work–family conflict, this study adds to the understanding of how qualitative job insecurity may negatively influence SWB and therefore contributes to the job insecurity literature by demonstrating the spillover effect of qualitative job insecurity to the family domain. Third, we further investigate whether and how work centrality, as an individual differences variable, might influence the association between qualitative job insecurity and SWB. Thus, this study allows us to identify a group of employees who might be particularly vulnerable to the negative impact of qualitative job insecurity. Practically speaking, if our hypotheses are supported, the results of this study may prompt organizations to better understand the risks of qualitative job insecurity for work–family conflict as well as for subjective well-being, particularly among workers who have high levels of work centrality (typically a trait that is viewed positively by organizations).

Below we begin our review of the literature by discussing in depth the proposed relationship between qualitative job insecurity and subjective well-being. Next, we consider the theoretical rationale for expecting work–family conflict to act as an explanatory mechanism by which qualitative job insecurity is related to subjective well-being. Finally, we present evidence to suggest that employees with high levels of work centrality will be more adversely affected by qualitative job insecurity.

Qualitative job insecurity and subjective well-being

Job insecurity refers to a ‘sense of powerlessness to maintain desired continuity in a threatened job situation’ (Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt, 1984: 438). ‘Desired continuity’ encompasses both the job itself as well as valued job features (Ashford et al., 1989; Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt, 1984). Importantly, Hellgren et al. (1999) first distinguished quantitative job insecurity from qualitative job insecurity. Quantitative job insecurity encompasses concerns about the future existence of one’s present job, whereas qualitative job insecurity refers to worries about perceived threats to valued job features (e.g., wage development, career opportunities, competencies development; De Witte et al., 2010; Hellgren et al., 1999; Hu and Li, 2010; Richter et al., 2014). Although there are numerous studies confirming the negative relationship between quantitative job insecurity and SWB (e.g., De Witte et al., 2016), studies on the detrimental effects of qualitative job insecurity on SWB are still scant. Nevertheless, the rapidly changing labor market may make qualitative job insecurity more salient to today’s employees. We use conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001) to understand why.

COR theory suggests that individuals strive to retain, gain, and protect their resources. Accordingly, individuals may experience stress consequences when there is a resource loss or an anticipation of resource loss. According to Hobfoll (1989, 2001), there are four important resources, namely, objects, personal characteristics, conditions, and energies, which are valued in their own right or serve as a means for attainment of other resources. Object resources include items with a physical presence such as housing, clothing, food, and items indicative of status, such as jewelry. Personal characteristics include learned skills and traits such as self-esteem and optimism. Condition resources are states that allow access to other resources and include marriage and seniority. Last, energy resources, such as time, money, or knowledge, can be exchanged or used in an attempt to acquire other resources.

Following this theoretical vein, qualitative job insecurity implies the possibility of losing resources in the forms of object (e.g., wage development), condition (e.g., career development), and energy (e.g., competencies development). Thus, qualitative job-insecure employees will experience lower levels of SWB because they are faced with the possible loss of important employment-related resources, which may satisfy their various needs (Vander Elst et al., 2012). Thus, based on COR theory, qualitative job insecurity would negatively affect individual SWB, one’s cognitive and affective evaluation of life (Diener et al., 2002). Indeed, De Witte et al. (2010) and Richter et al. (2014) found that qualitative job insecurity was consistently related to indicators of impaired well-being, including job-related attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction) and psychological well-being (e.g., psychological distress, mental well-being). Thus, we similarly predict a negative association between qualitative job insecurity and SWB. Consistent with the common conceptualizations of SWB, we include life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect as indicators of SWB (Diener et al., 1999, 2002) and hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 1: Qualitative job insecurity is related to lower levels of subjective well-being, including lower levels of life satisfaction (H1a) and positive affect (H1b), and higher levels of negative affect (H1c).

Work–family conflict: A mediator

Previous empirical research has indicated that quantitative job insecurity is positively associated with work–family conflict (Richter et al., 2010, 2015; Ruokolainen et al., 2014) as well as other adverse family-related outcomes (Barling et al., 1998; Westman et al., 2001; Wilson et al., 1993; Zhao et al., 2012). In other words, quantitative job insecurity has a negative spillover effect on an employee’s family domain. However, the spillover effect of qualitative job insecurity on WFC has rarely been examined.

Work–family conflict refers to conflict caused by demands from the work domain (i.e., dealing with the threats of qualitative job insecurity) that limits one’s abilities to meet responsibilities in the family (Frone et al., 1992; Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Gutek et al., 1991). As suggested by COR theory, individuals who are threatened with resource loss become more vulnerable to resource loss, since fewer available resources make it increasingly difficult to maintain remaining resources (Hobfoll, 2001). Following this theoretical vein, when experiencing qualitative job insecurity and using one’s already inadequate resources to proactively protect the potential loss of those valued job features, individuals might have fewer available resources (e.g., time, energy) to invest in the family domain. As such, qualitative job insecurity might negatively affect one’s ability to meet family demands and inevitably result in work–family conflict. In other words, the negative effect of qualitative job insecurity may spill over into employees’ family domain. As such, we predict that qualitative job insecurity will be associated with higher levels of work–family conflict.

Scholars also consistently find that work–family conflict, as an important stressor, is negatively related to indicators of SWB (Allen et al., 2000; Ernst Kossek and Ozeki, 1998; Ford et al., 2007; Lim and Kim, 2014; Matthews et al., 2014). Thus, in addition to direct effects of qualitative job insecurity on SWB, we expect that there will also be indirect effects via increased work–family conflict.¹ Taken together, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 2: Work–family conflict partially mediates the relationship between qualitative job insecurity and subjective well-being, including life satisfaction (H2a), positive affect (H2b), and negative affect (H2c).

Work centrality: A moderator

Based on the inference from COR theory, Morelli and Cunningham (2012) indicated that personal values have an influence on the perceived importance of an individual’s resources. As such, employees with different work values may attach differential importance to their job resources and, therefore, respond differently when these resources are under threat. In other words, certain variables that are indicative of one’s work value might influence the relationship between qualitative job insecurity and SWB. Work centrality refers to the importance that working has in one’s life (e.g., Dubin, 1956; Paullay et al., 1994); it represents individual beliefs regarding the value of work (Paullay et al., 1994). Individuals with high work centrality believe that work is the most important part of life and is something to be engaged in for its own sake. Such individuals are more likely to identify with and be involved in their work role.

Furthermore, according to the identity salience literature, individuals have multiple role-identities, and these identities vary in their centrality or salience for self-concept and are organized in a salience hierarchy (e.g., Thoits, 1992; Weigert et al., 2006). Researchers argue that role centrality may act as a moderator influencing the relationship between work-related stressors and well-being (e.g., Bagger and Li, 2012; Carlson and Kacmar, 2000; Krause, 1994; Martire et al., 2000; Noor, 2004; Ziegler and Schlett, 2016). In other words, the negative effects of stressors in a certain role on well-being might be exacerbated when that role is more salient or important to the individual. Specific to job insecurity, we anticipate that employees who rated their job as highly important will fare worse in job attitudes, health problems, and psychological well-being. In a study of quantitative job insecurity, Probst (2000) found that employees with high job involvement had more negative health and well-being reactions to the threat of job insecurity compared to their less job-involved counterparts. Although this proposition has not been directly tested with qualitative job insecurity, we similarly hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 3: The negative impact of qualitative job insecurity on SWB is moderated by work centrality such that the relationship of qualitative job insecurity with life satisfaction (H3a), positive affect (H3b), and negative affect (H3c) is stronger for those with high work centrality than those with low work centrality.

Method

Sample and procedure

Data were collected in 2014 using a convenience sample of 500 employees in six Chinese organizations representing the IT industry, garment industry, tobacco industry, foreign trade industry, and various small firms. Before distributing the survey, we informed participants or their supervisors, who assisted in distributing the questionnaire, of the purpose of this survey, the confidentiality of their responses, and voluntary participation.

We distributed 615 questionnaires, 565 of which were returned. Sixty-five returned questionnaires were incomplete in key variables, thus being excluded from analyses. The final data included 500 participants, leading to a valid return rate of 88%. Approximately 41% of the respondents were under 30; 42% were between 31 and 40; and 17% were above 41; 47% were males and 53% were females. The majority of participants had a bachelor degree (47%) or a junior college degree (32%). All participants were married and 74% had children. Six per cent of the respondents had less than two years’ work experience; 28% had three to five years’ work experience; 31% had six to ten years’ work experience; and 35% of the respondents had worked more than 11 years. Nearly half of the respondents (46%) held jobs without managerial responsibilities; 28% had responsibilities for work teams; 19% were responsible for other executive employees; and 6% had senior management positions. Thirty per cent of the respondents were from state-owned enterprises; 54% were from private enterprise; 6% were from joint venture; and 10% were working in some other type of enterprise.

Measures

All questionnaires below have been previously used in the Chinese context and have shown good reliability (i.e., internal consistency). See Appendix 1 for all items of each scale.

Qualitative job insecurity

Qualitative job insecurity was measured with three items assessing employees’ worries about wage, competence, and career development within their organization in near future (e.g., ‘I worry about my future wage development in the organization’ and ‘I feel worried about my future career development within the organization’; De Witte et al., 2010; Hellgren et al., 1999; Hu and Li, 2010; Richter et al., 2014). Item responses on a five-point Likert scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); α = 0.86.

Subjective well-being

The measure of subjective well-being consisted of the positive affect (PA) scale, the negative affect (NA) scale, and the satisfaction with life scale (SWLS), following the common conceptualizations of SWB (Diener et al., 1999, 2002). The PA (e.g., ‘enthusiastic’ and ‘active’; α = 0.92) and the NA (e.g., ‘afraid’ and ‘ashamed’; α = 0.89) scales each consists of nine mood-related adjectives (Watson et al., 1988), which were revised by Qiu et al. (2008) for the Chinese context. We asked participants to rate the frequency that they experienced PA and NA on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). SWLS (Diener et al., 1985) measured life satisfaction as a cognitive judgment process using five items (e.g., ‘In most ways, my life is close to my ideal’ and ‘So far I have gotten the important things I want in life’) on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree); α = 0.87.

Work–family conflict

Work–family conflict (Netemeyer et al., 1996) was assessed using five items (e.g., ‘The amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult to fulfill family responsibilities’ and ‘Things I want to do at home do not get done because of the demands my job puts on me’) responded to on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree); α = 0.88.

Work centrality

Work centrality was measured with five items by Carr et al. (2007) (e.g., ‘In my view, an individual’s personal life goals should be work-oriented rather than family-oriented’ and ‘The most important things that happen to me involve my work rather than family’). Responses were on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree; α = 0.86) and scored such that higher values represented greater work centrality.

Control variables

We utilized gender and age as demographic control variables, since previous research indicated that both are related to SWB (Diener et al., 2002) and job insecurity (Keim et al., 2014; Mauno and Kinnunen, 2002). We dummy coded and controlled for sex (male = 0, female = 1) and age (0 = age < 30, 1 = age 31–40 and age > 41). Additionally, as the meta-analytical results of work–family conflict have indicated that work centrality is a significant antecedent of work–family conflict (Michel et al., 2011), we also controlled for the direct effect of work centrality on work–family conflict when examining the moderating effect of work centrality in our model.

Analytical strategies

The measurement quality and discriminant validity of constructs were assessed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 20. For testing the direct effect of qualitative job insecurity on SWB and the mediating effect of work–family conflict as well as the moderating effect of work centrality between qualitative job insecurity and SWB, we used AMOS 20 to run a series of path analysis models. To obtain robust standard errors for parameter estimation of the mediation and moderation effect, the bootstrapping method (95% bias-corrected confidence intervals from 5000 resamples of the data) was used (Hayes, 2013). Before entering the predictor (qualitative job insecurity) and moderator (work centrality) into the regression equation, we mean-centered them for ease of interpretation (Aiken and West, 1991).

Results

The results of CFA showed that the measurement model consisted of six latent factors (qualitative job insecurity, work–family conflict, work centrality, life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect) and exhibited acceptable fit to the data (χ² = 1548.11, df = 579; CFI = 0.90; TLI = 0.90; RMSEA = 0.06). We further tested the discriminant validity of the six constructs by comparing the fit of the hypothesized six-factor model with four alternative models. Model 1 combined qualitative job insecurity with work–family conflict (χ² = 2367.95, df = 584; CFI = 0.82; TLI = 0.81; RMSEA = 0.08). Model 2 combined qualitative job insecurity with work centrality (χ² = 2411.13, df = 584; CFI = 0.82; TLI = 0.80; RMSEA = 0.08). Model 3 combined work–family conflict with work centrality (χ² = 2565.26, df = 584; CFI = 0.80; TLI = 0.78; RMSEA = 0.08). Model 4 combined all the six variables into one factor (χ² = 7401.87, df = 595; CFI = 0.31; TLI = 0.27; RMSEA = 0.15). Taken together, these results showed that the hypothesized six-factor model fit the data significantly better than any of the alternative models, thus supporting discriminant validity among the measures.

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations among all variables. Hypothesis 1 predicted that qualitative job insecurity would be related to lower levels of life satisfaction and positive affect, as well as higher levels of negative affect. The regression analysis results showed qualitative job insecurity was significantly related to life satisfaction (b = −0.29, p < 0.001), positive affect (b = −0.18, p < 0.001), and negative affect (b = 0.13, p < 0.001) when the demographic characteristics were controlled for. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables.

	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Gender	0.53	0.50	−
2. Age	1.76	0.73	−0.09^*	−
3. QJI	3.14	0.97	0.00	−0.06	(0.86)
4. WFC	2.97	0.94	−0.20^**	0.19^**	0.24^**	(0.88)
5. WC	2.16	0.80	−0.11^*	0.09^*	0.19^**	0.19^**	(0.86)
6. SWL	3.94	1.34	0.13^**	0.12^**	−0.22^**	−0.14^**	0.05	(0.87)
7. NA	1.87	0.73	−0.05	−0.01	−0.23^**	−0.12^**	0.09^*	0.45^**	(0.89)
8. PA	2.88	0.75	−0.07	−0.12	0.18^**	0.20^**	0.22^**	−0.24^**	−0.14^**	(0.92)

Notes: QJI: qualitative job insecurity; WFC: work–family conflict; WC: work centrality; SWL: satisfaction with life; PA: positive affect; NA: negative affect; dummy code: 0 = male, 1 = female; 0 = age < 30, 1 = age 31–40 and age > 41; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

Hypothesis 2 anticipated that qualitative job insecurity also indirectly predicts SWB (life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect) through work–family conflict. Table 2 displays the results of path analysis. As predicted, qualitative job insecurity was significantly related to work–family conflict (b = 0.24, p < 0.001, Model 1). When controlling for qualitative job insecurity and control variables, work–family conflict was significantly related to life satisfaction (b = −0.13, p < 0.05, Model 2) and negative affect (b = 0.13, p < 0.001, Model 4), but not positive affect. Furthermore, the indirect effect of qualitative job insecurity on life satisfaction via work–family conflict was significant (indirect effect = −0.03, 95% CI [–0.08, –0.002]), and the mediation effect accounted for 11% of the total effect. Similarly, the indirect effect of qualitative job insecurity on negative affect via work–family conflict was also significant (indirect effect = 0.03, 95% CI [0.01, 0.06]), and the mediation effect accounted for 23% of the total effect. Hence, work–family conflict partially mediated the relationships of qualitative job insecurity with life satisfaction and negative affect, supporting Hypothesis 2a and 2c (but not Hypothesis 2b)

Table 2.

Path analysis results for testing the mediation effect of work–family conflict.

Dependent variable→	Unstandardized regression weights
	Work–family conflict		Satisfaction with life		Positive affect		Negative affect
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
Predictor variable↓	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE
Controls
Gender	−0.34^***	0.08	0.33^**	0.12	−0.10	0.07	−0.05	0.07
Age: 31–40	0.27^**	0.09	0.25	0.13	−0.08	0.07	0.01	0.07
Age: > 41	0.47^***	0.11	0.53^**	0.17	0.00	0.10	−0.10	0.09
Predictor
Qualitative job insecurity	0.24^***	0.04	−0.26^***	0.06	−0.17^***	0.04	0.10^**	0.03
Mediator
Work–family conflict			−0.14^*	0.07	−0.06	0.04	0.13^***	0.04
R²	0.13^***		0.09^***		0.06^***		0.06^***

Notes: N = 500. ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; for gender, code 0 = male, 1 = female; for age, 0 = age < 30, 1 = age 31–40 and age > 41.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that work centrality would moderate the association between qualitative job insecurity and SWB. As shown in Table 3, after controlling for the effects of gender and age, work centrality moderated the association between qualitative job insecurity and life satisfaction (Model 6: b = 0.27, 95% CI [0.07, 0.26]), positive affect (Model 7: b = 0.14, 95% CI [0.05, 0.22]), and negative affect (Model 8: b = −0.08, 95% CI [–0.16, –0.01]). In order to inspect the direction of the effects, we plotted the relationships for low and high work centrality (Figures 2 –4). Simple slope tests indicated that under low work centrality (1 SD below the mean), qualitative job insecurity was associated with reduced life satisfaction (b = −0.47, p < 0.001), lower positive affect (b = −0.28, p < 0.001), and higher negative affect (b = 0.15, p < 0.001). However, under high work centrality (1 SD above the mean), the effects of qualitative job insecurity on life satisfaction (b = −0.02, ns), positive affect (b = −0.05, ns), and negative affect (b = 0.01, ns) were not significant. Thus, although work centrality moderated the association between qualitative job insecurity and SWB, we failed to find support for Hypothesis 3 since the direction of the effect was opposite to that predicted. Specifically, the negative association between qualitative job insecurity and subjective well-being was more pronounced for employees with low work centrality, whereas there was no significant relationship between qualitative job insecurity and SWB for those with high work centrality.

Table 3.

Path analysis results for testing the moderating effect of work centrality.

Dependent variable→	Unstandardized regression weights
	Work–family conflict		Satisfaction with life		Positive affect		Negative affect
	Model 5		Model 6		Model 7		Model 8
Predictor variable↓	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE
Controls
Gender	−0.32^***	0.08	0.35^**	0.12	−0.09	0.07	−0.03	0.06
Age: 31–40	0.25^**	0.09	0.19	0.13	−0.11	0.07	0.00	0.07
Age: > 41	0.47^***	0.11	0.46^**	0.17	0.04	0.09	−0.11	0.09
Work centrality	0.14^**	0.05
Predictor
Qualitative job insecurity	0.22^***	0.04	−0.22^***	0.06	−0.15^***	0.04	0.06	0.04
Mediator
Work–family conflict			−0.14^*	0.06	−0.07	0.04	0.10^**	0.04
Moderator
Work centrality			0.16^*	0.07	0.12^***	0.04	0.17^***	0.04
Interaction
QLJI × WC			0.27^***	0.07	0.14^***	0.04	−0.08^*	0.04
R²	0.14^***		0.12^***		0.11^***		0.10^***

Notes: N = 500. ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; for gender, code 0 = male, 1 = female; for age, 0 = age < 30, 1 = age 31–40 and age > 41.

Figure 2.

Moderating effect of work centrality on the relationship between qualitative job insecurity and satisfaction with life.

Figure 3.

Moderating effect of work centrality on the relationship between qualitative job insecurity and positive affect.

Figure 4.

Moderating effect of work centrality on the relationship between qualitative job insecurity and negative affect.

Discussion

The present study added to the nascent literature on qualitative job insecurity by investigating its relationship with three measures of SWB among a sample of Chinese employees. Moreover, we examined the mediating role of work–family conflict and the moderating role of work centrality in explaining these relationships. In line with COR theory, the results supported our hypotheses that qualitative job insecurity is negatively related to SWB and that work–family conflict partially mediates the relationships of qualitative job insecurity with life satisfaction and negative affect (but not positive affect). Unexpectedly, although we found work centrality to act as a moderator, the negative effect of qualitative job insecurity on SWB was actually more pronounced for individuals with low (as opposite to high) work centrality.

Below we discuss these results in greater detail considering their contributions to the literature, explore reasons for the unexpected moderation effects, identify practical implications for organizations, and suggest directions for future research.

Contributions to the literature

First, our results supported a negative relationship between qualitative job insecurity and SWB among Chinese employees, which was consistent with COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001) and previous findings conducted in Western societies. According to COR theory, the anticipation of resource loss triggers further losses. Therefore, qualitative job insecurity appears to pose a threat to various existing employment resources in the form of objects, conditions, and energies (e.g., losing promising pay development, favorable career opportunities, and satisfactory competency development). As such, qualitative job insecurity may lead to stress consequences and reduced employee SWB. Indeed, other empirical studies have supported this negative correlation between qualitative job insecurity and SWB-related variables (e.g., De Witte et al., 2010; Hellgren et al., 1999; Richter et al., 2014; Vander Elst et al., 2014). Hence, together with our results, these studies indicated that qualitative job insecurity may be harmful to SWB (De Witte et al., 2010) and that these findings extend to the Chinese context.

Second, our results supported the proposed mediating effect of work–family conflict linking qualitative job insecurity and SWB, thus confirming that qualitative job insecurity has a negative spillover effect on employees’ family domain. This result deepens our understanding of how qualitative job insecurity negatively impacts one’s SWB. According to COR theory, when individuals perceive a resource loss or anticipate the possibility of resource loss (e.g., perception of qualitative job insecurity), they will invest their remaining resources to proactively protect against resource loss, making them even more vulnerable to any future loss of resources (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001). As such, in order to prevent the potential loss of valued job features, employees might have fewer resources to invest in the family domain, leading to work–family conflict and then an erosion of personal SWB. Although some previous studies have confirmed these hypothesized spillover effects of job insecurity (e.g., Barling et al., 1998; Richter et al., 2015; Ruokolainen et al., 2014; Zhao et al., 2012), the vast majority of those studies only considered quantitative job insecurity. Hence, our research answered the empirical question regarding the potential negative impact of qualitative job insecurity on the family domain of employees.

Third, we further investigated whether and how work centrality, as an individual-differences work value, might influence the association between qualitative job insecurity and SWB. According to the identity salience theory (e.g., Thoits, 1992; Weigert et al., 2006), role centrality can exacerbate the negative effects of stress in that same social role on well-being. Hence, we proposed that the negative association between qualitative job insecurity and SWB would be stronger for individuals who consider work as central in their life and tend to overestimate the threats they are facing in the work domain. Surprisingly, the moderating effect was stronger for those with low (as opposed to high) work centrality.

Considering the unexpected role of work centrality

Contrary to expectations, why might work centrality operate as a buffer in the relationship between qualitative job insecurity and SWB? We propose three possibilities. First, one may consider the characteristics of individuals with high (versus low) work centrality. It is generally acknowledged that work centrality is a relatively stable attitude towards work and is not extremely sensitive to conditions of a particular work setting (Bal and Kooij, 2011; Hirschfeld and Feild, 2000). Compared to individuals with low work centrality, high work-centered individuals regard work as central in their lives and care deeply about their work role. Not surprisingly, work centrality is associated with a wide range of positive outcomes.

For instance, individuals with high work centrality have high levels of organizational commitment, report clearer career planning, and even earn higher wages (Mannheim et al., 1997). They also have a stronger Protestant work ethic and leisure ethic and report being highly engaged in their work role (Hirschfeld and Feild, 2000). Additionally, they are more inclined to refrain from negative behaviors towards their organization but rather display more organizational citizenship behaviors (Uçanok and Karabatı, 2013). They also report higher job satisfaction because they center their interests and energies on work and consequently derive their pleasure and satisfaction from work (Tziner et al., 2014). Although highly work-centered employees do not necessarily have better job performance (Mannheim et al., 1997), they are more performance-orientated (Kuchinke et al., 2012). Moreover, based on psychological contract theory, Bal and Kooij (2011) indicated that employees with high work centrality are more likely to have a relational contract with their employer. These many positive outcomes associated with higher work centrality might provide such employees with an expanded set of resources allowing them to better cope with the threat of qualitative job insecurity.

Second, Morelli and Cunningham (2012) argue that values also influence individual coping behaviors and strategies after a resource loss event has happened. Hence, due to work-centered employees valuing their work very much, their choices of coping behavior or strategy might also be different when faced with qualitative job insecurity, compared to employees with low work centrality. Specifically, individuals with high work centrality may more constructively and effectively cope with qualitative job insecurity by investing more resources into their work role. As such, these proactive coping mechanisms may help individuals prevent the negative consequences of qualitative job insecurity. In contrast, if employees identify more with their family role (i.e., low work centrality) and are not willing to invest in work and their relationship with their organization, they might display fewer effective coping behaviors when responding to qualitative job insecurity, thus suffering more negative consequences.

Third, compared to quantitative job insecurity, which is greatly affected by relatively external and uncontrollable factors such as a high unemployment rate (Ellonen and Nätti, 2015; Milner et al., 2014), organizational change (Burke et al., 2015), one’s contract type (Callea et al., 2016b), and socioeconomic or social class positions (Landsbergis et al., 2014), qualitative job insecurity, which concerns losing important job features but still being a member of one’s organization, is more controllable. Thus, experiencing qualitative job insecurity may trigger positive coping behaviors from high work-centered individuals. The relatively uncontrollable nature of quantitative job insecurity and the relatively controllable nature of qualitative job insecurity may partly explain the exacerbating effect of the work-centrality related variable in the relationship between quantitative job insecurity and well-being outcomes in previous research (e.g., Probst, 2000) in contrast to the buffering effect of work centrality in the relationship between qualitative job insecurity and SWB in our study. Indeed, faced with qualitative job insecurity, employees with high work centrality may be motivated to actively cope with the deterioration of employment conditions. However, employees with low work centrality may not actively cope with the threat of qualitative job insecurity and ultimately suffer more negative SWB as a result. Thus, we identify a group of employees who might be particularly vulnerable to the negative impact of qualitative job insecurity (i.e., those with low work centrality). These employees seem to face a dilemma: on the one hand, paying more attention to their personal needs and simultaneously (but ineffectively) coping with work threats (e.g., qualitative job insecurity) seems to make them more vulnerable to qualitative job insecurity; on the other hand, giving up their foremost concern about their personal life and engaging in work tasks violates their preferred life value.

Practical implications

Qualitative job-insecure employees feel insecure about the future of valued aspects of their job. Hence, there may be more employees who experience qualitative job insecurity than employees who worry about losing their present job (quantitative job insecurity) or actually lose their job (the unemployed). Unfortunately, our results confirm that, similar to quantitative job insecurity, qualitative job insecurity also has a negative impact on employees’ SWB as well as work–family conflict. Therefore, organizations should pay more attention to qualitative job insecurity and take positive measures (e.g., facilitate the effective usage of workplace support resources; Boswell et al., 2014) to minimize its negative effects on employees’ family functions and well-being.

Our findings reveal that employees with lower work centrality are more vulnerable to the negative effect of qualitative job insecurity on SWB. Given cross-cultural research from 43 countries indicating that there is a negative relationship between industrialization and work centrality (Parboteeah and Cullen, 2003), organizations need to be increasingly aware of the importance of non-work domains to their employees. As societies move to the postindustrial stage, people devote more time to other life areas (e.g., family, leisure, and friends) and work assumes a less central role.

Longitudinal research appears to confirm changes over time as well within societies. Using the data from US 12th graders between 1976 and 2007, Twenge and Kasser (2013) found that as materialistic values increased, work centrality steadily declined in the US. Moreover, consistent with the above findings, using a four-wave (1990, 1995, 2000, 2007) repeated dataset, Kwon and Schafer (2012) examined changes in work centrality in China during the period of economic reform and found that economic growth explained the downward trend in work centrality in China between the 1990s and 2000s. Specifically, work centrality tended to be higher among the ‘revolutionary socialism generation’ but lower for the ‘post-80 generation’ or new generation employees (Kwon and Schafer, 2012).

Given that increasing numbers of low work-centered employees will enter the workforce in the near future, organizations and managers should pay more attention to these employees, especially as (1) these employees may experience more maladjustment when facing qualitative job insecurity and (2) job insecurity further leads to an increase in turnover intention (Mauno et al., 2014; Stiglbauer et al., 2012), which is particularly costly to organizations. Because lower work-centered employee focus on their non-work life and prefer to have a work–life balance, organizations should actively develop work–life balance programs within the organization (e.g., part-time jobs, job shares, compressed week, flextime, annual hours, flexible holidays, non-paid extra holidays, the availability of teleworking) to enhance individuals’ perceived sufficiency of time available for work and social life (Cieri et al., 2005; Sánchez-Vidal et al., 2012).

Limitations and future directions

Despite the unique contributions to the extant literature, several limitations of our current study should be addressed in future research. First, we used a cross-sectional research design, which did not allow us to draw definitive causal relationships between qualitative job insecurity, work–family conflict, and SWB. Future longitudinal studies that measure related variables over time would be helpful to confirm whether qualitative job insecurity influences SWB through work–family conflict. This would help to rule out other plausible patterns of causality. For example, one might posit that greater work–family conflict leads to increased job insecurity and lower SWB.

Second, the single-source and single-method design of our study has the risk of common method biases. However, Podsakoff et al. (2003) indicate that when a single latent factor accounts for the majority of the covariance among the measures, the common method biases are most problematic. Because of the ill fit of the one-factor model, we conclude that the common method bias is less likely to be a serious concern for this study. Nevertheless, future studies will benefit from using multi-source data and repeated collections of data over time (e.g., weekly diary data collection; Schreurs et al., 2012).

Third, while our study indicates that qualitative job insecurity has both direct and indirect negative effects on SWB, it did not directly compare the relative importance of quantitative versus qualitative aspects of job insecurity on SWB. To the best of our knowledge, empirical studies concurrently investigating these two types of job insecurity are still limited (e.g., De Witte et al., 2010; Hellgren et al., 1999; Richter et al., 2014). Future research should empirically compare the effects of both types of job insecurity on SWB and also their potentially different underlying mechanisms.

Finally, our hypotheses were tested with a sample of Chinese employees, all of whom were married and the majority of whom (82.8%) were under the age of 40. Although studying married individuals has obvious relevance when examining the construct of work–family conflict, it is important to acknowledge the broader construct of other potential non-work domains (e.g., friends, pursuit of personal interests). Therefore, future research should not restrict consideration to work–family conflict, but rather expand this to include a broader conceptualization of work–life domain conflict (Bonebright et al., 2000).

Conclusion

Our results provide initial empirical evidence of the indirect effect of qualitative job insecurity on employees’ SWB through work–family conflict, which confirms the spill-over effect of qualitative job insecurity to the family domain. We also found that work centrality plays an unexpected moderating role in the association between qualitative job insecurity and SWB. Indeed, contrary to expectations, work centrality appears to buffer the negative relationship between qualitative job insecurity and SWB. Hence, individuals with lower work centrality seem to be at greater risk of experiencing more adverse well-being effects of qualitative job insecurity.

Footnotes

Appendix 1 Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This study was supported by grants from China National Social Science Fund Project (13CSH070) on ‘Job Insecurity of Occupational Population during the Social Transformation’.

Notes

ORCID iDs

Sanman Hu

Tahira M Probst

Author biographies

Sanman Hu is Associate Professor of Human Resources Management at the Huaqiao University. She was a visiting scholar in the Department of Psychology at Washington State University. Her research interests include job insecurity and well-being during the Chinese Social Transformation, perceived employability, as well as work–family interface.

Lixin Jiang is a lecturer in Industrial and Organizational Psychology at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. Before relocating to New Zealand, she was an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. Her research focuses on occupational health psychology with the goal to promote employee safety, health, and well-being. She sits on the editorial boards of the Journal of Organizational Behavior and Stress and Health.

Tahira M Probst is a Professor in the Department of Psychology at Washington State University, where she conducts research primarily in the areas of job insecurity and economic stress. She is currently Co-Editor in Chief of Stress and Health and sits on the editorial boards of the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Occupational Health Science, Military Psychology, and the Journal of Business and Psychology.

Mingqian Liu is lecturer in International Economics and Trade at the Huaqiao University. His research interests include job insecurity of New Generation employees in China and international human resource management.

References

Aiken

West

(1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Allen

Herst

Bruck

et al. (2000) Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5(2): 278–308.

Ashford

Lee

Bobko

(1989) Content, cause, and consequences of job insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management Journal 32(4): 803–829.

Bagger

(2012) Being important matters: The impact of work and family centralities on the family-to-work conflict–satisfaction relationship. Human Relations 65(4): 473–500.

Bal

Kooij

(2011) The relations between work centrality, psychological contracts, and job attitudes: The influence of age. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 20(4): 497–523.

Barling

Dupre

Hepburn

(1998) Effects of parents’ job insecurity on children’s work beliefs and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology 83(1): 112–118.

Bonebright

Clay

Ankenmann

(2000). The relationship of workaholism with work–life conflict, life satisfaction, and purpose in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology 47(4): 469–477.

Boswell

Olson-Buchanan

Harris

(2014) I cannot afford to have a life: Employee adaptation to feelings of job insecurity. Personnel Psychology 67(4): 887–915.

Burke

Wolpin

(2015) Economic austerity and healthcare restructuring: Correlates and consequences of nursing job insecurity. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 26(5): 640–656.

10.

Callea

Urbini

Chirumbolo

et al. (2016a) The mediating role of organizational identification in the relationship between qualitative job insecurity, OCB and job performance. Journal of Management Development 35(6): 735–746.

11.

Callea

Urbini

Ingusci

et al. (2016b) The relationship between contract type and job satisfaction in a mediated moderation model: The role of job insecurity and psychological contract violation. Economic and Industrial Democracy 37(2): 399–420.

12.

Carlson

Kacmar

(2000) Work–family conflict in the organization: Do life role values make a difference? Journal of Management 26(5): 1031–1054.

13.

Carr

Boyar

Gregory

(2007) The moderating effect of work–family centrality on work–family conflict, organizational attitudes, and turnover behavior. Journal of Management 34(2): 244–262.

14.

Cheng

GH-L

Chan

DK-S

(2008) Who suffers more from job insecurity? A meta-analytic review. Applied Psychology 57(2): 272–303.

15.

Cieri

Holmes

Abbott

et al. (2005) Achievements and challenges for work/life balance strategies in Australian organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management 16(1): 90–103.

16.

De Witte

De Cuyper

Handaja

et al. (2010) Associations between quantitative and qualitative job insecurity and well-being: A test in Belgian banks. International Studies of Management and Organization 40(1): 40–56.

17.

De Witte

Pienaar

De Cuyper

(2016) Review of 30 years of longitudinal studies on the association between job insecurity and health and well-being: Is there causal evidence? Australian Psychologist 51(1): 18–31.

18.

Diener

Emmons

Larsen

et al. (1985) The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment 49(1): 71–75.

19.

Diener

Lucas

Oishi

(2002) Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and life satisfaction. In: Snyder

Lopez

(eds) Handbook of Positive Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 63–73.

20.

Diener

Suh

Lucas

et al. (1999) Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin 125(2): 276–302.

21.

Dubin

(1956) Industrial workers’ worlds: A study of the ‘central life interests’ of industrial workers. Social Problems 3(3): 131–142.

22.

Ellonen

Nätti

(2015) Job insecurity and the unemployment rate: Micro- and macro-level predictors of perceived job insecurity among Finnish employees 1984–2008. Economic and Industrial Democracy 36(1): 51–71.

23.

Ernst Kossek

Ozeki

(1998) Work–family conflict, policies, and the job–life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior–human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology 83(2): 139–149.

24.

Ford

Heinen

Langkamer

(2007) Work and family satisfaction and conflict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(1): 57–80.

25.

Frone

Russell

Cooper

(1992) Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conflict: Testing a model of work–family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology 77(1): 65–78.

26.

Greenhalgh

Rosenblatt

(1984) Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review 9(3): 438–448.

27.

Greenhaus

Beutell

(1985) Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review 10(1): 76–88.

28.

Gutek

Searle

Klepa

(1991) Rational versus gender role explanations for work–family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology 76(4): 560–568.

29.

Hayes

(2012) PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. White paper. Available at: www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf

30.

Hayes

(2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Journal of Educational Measurement 51(3): 335–337.

31.

Hellgren

Sverke

Isaksson

(1999) A two-dimensional approach to job insecurity: Consequences for employee attitudes and well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 8(2): 179–195.

32.

Hirschfeld

Feild

(2000) Work centrality and work alienation: Distinct aspects of a general commitment to work. Journal of Organizational Behavior 21(7): 789–800.

33.

Hobfoll

(1989) Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist 44(3): 513–524.

34.

Hobfoll

(2001) The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology 50(3): 337–421.

35.

(2010) Construct dimension of the employee’s job insecurity. Psychological Exploration 30(2): 79–85.

36.

Liu

(2017) New Generation employees’ job insecurity in the social transformation period. Contemporary Youth Research 3: 79–84.

37.

Zuo

(2007) Impact of job insecurity on job pressure, job satisfaction and performance. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology 15(2): 142–145.

38.

Huang

Wellman

Ashford

et al. (2017) Deviance and exit: The organizational costs of job insecurity and moral disengagement. Journal of Applied Psychology 102(1): 26–42.

39.

Keim

Landis

Pierce

et al. (2014) Why do employees worry about their jobs? A meta-analytic review of predictors of job insecurity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 19(3): 269–290.

40.

Krause

(1994) Stressors in salient social roles and well-being in later life. Journal of Gerontology 49(3): 137–148.

41.

Kuchinke

Ardichvili

Borchert

et al. (2012) Work meaning among mid-level professional employees: A study of the importance of work centrality and extrinsic and intrinsic work goals in eight countries. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 49(3): 264–284.

42.

Kuroki

. (2015) Perceptions of job insecurity before, during, and after the Great Recession. Working USA 18(4): 665–674.

43.

Kwon

Schafer

(2012) How did work attitudes change in reform-era China? Age, period, and cohort effects on work centrality. Sociological Perspectives 55(4): 557–581.

44.

Landsbergis

Grzywacz

LaMontagne

(2014) Work organization, job insecurity, and occupational health disparities. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 57(5): 495–515.

45.

Lim

VK-G

Kim

(2014) The long arm of the job: Parents’ work–family conflict and youths’ work centrality. Applied Psychology 63(1): 151–167.

46.

Mannheim

Baruch

Tal

(1997) Alternative models for antecedents and outcomes of work centrality and job satisfaction of high-tech personnel. Human Relations 50(12): 1537–1562.

47.

Martire

Stephens

MA-P

Townsend

(2000) Centrality of women’s multiple roles: Beneficial and detrimental consequences for psychological well-being. Psychology and Aging 15(1): 148–156.

48.

Matthews

Wayne

Ford

(2014) A work–family conflict/subjective well-being process model: A test of competing theories of longitudinal effects. Journal of Applied Psychology 99(6): 1173–1187.

49.

Mauno

Kinnunen

(2002) Perceived job insecurity among dual-earner couples: Do its antecedents vary according to gender, economic sector and the measure used? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 75(3): 295–314.

50.

Mauno

De Cuyper

Tolvanen

et al. (2014) Occupational well-being as a mediator between job insecurity and turnover intention: Findings at the individual and work department levels. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 23(3): 381–393.

51.

Michel

Kotrba

Mitchelson

et al. (2011) Antecedents of work–family conflict: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior 32(5): 689–725.

52.

Milner

Kavanagh

Krnjacki

et al. (2014) Area-level unemployment and perceived job insecurity: Evidence from a longitudinal survey conducted in the Australian working-age population. The Annals of Occupational Hygiene 58(2): 171–181.

53.

Morelli

Cunningham

(2012) Not all resources are created equal: COR theory, values, and stress. The Journal of Psychology 146(4): 393–415.

54.

Netemeyer

Boles

McMurrian

(1996) Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology 81(4): 400–410.

55.

Noor

(2004) Work–family conflict, work- and family-role salience, and women’s well-being. The Journal of Social Psychology 144(4): 389–406.

56.

Parboteeah

Cullen

(2003) Social institutions and work centrality: Explorations beyond national culture. Organization Science 14(2): 137–148.

57.

Paullay

Alliger

Stone-Romero

(1994) Construct validation of two instruments designed to measure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology 79(4): 224–228.

58.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Lee

et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5): 879–903.

59.

Probst

(2000) Wedded to the job: Moderating effects of job involvement on the consequences of job insecurity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5(1): 63–73.

60.

Probst

Lawler

(2006) Cultural values as moderators of employee reactions to job insecurity: The role of individualism and collectivism. Applied Psychology 55(2): 234–254.

61.

Qiu

Zheng

Wang

(2008) Revision of the positive affect and negative affect scale. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology 14(3): 249–254.

62.

Richter

Näswall

Bernhard-Oettel

et al. (2014) Job insecurity and well-being: The moderating role of job dependence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 23(6): 816–829.

63.

Richter

Näswall

Lindfors

et al. (2015) Job insecurity and work–family conflict in teachers in Sweden: Examining their relations with longitudinal cross-lagged modeling. Psych Journal 4(2): 98–111.

64.

Richter

Näswall

Sverke

(2010) Job insecurity and its relation to work–family conflict: Mediation with a longitudinal data set. Economic and Industrial Democracy 31(2): 265–280.

65.

Ruokolainen

Mauno

Cheng

(2014) Are the most dedicated nurses more vulnerable to job insecurity? Age-specific analyses on family-related outcomes. Journal of Nursing Management 22(8): 1042–1053.

66.

Sánchez-Vidal

Cegarra-Leiva

Cegarra-Navarro

(2012) Gaps between managers’ and employees’ perceptions of work–life balance. International Journal of Human Resource Management 23(4): 645–661.

67.

Schreurs

Hetty van Emmerik

Günter

et al. (2012) A weekly diary study on the buffering role of social support in the relationship between job insecurity and employee performance. Human Resource Management 51(2): 259–279.

68.

Stiglbauer

Selenko

Batinic

et al. (2012) On the link between job insecurity and turnover intentions: Moderated mediation by work involvement and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 17(3): 354–364.

69.

Stynen

Forrier

Sels

et al. (2015) The relationship between qualitative job insecurity and OCB: Differences across age groups. Economic and Industrial Democracy 36(3): 383–405.

70.

Sverke

Hellgren

Näswall

(2002) No security: A meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 7(3): 242–264.

71.

Thoits

(1992) Identity structures and psychological well-being: Gender and marital status comparisons. Social Psychology Quarterly 55(3): 236–256.

72.

Twenge

Kasser

(2013) Generational changes in materialism and work centrality, 1976–2007: Associations with temporal changes in societal insecurity and materialistic role modeling. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 39(7): 883–897.

73.

Tziner

Bendavid

Oren

et al. (2014) Attachment to work, job satisfaction and work centrality. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 35(6): 555–565.

74.

Uçanok

Karabatı

(2013) The effects of values, work centrality, and organizational commitment on organizational citizenship behaviors: Evidence from Turkish SMEs. Human Resource Development Quarterly 24(1): 89–129.

75.

Van den Broeck

Sulea

Vander Elst

et al. (2014) The mediating role of psychological needs in the relation between qualitative job insecurity and counterproductive work behavior. Career Development International 19(5): 526–547.

76.

Vander Elst

Richter

Sverke

et al. (2014) Threat of losing valued job features: The role of perceived control in mediating the effect of qualitative job insecurity on job strain and psychological withdrawal. Work and Stress 28(2): 143–164.

77.

Vander Elst

Van den Broeck

De Witte

et al. (2012) The mediating role of frustration of psychological needs in the relationship between job insecurity and work-related well-being. Work and Stress 26(3): 252–271.

78.

Wang

(2014) Do people with traditional values suffer more from job insecurity? The moderating effects of traditionality. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 23(1): 107–117.

79.

Watson

Clark

Tellegen

(1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54(6): 1063–1070.

80.

Weigert

Teitge

(2006) Society and Identity: Toward a Sociological Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

81.

Westman

Etzion

Danon

(2001) Job insecurity and crossover of burnout in married couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior 22(5): 467–481.

82.

Wilson

Larson

Stone

(1993) Stress among job insecure workers and their spouses. Family Relations 42(1): 74–80.

83.

Zhao

Lim

VK-G

Teo

TS-H

(2012) The long arm of job insecurity: Its impact on career-specific parenting behaviors and youths’ career self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior 80(3): 619–628.

84.

Ziegler

Schlett

(2016) An attitude strength and self-perception framework regarding the bi-directional relationship of job satisfaction with extra-role and in-role behavior: The doubly moderating role of work centrality. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1–17.

The relationship between qualitative job insecurity and subjective well-being in Chinese employees: The role of work–family conflict and work centrality

Abstract

Keywords

Qualitative job insecurity and subjective well-being

Work–family conflict: A mediator

Work centrality: A moderator

Method

Sample and procedure

Measures

Qualitative job insecurity

Subjective well-being

Work–family conflict

Work centrality

Control variables

Analytical strategies

Results

Discussion

Contributions to the literature

Considering the unexpected role of work centrality

Practical implications

Limitations and future directions

Conclusion

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Notes

ORCID iDs

Author biographies

References