Job insecurity and health and well-being: What happens when you really need or love your job?

Abstract

Job insecurity is a pervasive and impactful global concern, eliciting stress and affecting the health and well-being of employees worldwide. The present study (N = 679) examined the relationship between job insecurity and health and well-being and the moderating role of economic dependence and job satisfaction. When workers depended on their job as a source of income or when they were highly satisfied with their work, the relationship between job insecurity and health and well-being was exacerbated. The findings shed light on the complexities of individual variability in the relationship between job insecurity and health and well-being.

Keywords

Economic dependence economic stress financial stress job insecurity job satisfaction occupational health

Introduction

Job insecurity is a globally prevalent and salient topic not only in the scientific literature (e.g., Shoss, 2017) but also in the popular press (e.g., Shoss et al., 2022). Specific estimates of the pervasiveness of job insecurity vary by country and can depend on several economic factors but typically range around 10–20% of the working population (De Witte et al., 2015). For instance, Erlinghagen (2008) utilized survey data in 17 European countries and found that 14% of respondents felt that their job was insecure. Prior empirical work has also found that job insecurity is especially prevalent among blue-collar workers and individuals who have lower educational attainment (e.g., Cheng et al., 2005). The stress of job insecurity negatively impacts not only workers but also organizations and society. Indeed, empirical evidence connects job insecurity to poor individual health and well-being such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, anxiety, depression, somatization, and hostility (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Kuhnert et al., 1989; Pollard, 2001; Sverke et al., 2002) along with poor population health, societal inequities, and organizational deterioration (Benach et al., 2014; Burgard et al., 2009; Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt, 2010; Reisel et al., 2005). This work provides a strong foundation and rationale for the importance of future work focused on worker health and well-being – with some research finding that the impact of job insecurity even rivals that of actual job loss (e.g., Arnetz et al., 1991).

Despite the preponderance of research on job insecurity there is still much to learn. Because job insecurity is a subjective construct, there is often notable variability in job insecurity perceptions and their relationship with employee outcomes – even within the same organization (Mak and Mueller, 2000). Thus, scholarship seeking to understand job insecurity is of particular theoretical and practical importance. One approach to this research is to investigate potential moderators of the effects of job insecurity. While research on job insecurity moderators has examined demographic moderators such as tenure, age, and gender (Grunberg et al., 1998), identifying new potential moderators beyond traditionally studied constructs is sorely needed (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Sverke et al., 2002).

Shoss (2017) recommended that economic vulnerabilities rooted in economic dependence be explored as moderators in the research on job insecurity because high levels of economic vulnerabilities may enhance the threat of job insecurity and increase negative stress-related outcomes. Indeed, the economically vulnerable may have limited cognitive, emotional, and physical resources that often help protect against heightened stress levels (Mani et al., 2013; Ong et al., 2019; Shah et al., 2012). For instance, research has found that individuals have stronger affective reactions to job insecurity when worried about replenishing income if their job was lost (Berglund et al., 2014). In practice, these findings suggest that interventions aiming to alleviate job insecurity amidst organizational change need to place emphasis on cultivating a positive psychosocial environment and this may be particularly important in financially fragile populations (Abildgaard et al., 2018). Accordingly, additional research is necessary to determine under what financial circumstances and to what extent job insecurity is related to outcomes established by prior studies. Economic dependency has been suggested by prior work (Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt, 1984; Richter et al., 2014) as an important piece to this puzzle.

Further, although earlier work has linked job insecurity to employee well-being and job satisfaction has been addressed in relation to uncertainty (e.g., Böckerman et al., 2011), prior research has not considered the moderating role of job satisfaction. Despite this, job satisfaction may play an important role in this relationship as it offers insight into work as a source of life satisfaction for employees (Judge and Watanabe, 1993). As job insecurity threatens a potentially vital source of satisfaction in workers’ lives, it may be particularly harmful to individuals who are highly satisfied with their jobs. The stress associated with potential job loss may also be more detrimental as individuals are concerned about losing a job they love. To that end, considering the extent to which individuals are satisfied with their job is important to understanding the impact of job insecurity.

Finally, aside from job insecurity scholarship, we also extend research on the consequences of economic dependence. Because economic dependency is often stronger within lower socioeconomic status workers (Brett et al., 1995), studies of dependence also have important implications for research on social class, a topic that is often overlooked in organizational science and treated as a variable to control for the effects of rather than as a primary variable of interest (Christie and Barling, 2009). Nevertheless, being economically dependent on the job increases the salience of income and can be cognitively taxing, evoking stress particularly when financial resources are scarce (Mani et al., 2013). As a result, economic dependence can have important implications for employee health and well-being. We shed light on this relationship examining economic dependence both as an antecedent of health and well-being and as a moderator of the job insecurity and health and well-being relationship.

Job insecurity

According to Voydanoff (1990), economic stress is a potential stressor stemming from the economic aspects of an individual’s life. Economic stress is comprised of both objective and subjective components that reflect either an income or employment-related dimension of the worker’s life. This categorization results in four distinct sources of stress. The employment-related dimensions of economic stress include employment instability and employment uncertainty, and the income-related dimensions include economic deprivation and economic strain. Job insecurity is a type of employment uncertainty that is a subjective employment-related economic stressor (Probst, 2005).

Scholars such as Shoss (2017) have also distinguished between different types of job insecurity. For example, while quantitative job insecurity designates the perception of threat to the entire job (Shoss, 2017; Sverke et al., 2002), qualitative job insecurity designates the perception of threat to specific aspects of the job such as seniority or desirable working conditions (Hellgren et al., 1999; Shoss, 2017). Additionally, it is also important to note the distinction between the cognitive perception of job insecurity which emphasizes the likelihood of change, and the subsequent affective reaction to job insecurity (Probst et al., 2014; Shoss, 2017).

We adopt Probst’s definition of job insecurity as ‘the perceived stability and continuance of one’s job as one knows it’ (Probst, 2003: 452). Using this definition to inform the selection of a job insecurity measure has various advantages compared to other definitions of the construct. Specifically, this definition focuses only on the cognitive perception of the job or aspects of the job as unstable or at risk and does not imply any emotional or attitudinal reactions to perceived job insecurity. As noted by Probst et al. (2014), this definition allows for a better exploration of potential moderators of the relationship between the perception of job insecurity and subsequent reactions. The use of a cognitive measure of job insecurity also is consistent with the cognitive-transactional model of stress (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) in that it focuses on cognitive appraisals of one’s job situation as primary sources of stress.

Job security, health, and life satisfaction

In this study, we focus on two global measures of well-being: life satisfaction and self-rated health. Job insecurity has been both directly and indirectly linked to an array of outcomes that adversely affect workers and their organizations. Probst et al. (2014) discuss how job insecurity produces cognitive, attitudinal, and affective reactions (e.g., cognitive deficits, increased negative emotions, changes in job attitudes), resulting in reduced employee health and well-being and harmful changes in behavior. Changes in physical health include high cholesterol and blood pressure, increased injury, and poorer physical health overall (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Pollard, 2001; Sverke et al., 2002). Scholars have also found that job insecurity consistently predicts poor mental health outcomes such as depression, anxiety, hostility, distress, and somatization (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Kuhnert et al., 1989; Sverke et al., 2002). These health effects can be seen across multiple countries. For instance, László et al. (2010) found that job insecurity was related to an elevated risk of subjective poor health in Denmark, Hungary, the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Israel, Germany, Poland, Greece, and Russia. Other work has found similar relationships in Taiwan (Cheng et al., 2005), Australia (D’Souza et al., 2003), and the United Kingdom (Ferrie et al., 1995). Taken together, this body of scholarship provides strong evidence for the important role of job insecurity in worker and societal health.

Life satisfaction reflects a cognitive evaluation of one’s overall quality of life (Edrogan et al., 2012; Pavot and Diener, 2008). Life satisfaction is an important component of well-being that has been consistently negatively associated with job insecurity (Emanuel et al., 2018; Green, 2011; Hsieh and Huang, 2017; Silla et al., 2009). Prior work (e.g., Hsieh and Huang, 2017) explains that as individuals perceive a threat to their job, this elicits stress and decreases life satisfaction. Consistent with this evidence, we use life satisfaction in the present study as a broad measure of employee well-being and expect that it will be negatively related to job insecurity. We hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1a: Job insecurity will be negatively related to life satisfaction.

Hypothesis 1b: Job insecurity will be negatively related to general self-rated health.

Economic dependence

Economic dependence can be defined as a financial requirement that influences people’s economic need to work (Brett et al., 1995). The extent to which employees rely on the financial resources gained from their job is influenced by the financial assets available to them both from job-related income and other sources such as a working spouse, investments, or inheritance (Brett et al., 1995). This financial requirement induces pressure to remain in one’s current job (Doran et al., 1991). For most employed adults, the income acquired from work is the means by which they provide not only for themselves but also for those who rely on them. This dependence can lead to feelings of economic constraint negatively impacting worker well-being (Brief et al., 1997) and various organizational outcomes including turnover and job performance (Brett et al., 1995; Zhang et al., 2012). By contrast, low economic dependence is related to increased affective organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviours (Akoto et al., 2014).

Overall, researchers tend to assess economic dependence using two broad approaches – either an indirect demands approach or a direct measure approach. The indirect approach captures the number and nature of one’s financial obligations, such as the number of children living at home, whereas direct measures capture the individuals’ perceptions of the extent to which they depend on the income. While levels of dependency often increase as employees have more dependants and lower earnings (Brief et al., 1997), this is not the case for everyone; some workers rely significantly less on their work to meet their financial needs. For example, in an early study by Gould and Werbel (1983), employees whose spouses also provided a source of income (i.e., making them less economically dependent) exhibited more job involvement and organizational identification when they also had children (which would traditionally have been assumed to make them more dependent). One potential explanation for this effect is that less economically dependent individuals find increased meaning in their work when they also help provide for children. In this case, rather than serving as a stressor, increasing economic dependence provided additional purpose for work. These findings highlight the complexities of economic dependence and the importance of considering multiple factors in one’s financial life.

However, although prior studies have used more indirect measures of economic dependence that theorize that dependence is a function of having more financial demands, such as children or a spouse, this is not always ideal. These measures could be contaminated by other factors such as financial support from others, spending habits, debt, or even individual perceptions. By contrast, directly measuring economic dependence more closely corresponds to the nature of the construct as a psychological tie to one’s work. As such, we evaluate economic dependence as a subjective construct emphasizing the perceived financial constraints associated with dependency on one’s income (Doran et al., 1991).

Despite being an understudied area in organizational research, important implications of economic dependence have been found. For instance, George and Brief (1990) found that stronger associations occur between salary and well-being when individuals are more economically dependent. In addition, stronger associations also occur between employees’ job performance and their organizational commitment (Brett et al., 1995). Workers who are more economically dependent may also experience more mistreatment at work as their reliance on compensation decreases their perceived power (Kundro et al., 2022). Additionally, Zhang et al. (2012) theorized that economic dependence may moderate the relationship between embeddedness (in one’s community and organization) and turnover. For instance, less economically dependent workers may attend more to community factors, like education, medical care quality, or social services. This scholarship highlights the importance of looking at economic dependence as both an antecedent and a moderator in organizational research.

Individuals who are highly economically dependent on their job may also have decreased perceived situational control. Perceived situational control is distinct from other types of control commonly discussed such as job control or dispositional control in that it emphasizes the extent to which a threat can be countered (Vander Elst et al., 2016). Specifically, economically dependent workers may feel vulnerable to any income-related threats (unexpected expenses, job loss, etc.) because they rely heavily on their income to make ends meet. This reliance decreases their perceived control and increases stress-related effects (Folkman and Lazarus, 1985). Through these mechanisms, we posit that economic dependency will be negatively related to employee health and well-being.

Hypothesis 2a: Economic dependence will be negatively related to life satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2b: Economic dependence will be negatively related to general self-rated health.

Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is one of the most heavily studied constructs in the organizational sciences (Judge and Watanabe, 1993) and one of the most studied attitudinal outcomes of job insecurity (Sverke et al., 2006). Job satisfaction is an affective reaction that occurs as one’s job is positively appraised (Locke, 1976). Job satisfaction is a positive and desirable emotion that promotes employee well-being (Bowling et al., 2010), and the threat of losing it in the case of job insecurity may be devastating. However, rather than studying job satisfaction as an outcome of job insecurity, we focus on its role as a moderator. In the following section, we expand on the rationale for this relationship through the lens of the cognitive-transactional model of stress.

The cognitive-transactional model and job insecurity

The cognitive-transactional model of stress (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984, 1987; Lazarus and Launier, 1978) provides a rationale for the hypothesized moderating effects of job satisfaction and economic dependence. A focal element of this model is the appraisal process. When a potential stressor occurs, it is appraised by the individual based on its potential to threaten well-being or current resources. Not every potential stressor elicits strain and subsequent adverse outcomes. Instead, this depends on the individual, their situation, and their ability to cope. As a result, there should be individual differences in people’s perceptions of and reactions to potential stressors such as job insecurity. We posit that job insecurity as a potential stressor will fluctuate depending on characteristics of the individual and their economic situation. More specifically, depending on the extent to which workers need their job to maintain their financial status or want their job to maintain a source of satisfaction, they may experience more or less stress at the prospect of losing the job.

Regarding economic dependence, individuals who are both insecure in their employment and dependent on their work experience greater threats from job insecurity and subsequently heightened stress-related reactions. These individuals may also experience challenges as they struggle to cope. This is because they often possess fewer initial coping resources that they can draw from in times of need (Vanhercke et al., 2014). In contrast, if, for example, an individual is not very dependent on the income gained from their job, they may feel less of a threat from the potential loss of the job and experience fewer negative health consequences as a result. Therefore, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 3a: Economic dependence will moderate the negative relationship between job insecurity and life satisfaction such that the relationship will be stronger for those who are the most economically dependent.

Hypothesis 3b: Economic dependence will moderate the negative relationship between job insecurity and general self-rated health such that the relationship will be stronger for those who are the most economically dependent.

Regarding job satisfaction, highly satisfied workers may be emotionally invested in their job and replacing the satisfaction that one feels at work is not easy. As such, job insecurity also may elicit a stronger negative reaction in these more satisfied individuals. Scholarship on job embeddedness supports this notion, with individuals becoming more reactive to job insecurity the more they have invested (Crossley et al., 2007). Similarly, research shows that when a job is an integral part of a worker’s self-esteem and identity, they react more adversely to the threat of losing the job (Probst et al., 2014). Thus, it is likely that those who love their jobs are more psychologically vulnerable to job insecurity. Psychological vulnerabilities can enhance the stress related to job insecurity because job insecurity creates a threat to one’s sense of well-being (Shoss, 2017). Therefore, we expect that job insecurity will be most impactful for those who are both psychologically vulnerable (satisfied by their work) and economically vulnerable (economically dependent). For our full conceptual model, see Figure 1. We propose the following:

Hypothesis 4a: Job satisfaction will moderate the negative relationship between job insecurity and life satisfaction such that the relationship will be stronger for those who are the most satisfied with their job.

Hypothesis 4b: Job satisfaction will moderate the negative relationship between job insecurity and general self-rated health such that the relationship will be stronger for those who are the most satisfied with their job.

Hypothesis 5a: There will be a three-way interaction of job insecurity, job satisfaction, and economic dependence in predicting life satisfaction such that the negative relationship between job insecurity and life satisfaction will be strongest for those who report higher levels of both economic dependence and job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 5b: There will be a three-way interaction of job insecurity, job satisfaction, and economic dependence in predicting general self-rated health such that the negative relationship between job insecurity and health will be strongest for those who report higher levels of both economic dependence and job satisfaction.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model.

Method

Participants and procedure

Our data were gathered using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a crowdsourcing platform commonly used for data collection in the social sciences. We collected data across two waves that were administered three months apart. Our measure of job insecurity was collected during the first wave and our moderators and outcomes were collected during the second. To be included in our study, participants were required to have a minimum approval rate of 90% based on past participation in MTurk studies, be over the age of 18, reside in the United States, and to have a job outside of MTurk in which they work 30 or more hours a week. To further ensure quality responses, participants were also required to respond appropriately to embedded attention check items. For example, ‘If you are paying attention, please respond “somewhat disagree”.’ Participants who met these criteria were compensated a total of US$8 for data collection, $4 for each survey.

For the first wave, we retained 1,548 participants with valid responses, 686 of whom also completed the second wave. Because there was a substantial amount of attrition between waves, we compared demographic characteristics between the two waves and did not note any significant differences. Nevertheless, it is possible that individuals with worse working conditions and labor market outcomes were less likely to respond to our survey. We included only participants who completed both waves of data collection in our analyses, and we removed seven participants who skipped more than one question, leaving our final sample size at 679. Because 6% of our sample had missing data, we then used multiple imputation by chained equations (Van Buuren and Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2011) to impute data via predictive mean matching and maximize our sample size. Further, after examining variable distributions, we followed suggestions for best practices by Cook and Weisberg (1999) and Weisberg (2014) and used the Box and Cox (1964) and Velilla (1993) method to maximize the likelihood of multivariate normality by transforming our variables using power transformations. On average, our participants were 36 years old, reported an annual income of US$49,908 and worked 40 hours per week. Our sample was comprised of 41% men and 59% women. They held positions in a variety of occupations (e.g., teacher, delivery driver, manager) and, consistent with prior research examining MTurk samples, seemed to be generally representative of the overall US population aside from reporting a lower income overall (Buhrmester et al., 2011; Michel et al., 2018).

Measures

Job insecurity was measured using a measure developed by Oldham et al. (1986). This measure contains a total of 10 items (α = .93) with response options on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 7 with 1 being ‘strongly disagree’ and 7 being ‘strongly agree.’ The measure includes a mix of positively- and negatively-worded items. An example of a positively-worded item in this measure is ‘my current organization will not cut back on the number of hours I work each week,’ with these items indicating higher levels of job security. Other items are negatively-worded, such as ‘If my current organization were facing economic problems, my job would be the first to go’ and indicate low levels of job security. Our measure was coded such that higher scores represent more job insecurity.

Economic dependence was measured using a measure from Brief et al. (1997). This measure consists of six items (α = .88) assessing the extent to which the employee depends on the income gained from their job. This measure includes items such as ‘If I lost even one week’s pay, I would have a difficult time making ends meet’ and ‘There really is not anyone else to take care of me but myself.’ Response options were on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 7, with 1 being ‘strongly disagree,’ and 7 being ‘strongly agree.’

Job satisfaction was measured using the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire Job Satisfaction Subscale (MOAQ-JSS; Bowling and Hammond, 2008; Cammann et al., 1979). This three-item measure (α = .94) has demonstrated its validity and reliability across numerous studies and is commonly used in the organizational sciences (see Bowling and Hammond, 2008). A sample item is ‘All in all, I am satisfied with my job.’ Response options are on a Likert scale and range from 1 to 7 with 1 being ‘strongly disagree’ and 7 being ‘strongly agree.’

To measure life satisfaction, we used the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) developed by Diener et al. (1985). This measure includes five items (α = .93), such as ‘If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing’ and ‘I am satisfied with my life.’ Response options for this measure are on a Likert scale and range from 1 to 7 with 1 being ‘strongly disagree’ and 7 being ‘strongly agree.’ Many researchers have recommended this measure as a reliable and valid way to assess life satisfaction (Pavot and Diener, 2008).

Subjective health was measured using a single general self-rated health (GSRH) item (DeSalvo et al., 2006). The item asks, ‘In general, would you say your health is. . .?’ Response options ranged from 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘much above average’ and 5 being ‘much below average.’ Single items overall are often advantageous in their simplicity and high face validity when compared to lengthier measures (Fisher et al., 2016).

Results

As seen in Table 1, the bivariate correlations supported our main effect hypotheses (i.e., 1a & 1b, 2a & 2b). Job insecurity was negatively related to life satisfaction, r(677) = −.30, p < .01, providing support for hypothesis 1a, and negatively related to health, r(677) = −.11, p < .01, supporting hypothesis 1b. In addition, economic dependence was negatively related to life satisfaction, r(677) = −.30, p < .01, providing support for hypothesis 2a, and negatively related to health, r(677) = −.21, p < .01, supporting hypothesis 2b.

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4
1. Job insecurity (T1)	31.42	12.17	(.92)
2. Economic dependence (T2)	31.86	8.16	.09*	(.88)
			[.02, .17]
3. Job satisfaction (T2)	15.01	4.88	−.32**	−.09*	(.94)
			[−.39, −.25]	[−.16, −.01]
4. Life satisfaction (T2)	21.80	7.72	−.30**	−.30**	.45**	(.93)
			[−.37, −.23]	[−.37, −.23]	[.38, .51]
5. Health (T2)	3.22	0.92	−.11**	−.21**	.17**	.35**
			[−.18, −.04]	[−.28, −.13]	[.09, .24]	[.28, .41]

Note. N = 679. M and SD are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively. Cronbach’s α is presented on the diagonal. T1 signifies data collected at time one and T2 signifies data collected at time 2. * p < .05; ** p < .01.

Then, we tested our hypotheses using hierarchical linear regression analyses. Beginning with life satisfaction (Table 2), our first model included job insecurity as a predictor and was statistically significant overall, F (1, 677) = 77.2 (p < .001), and explained 10% of the variance in life satisfaction (R² = .10). Job insecurity was negatively related to life satisfaction (β = −.32; p < .01), supporting hypothesis 1a. When job satisfaction was added to the model, there was a significant improvement in the model (ΔR² = .15), F (2, 676) = 114.3 (p < .001), and job satisfaction was positively related to life satisfaction (β = .41; p < .01). Adding economic dependence also produced a significant improvement in the model (ΔR² = .16), F (3, 675) = 102.2 (p < .001) and economic dependence was negatively related to life satisfaction (β = −.25; p < .001) supporting hypothesis 2a. We then added interaction terms for job insecurity and job satisfaction, and job insecurity and economic dependence. Both interactions were statistically significant (p < .05) and our model significantly improved (ΔR² = .01), F (5, 673) = 64.2 (p < .001).

Table 2.

Hierarchical regression results of self-rated health and of life satisfaction.

		Self-rated health			Life satisfaction
Variables		beta	Cum. R²	ΔR²	beta	Cum. R²	ΔR²
Step 1			.02**			.10**
Step 1	Job insecurity (T1)	−.12**			−.32
Step 2			.04**	.02**		.25**	.15**
	Job insecurity (T1)	−.07			−.18**
	Job satisfaction (T2)	.15**			.41**
Step 3			.07**	.03**		.31**	.16**
	Job insecurity (T1)	−.05			−.16**
	Job satisfaction (T2)	.14**			.40**
	Economic dependence (T2)	−.19**			−.25**
Interactions:
Step 4			.08**	.01		.32**	.01**
	Job insecurity (T1) × Job satisfaction (T2)	−.11			−.44*
	Job insecurity (T1) × Economic dependence (T2)	−.54*			−.57*
Step 5			.08**	.00		.33**	.01*
	Job insecurity (T1) × Job satisfaction (T2) × Economic dependence (T2)	1.05			1.28*

Note. N = 679. beta indicates the standardized regression weights. T1 signifies data collected at time one and T2 signifies data collected at time 2. All predictors were also included separately in the interaction models along with the interaction terms. Additionally, all possible two-way interactions were included in the model with the three-way interaction. * p < .05; ** p < .01.

We tested simple slopes for the significant interaction at one standard deviation above and below the mean of the moderator, and plotted these effects. For the interaction between job insecurity and economic dependence, the relationship gets stronger as economic dependence increases, supporting hypothesis 3a. For the interaction between job insecurity and job satisfaction, the relationship gets stronger as job satisfaction increases, supporting hypothesis 4a. Finally, we tested for a three-way interaction between job insecurity, job satisfaction, and economic dependence and found that our model was significant overall, F (7, 671) = 46.7 (p < .001), and cumulatively, explained 33% of the variance in life satisfaction (ΔR² = .01, p = .02). The three-way interaction was statistically significant (p < .05; Figure 2), and tests on simple slopes were computed. When economic dependence was low (i.e., 1 SD below the mean), only the slope of job insecurity when job satisfaction was one standard deviation above the mean was statistically significant (p < .001). At the mean of economic dependence and when economic dependence was high (i.e., 1 SD above the mean), the slope of job insecurity was statistically significant at all three levels of job satisfaction (p < .05). As seen in Figure 2, the strongest relationship occurred when both job satisfaction and economic dependence were high and there was the most collective vulnerability.

Figure 2.

Three-way interaction between all three predictors of life satisfaction.

Next, we examined general self-rated health as an outcome. We began by regressing job insecurity on health and found that our model was statistically significant overall,F (1, 677) = 10.0 (p < .001), and explained 2% of the variance in health (R² = .02). Job insecurity was negatively related to health (β = −.12; p < .01), supporting hypothesis 1b. As job satisfaction was added to the model, there was a significant improvement in the model (ΔR² = .02), F (2, 676) = 12.4 (p < .001), and job satisfaction was positively related to health (β = .15; p < .01). Adding economic dependence also produced a significant improvement in the model (ΔR² = .03), F (3, 675) = 17.0 (p < .001) and economic dependence was negatively related to health (β = −.19; p < .001) supporting hypothesis 2b.

We then added interaction terms for job insecurity and job satisfaction, and job insecurity and economic dependence. Our model was significant overall, F (5, 673) = 11.1 (p < .001), and cumulatively explained 8% of the variance in health (R² = .08; ΔR² = .01). Consistent with hypothesis 3b, we found a statistically significant interaction between job insecurity and economic dependence (p < .05). However, we did not find support for the interaction between job insecurity and job satisfaction in hypothesis 4b. Regarding hypothesis 3b, tests of simple slopes revealed that for the interaction between job insecurity and economic dependence, the relationship strengthened as economic dependence increased, consistent with our predictions. We also tested for a three-way interaction between all our predictors but did not find one, thereby failing to find support for hypothesis 5b.

Discussion

Changes in the employment relationship have led to increased job insecurity and concerns about the impact of job insecurity on workers’ safety, health, and well-being. Although the effects of job insecurity on health outcomes are generally well-established, somewhat less research has examined factors that might increase or reduce the impact of job insecurity on health outcomes. Our study addressed this issue by examining the moderating effects of economic dependence and job satisfaction on health-related consequences of job insecurity. Our findings supported all our hypotheses aside from the moderating role of job satisfaction in the job insecurity and health relationship. Consistent with present literature (e.g., Ferrie et al., 2001; Sverke et al., 2002), we found that job insecurity was related to decreased self-reported health and life satisfaction. By replicating these results, we provide further documentation of the harmful effects of job insecurity on employee health and well-being.

Furthermore, we found that the nature of the relationship between job insecurity and life satisfaction depends on individual differences in job satisfaction. Our results demonstrate that individuals who love their jobs are more adversely affected by job insecurity. These findings suggest that it is important to consider what resources the job provides as contingency factors in the relationship between job insecurity and health and well-being outcomes. For some, work may be a source of life satisfaction, and the prospect of losing a satisfying job is strongly related to decreased well-being overall. Interestingly, this finding holds even when the worker is not financially reliant on their job. Job insecurity threatens more than a loss of financial resources. Of course, work provides manifest benefits such as income, but it can also provide latent benefits such as a sense of purpose, structure, or social support (Jahoda, 1982). Indeed, many people find a sense of meaning and belongingness at work and their jobs are closely tied to their self-esteem (Bellah et al., 1985). Many individuals may also see their job as their calling and if their job becomes threatened it could be deeply impactful (Dik and Duffy, 2009; Wrzesniewski et al., 1997). This body of scholarship helps to explain why workers often experience such strong reactions to job insecurity leading to negative emotions, poor health, and decreased well-being similar to that of actual job loss (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Latack and Dozier, 1986).

Our results also shed light on the importance of economic vulnerabilities such as economic dependence as moderators in research on job insecurity outcomes. We find that job insecurity is the most impactful when workers are financially dependent on the income that they receive from their job. This finding exemplifies the need to attend to specific groups such as low-income or blue-collar workers who may be more dependent and especially disadvantaged (Kalleberg and Vallas, 2018). Moreover, we also make an important contribution to the job insecurity literature by answering a call to pursue economic factors as moderators (Shoss, 2017). To our knowledge, we are the first to find support for this relationship as one prior study by Richter et al. (2014) investigated but did not find support for financial dependence as a moderator of the relationship between job insecurity and well-being. Because their study used a sample of Swedish accountancy firm employees it suffered from limited generalizability, and they suggested that other work examine these relationships using a more diverse population. Our study addresses this concern by using workers in a broad range of occupations throughout the United States, hopefully increasing the generalizability of our findings. Future research should continue to examine these relationships in other occupations and national settings particularly given that country-level differences in social safety nets affect the outcomes of job insecurity (see Debus et al., 2012).

Additionally, we found that being economically dependent on one’s job is negatively related to employee health and well-being. These findings are especially relevant as individuals struggle to cope with financial shocks in everyday life (Lusardi et al., 2011) as well as those associated with recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic (Sinclair et al., 2021). When individuals are dependent on their income these shocks become even more damaging and often lead individuals into a cycle of financial turmoil as they resort to emergency measures that may compound their financial difficulties such as payday loans or excessive use of credit cards. Through the lens of the cognitive transactional model, one could argue that more economically dependent individuals may have a decreased ability to cope with financial stress (e.g., job insecurity), have less perceived control, and experience more stress-related effects (Folkman and Lazarus, 1985). Through our study we show that financial vulnerability is directly related to health and well-being. Occupational health literature on economic stressors has generally paid more attention to employment-related stressors than financial stressors (Sinclair and Cheung, 2016). Our findings reinforce the importance of financial stressors for employees’ occupational health and highlight the need for scholars to continue to incorporate financial measures in their occupational health research.

Finally, the three-way interaction between job insecurity, job satisfaction, and economic dependence demonstrates that multiple vulnerabilities (e.g., psychological, financial) to job insecurity may be important to consider together as they collectively exacerbate the impact of job insecurity on well-being. Indeed, we found the strongest impact for individuals who were the most financially and psychologically vulnerable in terms of high economic dependence and job satisfaction. We encourage future researchers to consider a broader array of factors when assessing the potential impact of job insecurity such as the value that the job holds for the individual worker. For instance, other factors such as work centrality may be important to consider as well.

While our study makes an important contribution to this literature as it is the first to offer evidence of the moderating role of job satisfaction and economic dependence in the relationship between job insecurity and health and well-being, it is also worth noting that the quantitative sizes of our estimated interaction effects are not large (i.e., ΔR² = .01). Further, in relation to health, job insecurity, job satisfaction, and economic dependence only explain about 7% of the variability in self-rated health. Thus, it is important to consider other factors along with those emphasized in this study with the goal of improving worker health. Future research should also continue to examine job satisfaction and other non-demographic moderators of the effects of job insecurity and consider whether this effect extends to other outcomes such as job performance.

Limitations and recommendations

One potential limitation of this study is that the variables were all measured using self-report surveys. As noted by Podsakoff et al. (2003), common method variance may be a concern due to the possible inflation of the relationships. However, as often noted in psychological research, self-report is frequently an ideal option for psychological constructs, particularly for the subjective stress-related measures of interest in this study. Furthermore, some research demonstrates that common method variance is likely not as problematic as initially suggested (Spector, 2006) and the temporal separation of our data may help to reduce these concerns as well. As such, the impact of common method variance on our findings likely was minimal. However, future research should examine these relationships using multiple measurement sources and temporally separated measures.

It would also be beneficial for future work to utilize different samples of participants. Because we obtained our sample from MTurk, our results may be limited in their generalizability. Though our sample was diverse, it was not necessarily nationally representative. For instance, regarding household income, our participants tended to be lower or middle class and had a median monthly household income of US$3,417 whereas the median for the entire United States is US$5,900 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022). While this may limit the generalizability of our findings to higher income populations, the substantial amount of lower income participants in our sample may also be a strength. Indeed, organizational psychology research often oversamples those from middle/upper income occupations to the exclusion of lower income individuals where economic stress and job insecurity are particular concerns. Results may also differ depending on the country. For example, prior work (e.g., Debus et al., 2012) has found that country-level factors such as social safety nets can affect the extent to which job insecurity is impactful. Future research may also consider heterogeneity in the effect of job insecurity by looking for industry or occupational differences. For instance, perhaps job insecurity is more impactful in industries that are declining compared to those that are growing.

An additional limitation of our study design is that we cannot offer inferences about causality. While it is possible that poor health and well-being impact job insecurity (for example, if unhealthy individuals risk losing their job as a result of their health status), there has now been consistent evidence documenting job insecurity as an antecedent of health outcomes (e.g., Hellgren and Sverke, 2003). Another limitation of our design, as Probst et al. (2014) points out, is that it does not allow for an examination of health over time and does not account for the effect of actual job loss. However, existing literature indicates that even after accounting for objective job loss and previous employee health, job insecurity over an extended period of time is detrimental to health (Burgard et al., 2009). In any case, full longitudinal designs and even traditional experimental designs would be helpful in future research to enable researchers to draw stronger causal inferences and, thus, to increase the contribution of this stream of research to theory building.

Additionally, while our study focuses on the negative implications of job insecurity, some research suggests that job insecurity can have short-term motivating effects for individuals. For instance, they may increase their effort in the hopes of retaining their job (Shoss, 2017). Based on our findings that individuals who are less economically dependent are less impacted by job insecurity, perhaps job insecurity may be beneficial for increasing employee motivation and subsequent positive outcomes for less economically dependent individuals. However, as noted previously, even for individuals who are not financially dependent on their jobs, job insecurity may still have a negative impact if they are highly satisfied with their jobs. Future research should continue to examine possible differences between short-term and long-term responses to job insecurity as well as variables that might explain why some people experience debilitating effects of insecurity whereas others may be more motivated, at least in the short-term.

Practical implications and conclusions

Despite much of the literature emphasizing the impact of job insecurity on the employee, research also connects job insecurity both indirectly and directly to outcomes at the organization level (Reisel et al., 2005). Our findings provide crucial information on workers who may be the most strongly affected. Minimizing job insecurity appears to be especially important for some individuals’ health while others are more resilient. For these particularly vulnerable individuals, organizations should focus their efforts on increasing control, employability, support systems, communication, trust, perceptions of organizational justice, and on cultivating a strong safety climate (Probst et al., 2014). Effective interventions will serve to create a healthier and more secure workplace that benefits both the individual and the organization.

Readdressing organizational compensation models may also be especially beneficial. Our study finds that being economically dependent on the earnings from one’s job adversely impacts health and well-being. To minimize these negative effects, organizations must move beyond merely providing financial education and invest in employee pay (Benartzi and Thaler, 2007). Because of income restraints many employees are unable to improve their financial situation through savings and investment in their future and are likely to remain economically dependent and financially stressed (Birkenmaier et al., 2013; Sanders and Porterfield, 2010).

Our article has other practical implications as well. Excessive layoffs, which are often particularly favored in the United States, can not only be more costly in the long-term (Abraham and Houseman, 2010) but can also increase job insecurity for current workers. Thus, these practices are both directly harmful to the health and well-being of workers who become unemployed and indirectly harmful to those who remain with the organization. Because of this, labor market policies that provide government interventions to promote worker job security such as short-time compensation programs may be particularly beneficial. Strong social safety nets may also be especially beneficial as research has found that the negative relationships between job insecurity, job satisfaction, and affective commitment are attenuated in these contexts (Debus et al., 2012).

In conclusion, the current study helps to build the scholarship on job insecurity by providing an examination of workers whose health and well-being are most adversely impacted. We examined moderating factors outside of those traditionally studied and demonstrated that the value of the job as a vital source of income or satisfaction is a critical consideration in job insecurity research. By beginning to disentangle individual variability and illuminating the significance of job insecurity, we make an important contribution to the growing body of literature and inform practical applications.

Footnotes

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

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Baylor A Graham

Author biographies

Baylor A Graham is a PhD candidate in the Industrial and Organizational Psychology program at Clemson University. She has an MS in Applied Psychology and is currently working towards an MS in Data Science and Analytics. Her research interests include economic stress, employee health and well-being, workplace mistreatment, and research methodology.

Robert R Sinclair is a Professor of Industrial and Organizational Psychology at Clemson University. Dr Sinclair is a founding member and Past President of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology and founding Editor-in-Chief for Occupational Health Science. His research interests include economic stress, organizational climate, and the employee–employer relationship.

Michael Sliter is Director of Consulting Services at O.E. Strategies. His work focuses on executive assessment. However, Dr Sliter also has a program of research on occupational health psychology topics such as work stress, incivility, and mental health issues at work.

References

Abildgaard

Nielsen

Sverke

(2018) Can job insecurity be managed? Evaluating an organizational-level intervention addressing the negative effects of restructuring. Work & Stress 32(2): 105–123.

Abraham

Houseman

(2010) Job Security in America: Lessons from Germany. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Akoto

Mosley

Assad

, et al (2014) Economic dependency on work: Testing the direct and indirect effects on commitment and citizenship in a volatile economy. Journal of Applied Business and Economics 16(1): 96–109.

Arnetz

Brenner

S-O

Levi

, et al (1991) Neuroendocrine and immunologic effects of unemployment and job insecurity. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 55(2–4): 76–80.

Bellah

Madsen

Sullivan

, et al (1985) Habits of the Heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Benach

Vives

Amable

, et al (2014) Precarious employment: Understanding an emerging social determinant of health. Annual Review of Public Health 35: 229–253.

Benartzi

Thaler

(2007) Heuristics and biases in retirement savings behavior. Journal of Economic Perspectives 21(3): 81–104.

Berglund

Furåker

Vulkan

(2014) Is job insecurity compensated for by employment and income security? Economic and Industrial Democracy 35(1): 165–184.

Birkenmaier

Curley

Sherraden

(eds) (2013) Financial Education and Capability: Research, Education, Policy, and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

10.

Böckerman

Ilmakunnas

Johansson

(2011) Job security and employee well-being: Evidence from matched survey and register data. Labour Economics 18(4): 547–554.

11.

Bowling

Hammond

(2008) A meta-analytic examination of the construct validity of the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire Job Satisfaction Subscale. Journal of Vocational Behavior 73(1): 63–77.

12.

Bowling

Eschleman

Wang

(2010) A meta-analytic examination of the relationship between job satisfaction and subjective well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 83(4): 915–934.

13.

Box

Cox

(1964) An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 26(2): 211–243.

14.

Brett

Cron

Slocum

Jr (1995) Economic dependency on work: A moderator of the relationship between organizational commitment and performance. Academy of Management Journal 38(1): 261–271.

15.

Brief

Brett

Raskas

Stein

(1997) Feeling economically dependent on one’s job: Its origins and functions with regard to worker well-being. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 27(15): 1303–1315.

16.

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

(2011) Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6: 3–5.

17.

Burgard

Brand

House

(2009) Perceived job insecurity and worker health in the United States. Social Science & Medicine 69(5): 777–785.

18.

Cammann

Fichman

Jenkins

Klesh

(1979) The Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

19.

Cheng

GHL

Chan

DKS

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

20.

Cheng

Chen

Chiang

(2005) Job insecurity and its association with health among employees in the Taiwanese general population. Social Science & Medicine 61(1): 41–52.

21.

Christie

Barling

(2009) Disentangling the indirect links between socioeconomic status and health: The dynamic roles of work stressors and personal control. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(6): 1466–1478.

22.

Cook

Weisburg

(1999) Applied Regression Including Computing and Graphics. New York: Wiley.

23.

Crossley

Bennett

Jex

Burnfield

(2007) Development of a global measure of job embeddedness and integration into a traditional model of voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(4): 1031–1042.

24.

D’Souza

Strazdins

Lim

, et al (2003) Work and health in a contemporary society: Demands, control, and insecurity. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 57(11): 849–854.

25.

De Witte

Vander Elst

De Cuyper

(2015) Job insecurity, health and well-being. In: Vuori

Blonk

Price

(eds) Sustainable Working Lives: Aligning Perspectives on Health, Safety and Well-Being. Dordrecht: Springer.

26.

Debus

Probst

König

Kleinmann

(2012) Catch me if I fall! Enacted uncertainty avoidance and the social safety net as country-level moderators in the job insecurity–job attitudes link. Journal of Applied Psychology 97(3): 690–698.

27.

DeSalvo

Fisher

Tran

, et al (2006) Assessing measurement properties of two single-item general health measures. Quality of Life Research 15(2): 191–201.

28.

Diener

Emmons

Larsen

Griffin

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

29.

Dik

Duffy

(2009) Calling and vocation at work: Definitions and prospects for research and practice. The Counseling Psychologist 37(3): 424–450.

30.

Doran

Stone

Brief

George

(1991) Behavioral intentions as predictors of job attitudes: The role of economic choice. Journal of Applied Psychology 76(1): 40–45.

31.

Emanuel

Molino

Presti

, et al (2018) A crossover study from a gender perspective: The relationship between job insecurity, job satisfaction, and partners’ family life satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 1481.

32.

Erdogan

Bauer

Truxillo

Mansfield

(2012) Whistle while you work: A review of the life satisfaction literature. Journal of Management 38(4): 1038–1083.

33.

Erlinghagen

(2008) Self-perceived job insecurity and social context: A multi-level analysis of 17 European countries. European Sociological Review 24(2): 183–197.

34.

Ferrie

Shipley

Marmot

, et al (1995) Health effects of anticipation of job change and non-employment: Longitudinal data from the Whitehall II study. British Medical Journal 311: 1264–1269.

35.

Ferrie

Shipley

Marmot

, et al (2001) Job insecurity in white-collar workers: Toward an explanation of association with health. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 6: 26–42.

36.

Fisher

Matthews

Gibbons

(2016) Developing and investigating the use of single-item measures in organizational research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 21: 3–23.

37.

Folkman

Lazarus

(1985) If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48: 150–170.

38.

George

Brief

(1990) The economic instrumentality of work: An examination of the moderating effects of financial requirements and sex on the pay–life satisfaction relationship. Journal of Vocational Behavior 37: 357–368.

39.

Gould

Werbel

(1983) Work involvement: A comparison of dual wage earner and single wage earner families. Journal of Applied Psychology 68: 313–319.

40.

Green

(2011) Unpacking the misery multiplier: How employability modifies the impacts of unemployment and job insecurity on life satisfaction and mental health. Journal of Health Economics 30: 265–276.

41.

Greenhalgh

Rosenblatt

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

42.

Greenhalgh

Rosenblatt

(2010) Evolution of research on job insecurity. International Studies of Management & Organization 40: 6–19.

43.

Grunberg

Moore

Greenberg

(1998) Work stress and problem alcohol behavior: A test of the spillover model. Journal of Organizational Behavior 19: 487–502.

44.

Hellgren

Sverke

(2003) Does job insecurity lead to impaired well-being or vice versa? Estimation of cross-lagged effects using latent variable modelling. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior 24: 215–236.

45.

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: 179–195.

46.

Hsieh

Huang

(2017) Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The mediating and moderated mediating role of job insecurity. The Journal of Psychology 151: 282–298.

47.

Jahoda

(1982) Employment and Unemployment: A Social-psychological Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

48.

Judge

Watanabe

(1993) Another look at the job satisfaction–life satisfaction relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(6): 939–948.

49.

Kalleberg

Vallas

(2018) Probing precarious work: Theory, research, and politics. Research in the Sociology of Work 31: 1–30.

50.

Kuhnert

Sims

Lahey

(1989) The relationship between job security and employee health. Group and Organization Studies 14: 399–410.

51.

Kundro

Burke

Grandey

Sayre

(2022) A perfect storm: Customer sexual harassment as a joint function of financial dependence and emotional labor. Journal of Applied Psychology 107: 1385–1396.

52.

László

Pikhart

Kopp

, et al (2010) Job insecurity and health: A study of 16 European countries. Social Science & Medicine 70: 867–874.

53.

Latack

Dozier

(1986) After the ax falls: Job loss as a career transition. Academy of Management Review 11: 375–392.

54.

Lazarus

Folkman

(1984) Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer.

55.

Lazarus

Folkman

(1987) Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality 1: 141–169.

56.

Lazarus

Launier

(1978) Stress-related transactions between person and environment. In: Pervin

Lewis

(eds) Perspectives in Interactional Psychology. New York: Plenum, pp. 287–327.

57.

Locke

(1976) The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In: Dunnette

(eds) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, pp. 1297–1349.

58.

Lusardi

Schneider

Tufano

(2011) Financially fragile households: Evidence and implications. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 17072.

59.

Mak

Mueller

(2000) Job insecurity, coping resources and personality dispositions in occupational strain. Work & Stress 14: 312–328.

60.

Mani

Mullainathan

Shafir

Zhao

(2013) Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science 341: 976–980.

61.

Michel

O’Neill

Hartman

Lorys

(2018) Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a viable source for organizational and occupational health research. Occupational Health Science 2: 83–98.

62.

Oldham

Kulik

Stepina

Ambrose

(1986) Relations between situational factors and the comparative referents used by employees. Academy of Management Journal 29: 599–608.

63.

Ong

Theseira

(2019) Reducing debt improves psychological functioning and changes decision-making in the poor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116: 7244–7249.

64.

Pavot

Diener

(2008) The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology 3: 137–152.

65.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Lee

Podsakoff

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

66.

Pollard

(2001) Changes in mental well-being, blood pressure and total cholesterol levels during workplace reorganization: The impact of uncertainty. Work & Stress 15: 14–28.

67.

Probst

(2003) Development and validation of the Job Security Index and the Job Security Satisfaction Scale: A classical test theory and IRT approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 76: 451–467.

68.

Probst

(2005) Economic stressors. In: Barling

Kelloway

Frone

(eds) Handbook of Work Stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 267–298.

69.

Probst

Jiang

Benson

(2014) Job insecurity and anticipated job loss: A primer and exploration of possible interventions. In: Klehe

U-C

van Hooft

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Job Loss and Job Search. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 31–54.

70.

Reisel

Chia

Maloles

(2005) Job insecurity spillover to key account management: Negative effects of performance, effectiveness, adaptiveness, and esprit de corps. Journal of Business and Psychology 19: 483–503.

71.

Richter

Näswall

Bernhard-Oettel

Sverke

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

72.

Sanders

Porterfield

(2010) The ownership society and women: Exploring female householders’ ability to accumulate assets. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 31: 90–106.

73.

Shah

Mullainathan

Shafir

(2012) Some consequences of having too little. Science 338: 682–685.

74.

Shoss

(2017) Job insecurity: An integrative review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management 43: 1911–1939.

75.

Shoss

Schlotzhauer

Carusone

(2022) Job insecurity harms both employees and employers. Harvard Business Review, 26 September. Available at: https://hbr.org/2022/09/job-insecurity-harms-both-employees-and-employers

76.

Silla

De Cuyper

Gracia

, et al (2009) Job insecurity and well-being: Moderation by employability. Journal of Happiness Studies 10: 739–751.

77.

Sinclair

Cheung

(2016) Money matters: Recommendations for financial stress research in occupational health psychology. Stress & Health 32: 181–193.

78.

Sinclair

Probst

Watson

Bazzoli

(2021) Caught between Scylla and Charybdis: How economic stressors and occupational risk factors influence workers’ occupational health reactions to COVID-19. Applied Psychology 70: 85–119.

79.

Spector

(2006) Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods 9: 221–232.

80.

Sverke

Hellgren

Näswell

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

81.

Sverke

Hellgren

Näswall

(2006) Job insecurity: A literature review. SALTSA–Joint Programme for Working life Research in Europe, Report No. 1, pp. 1–30.

82.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2022) Income in the United States: 2021. BLS Reports. Available at: www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-276.html

83.

Van Buuren

Groothuis-Oudshoorn

(2011) Mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software 45: 1–67.

84.

Vander Elst

De Cuyper

Baillien

, et al (2016) Perceived control and psychological contract breach as explanations of relationships between job insecurity, job strain and coping reactions: Towards a theoretical integration. Stress and Health 32: 110–116.

85.

Vanhercke

De Cuyper

Peeters

De Witte

(2014) Defining perceived employability: A psychological approach. Personnel Review 43: 592–605.

86.

Velilla

(1993) A note on the multivariate Box–Cox transformation to normality. Statistics and Probability Letters 17: 259–263.

87.

Voydanoff

(1990) Economic distress and family relations: A review of the eighties. Journal of Marriage and the Family 52: 1099–1115.

88.

Weisberg

(2014) Applied Linear Regression, 4th edn. New York: Wiley.

89.

Wrzesniewski

McCauley

Rozin

Schwartz

(1997) Jobs, careers, and callings: People’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality 31: 21–33.

90.

Zhang

Fried

Griffeth

(2012) A review of job embeddedness: Conceptual, measurement issues, and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review 22: 220–231.