Qualitative Job Insecurity,Negative Work-Related Affect and Work-to-Family Conflict: The Moderating Role of Core Self-Evaluations

Abstract

Job insecurity has become one of the most prominent job stressors for employees. This study focuses on qualitative job insecurity (QJI) and its spillover effects to the family domain. Despite a positive association between QJI and work-to-family conflict revealed in the literature, research on why and when QJI is related to work-to-family conflict is limited. Drawing from Conservation of Resources theory, this paper empirically examines the mediating role of negative affective process underlying the relationship between QJI and work-to-family conflict as well as the moderating role of core self-evaluations in this process. A four-wave survey study was conducted in a sample of 126 Chinese employees. The results showed that psychological contract violation and job dissatisfaction mediated the relationship between QJI and work-to-family conflict. Unexpectedly, core self-evaluations were found to strengthen (not attenuate) the positive relationships of QJI with employee psychological contract violation and job dissatisfaction.

Keywords

core self-evaluations conservation of resources negative spillover qualitative job insecurity work-to-family conflict

Job insecurity refers to employee perceived uncertainty about their job continuity (e.g., Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Wang et al., 2015). Given the increasingly volatile labor market, such as pervasive temporary employment, frequent restructuring and downsizing, and the rapid development of artificial intelligence technology, job insecurity has been a concern for many employees and therefore received considerable scholarly attention (Lee et al., 2018). Apart from “concerns about the future existence of the present job” (Hellgren et al., 1999, p. 182) or quantitative job insecurity, employees may experience qualitative job insecurity (QJI), referring to “perceived threats of impaired quality in the employment relationship, such as deterioration of working conditions, lack of career opportunities, and decreasing salary development” (Hellgren et al., 1999, p. 182).

The majority of previous studies have focused on quantitative job insecurity and its detrimental consequences on employees (De Witte et al., 2010). However, QJI has become increasingly salient, and researchers expect that QJI may become more topical and pronounced in the future (Vander Elst, Richter, et al., 2014; Urbanaviciute et al., 2018). Similar to quantitative job insecurity, QJI may also have detrimental consequences on employees, such as decreased work motivation and attitude (Hellgren et al., 1999), impaired health and well-being (De Witte et al., 2010), increased counterproductive behaviors (Van den Broeck et al., 2014) and turnover intentions (Urbanaviciute et al., 2018).

In addition to the adverse work-related outcomes, QJI may also negatively influence one’s family life. Indeed, the existing literature on the work-family interface suggests that employees’ experiences at work can spill over to their family domain (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Work-to-family conflict, defined as a form of interrole conflict in which the role pressures from the work lead to difficulty in participating in one’s family domain, is a negative aspect of the work-family interface (Powell et al., 1984). From the lens of Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989), QJI consumes one’s resources to protect the potential loss of those valued job features. As a result, employees with high QJI might have fewer available resources to invest in the family domain, leading to work-to-family conflict (Hu et al., 2021). However, little research has empirically examined the process underlying, and the boundary condition of, the relationship between QJI and work-to-family conflict, thereby hindering our understanding of why and when employees with QJI may experience negative family outcomes.

The first aim of our study is to examine the underlying processes of the association between QJI and work-to-family conflict. We suggest that by depleting employees’ emotional resources, QJI is positively associated with work-to-family conflict. We focus on work-related negative affect such as psychological contract violation and job dissatisfaction to capture employees’ depleted emotional resources. Psychological contract violation refers to the feelings of anger and betrayal associated with an individual’s belief that the organization has failed to fulfill the reciprocal obligations between oneself and the organization (Morrison & Robinson, 1997), while job dissatisfaction refers to the feelings of dissatisfaction with the job (Zhou & George, 2001). According to the Circumplex Model of Emotions (Russell, 1980), emotions can be sorted along two bipolar dimensions: the valence (i.e., positive or negative) dimension and the arousal (i.e., high or low arousal) dimension. Thus, these two mediation variables are both negative, but differ in the arousal dimension in that psychological contract violation is high arousal whereas job dissatisfaction is low arousal. Including both psychological contract violation and job dissatisfaction allows us to examine a full range of negative affective reactions that are triggered by QJI.

Further, we set out to understand boundary conditions of the association between QJI and work-to-family conflict. COR theory suggests that individuals with more resources tend to be less threatened by resource drain or loss (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Core self-evaluations (CSE) refers to “a fundamental appraisal of one’s worthiness, effectiveness, and capability as a person” (Judge et al., 2003, p. 304), which is a key personal resource (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012). We propose that those with higher CSE are less likely to experience losses in emotional resources (manifested in psychological contract violation and job dissatisfaction), and thus work-to-family conflict than their counterparts. The proposed research model is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

The proposed research model.

Our research seeks to make three major contributions to the literature. First, we examine work-to-family conflict as an outcome of QJI, expanding our limited knowledge about QJI. Research has revealed negative effects of QJI on work outcomes (Van den Broeck et al., 2014; Vander Elst, Richter, et al., 2014, 2014b). Yet, the consequences of QJI are not limited to the work domain. The literature on work-family interface suggests that employees’ work experiences have an impact on their family life (i.e., spillover effect; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Despite this, few studies have examined the association between QJI and family outcomes (see Hu et al., 2021 for one exception). To enrich the literature on the consequences of QJI, we examine the relationship between QJI and work-to-family conflict with a four-wave time-lagged design. Given the relatively few studies on the qualitative aspect of job insecurity, we also answer the call by De Witte et al. (2010) for more research on QJI.

Second, till today, only two empirical studies have tested mediators underlying the relationships between job insecurity and family outcomes (Nauman et al., 2020; Richter et al., 2010). However, these studies only considered the quantitative aspect of job insecurity. Although Hu and colleagues (2021) tested the link of QJI and work-to-family conflict based on a resource perspective, they did not empirically examine resource-related mediators. Beyond Hu et al. (2021), we propose and examine psychological contract violation and job dissatisfaction as mediators linking QJI to work-to-family conflict. Our study reveals a negative affective process linking QJI to work-to-family conflict from the lens of COR theory, providing a more nuanced understanding of why experiencing QJI may affect one’s family life.

Third, our study examines the moderating role of employee CSE in the influence of QJI on work-to-family conflict. Individuals with favorable CSE are able to overcome stressful experiences (McNall et al., 2011) such as QJI. We thus suggest that those high in CSE have more personal resources to cope with QJI. That is, those with high levels of CSE may experience fewer losses in emotional resources, and subsequently have more resources available to invest in their family life. By testing the moderating role of CSE, we highlight the role of individual differences in employees’ emotional reactions to QJI and shed light on the question of when, or under what conditions, QJI is more (or less) related to work-to-family conflict.

Theory and Hypotheses

Beyond the Work Domain: The Association of QJI with Work-to-family Conflict

QJI refers to the uncertainty about the deterioration of valued job features such as favorable work conditions, career opportunities, and salary increases (De Witte et al., 2010; Hellgren et al., 1999). COR theory suggests that individuals strive to gain, retain, and protect their important resources (Hobfoll, 2001; Hobfoll et al., 2018). According to COR theory, QJI implies the possibility of losing resources in the forms of job-related objects (e.g., salary increase, promotion), physical (e.g., work environment) and social/career conditions (e.g., learning and growth opportunities). Thus, employees feeling QJI may experience stress-related outcomes since they are faced with threats of losing valued resources. Indeed, emerging studies have found that QJI has negative effects on employee attitudinal, behavioral, and health-related outcomes (De Witte et al., 2010; Van den Broeck et al., 2014; Vander Elst, Richter, et al., 2014, 2014b).

Beyond its work- and health-related consequences, QJI is also likely to influence employees’ family life. The work-family interface literature has long suggested that work stressors preoccupy employees, hindering them from meeting responsibilities in the family domain (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). As proposed by COR theory, when facing the threat of resource loss or an anticipation of resource loss, individuals become vulnerable and have fewer resources to invest or consume (Hobfoll, 2001). As the perceived threat to employment-related resources, QJI has been found to trigger affective reactions and drain the mental and emotional resources of job-insecure employees (Hellgren et al., 1999; Lee et al., 2018), and may thus negatively affect employees’ ability to meet family responsibilities. In the next sections, we will propose a negative, affective process whereby QJI is associated with work-to-family conflict via psychological contract violation and job dissatisfaction.

The Mediating Roles of Psychological Contract Violation and Job Dissatisfaction

Psychological contract is the belief regarding reciprocal and promised obligations between employees and their organizations (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). When employees believe that the organization fails to commit to the psychological contract, they are likely to experience high-activated, unpleasant affect, such as betrayal, frustration, and anger, namely psychological contract violation (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). On the other hand, job dissatisfaction reflects the extent to which employees are dissatisfied with their job (Zhou & George, 2001). It represents the negative evaluation of job conditions, which can be regarded as a type of low-activated, unpleasant affect (Russell, 1980). Both psychological contract violation and job dissatisfaction are indicative of losses in one’s emotional resources (Deng et al., 2018).

We expect that QJI is positively associated with employee work-to-family conflict via psychological contract violation and job dissatisfaction. Given the loss primacy principle (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001), resource losses and threats are strongly related to negative affective responses. Moreover, the job insecure situation is inherently characterized by the difficulty to control over the threat of job feature loss (Vander Elst, Richter, et al., 2014), and a lack of perceived control may provoke negative affect (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). Employees with high QJI are uncertain about the future of their valued job features, indicating that organizations fail to provide employees with what has been implicitly promised (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2006). A feeling of frustration, betrayal, and anger may occur (i.e., psychological contract violation) when employees perceive that the organization is not fulfilling those promises about highly valued employment-related resources (i.e., QJI). On the other hand, because important job features satisfy employees’ economic, social, and psychological needs, employees experiencing QJI tend to have negative evaluations of the job (i.e., job dissatisfaction). Indeed, empirical studies have provided evidence for the association between QJI and job dissatisfaction (Callea et al., 2019).

We further argue that employee negative work-related affect resulting from QJI is positively related to work-to-family conflict. Experiencing psychological contract violation and job dissatisfaction due to QJI indicates losses in emotional resources. A corollary of COR theory states that initial loss begets future loss (Hobfoll, 1989). When facing threats of employment-related resources, employees tend to make sense of why they are betrayed by the organization (Parzefall & Jacqueline, 2011); they may also have to suppress or neutralize their negative emotions triggered by QJI in order to function normally at work. These coping efforts may drain employees’ cognitive and emotional resources and make them less able to fulfill role demands in the family domain, thus resulting in more work-to-family conflict. Together, we suggest that psychological contract violation and job dissatisfaction mediate the positive relationship between QJI and employee work-to-family conflict. Thus, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1

Psychological contract violation will mediate the relationship between QJI and work-to-family conflict.

Hypothesis 2

Job dissatisfaction will mediate the relationship between QJI and work-to-family conflict.

The Moderating Role of CSE

Conservation of Resources theory further suggests that individuals differ in the amount of personal resources they possess; that is, personal resources may impact one’s vulnerability to resource loss (Hobfoll, 1989). Based on COR theory, individuals endowed with more resources are less impacted by resource loss in the face of stressful conditions. CSE refers to people’s fundamental appraisals of their self-worth, competence, and capabilities. People with high CSE hold favorable views about themselves, and are confident in their own capabilities and effectiveness in coping with external constraints (Judge et al., 2005). Conversely, those with low CSE hold negative evaluation about themselves and feel incapable and powerless under adverse circumstances (Chang et al., 2012). Fulfilling the three criteria of evaluation-focus, fundamentality, and scope (Judge et al., 2005), traits including self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, emotional stability, and locus of control are generally considered as CSE. These traits mutually interact to function in one’s evaluation and together represent a common core (Judge at al., 2003). Mounting empirical findings have shown a positive association of CSE with many important work attitudes and behaviors such as job satisfaction, goal commitment, intrinsic motivation, and work performance (Chang et al., 2012; Koumoundourou et al., 2012).

Drawing on COR theory, we expect that CSE will attenuate the negative affective responses to QJI; that is, when faced with QJI, employees with higher CSE tend to have lower levels of psychological contract violation and job dissatisfaction. Personal characteristics are likely to affect how individuals may react to stressful situations, and high levels of personal resources protect individuals from resource depletion and make them less vulnerable to the threat of resource loss (Hobfoll, 1989). Employees with high CSE hold positive evaluations of their self-worth, competence, and capability (Judge et al., 2005). Those employees may perceive QJI as less threatening and are more confident in their abilities to overcome the stressful situation of QJI. Moreover, individuals with more personal resources tend to evaluate job insecurity as controllable (Vander Elst, Van den Broeck, et al., 2014). Therefore, those with high CSE are expected to have lower levels of negative responses to QJI than their counterparts. Indeed, empirical studies have found that individuals with high CSE are less susceptible to the external environment (Lim & Tai, 2014; McNall, et al., 2011) and less negatively affected by job-related stressors (Harris et al., 2009). Thus, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3

CSE will attenuate the positive relationship between QJI and psychological contract violation.

Hypothesis 4

CSE will attenuate the positive relationship between QJI and job dissatisfaction.

We further expect that QJI is less positively related to work-to-family conflict via psychological contract violation and job dissatisfaction for employees with high CSE. Compared to their counterparts, high-CSE individuals positively evaluate themselves, have optimistic outlooks, and are more confident in their capability to handle stressful situations (e.g., QJI; McNall et al., 2011; Chang et al., 2012). Therefore, high-CSE individuals tend to appraise QJI as less threatening. In other words, by providing mental and emotional resources, CSE can attenuate the association of QJI with negative affective reactions (e.g., anger, dissatisfaction) and their consequences in family domain (i.e., work-to-family conflict). Empirical studies also found that CSE plays a moderating role in the link between stressors, strain, and behavioral reactions (Lim & Tai, 2014). Based on the above theoretical arguments and empirical evidence, we propose that QJI has a weaker effect on work-to-family conflict via psychological contract violation and job dissatisfaction for those with high CSE, compared to their counterparts with low CSE. Thus, we propose:

Hypothesis 5

CSE will attenuate the indirect effect of QJI on work-to-family conflict via psychological contract violation.

Hypothesis 6

CSE will attenuate the indirect effect of QJI on work-to-family conflict via job dissatisfaction.

Method

Sample and Procedures

The study was approved by the ethical review board of a public university in central China. Four-wave survey data were collected from a sample of alumni from several universities located in the central part of China. We approached our participants when they just entered the organizations (T0). The online questionnaires were distributed to potential participants by WeChat (a Chinese multi-purpose messaging, social media, and mobile payment app), and 350 of them returned the completed questionnaires. In this survey, demographic information and CSE were measured. Since researchers suggest that the first 3 months of employees’ tenure often involve a lot of changes in their work attitudes and behaviors (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013), we measured variables of interest 3 months later (T1) to avoid confounding such “on-boarding” effects with our research findings. Thus, we tested our hypotheses in a general context rather than the special context of newcomers. For the interval between T1 and T2 as well as T2 and T3, we used a time lag of 1 month to minimize the common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). At T1, we distributed the second-wave survey that measured QJI to respondents, and 228 of 350 participants (65.1%) returned the completed questionnaires¹. One month after T1 (i.e., at T2), 228 respondents were invited to participate in the third-wave survey, measuring their psychological violation and job dissatisfaction, and 208 of them completed the survey (91.2%). Finally, 202 respondents (97.1%) completed the fourth-wave of survey 1 month after the previous one (i.e., at T3), which measured their work-to-family conflict. Each participant was paid 10 RMB as an incentive for participating in each survey.

After matching, we had 126 respondents (53.2% women, 46.8% men) with an average age of 22.53 (SD = 2.26) who had participated in all the surveys. Participants were from different industries including manufacturing (17%), services (79%), and others (4%). Also, they were in a variety of departments, including technology (20%), administration (29%), finance (10%), marketing (21%), and others (20%)².

Measures

The questionnaires were in Mandarin Chinese and we followed a back-translation procedure to translate scales that were not originally developed in Mandarin Chinese.

Core Self-Evaluations (T0)

Core self-evaluations were measured using Judge et al.’s (2003) 12-item scale. Sample items were “When I try, I generally succeed” and “Sometimes failure makes me feel useless (reversely coded).” Six items were reversely coded. Employees rated each item on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “totally disagree” to 6 = “totally agree.” Cronbach’s alpha was .83.

Qualitative Job Insecurity (T1)

Qualitative job insecurity was measured by a four-item scale developed by Caplan et al. (1975), reflecting one’s level of certainty about job security in the future. Items were “Based on your actual work experience in the last month, how certain are you about what your future career picture looks like?” “How certain are you about the opportunities for promotion in the next few years?” “How certain are you about your job skills will still be useful in the next five years?” and “How certain are you about your responsibilities in your company in the next six months?” Employees were asked to indicate their certainty about each item on a 6-point Likert scale (from 1 = “completely uncertain” to 6 = “completely certain”). Each item was reversely coded with higher scores denoting higher levels of QJI. Studies in Chinese contexts showed that this QJI scale had high Cronbach’s alpha (e.g., Lu et al., 2014: α = 0.77; Wang et al., 2015: α = 0.78 and α = 0.88; Long et al., 2021: α = 0.82 and α = 0.77). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha was .81.

Psychological Contract Violation (T2)

Psychological contract violation was assessed by a four-item scale developed by Robinson and Morrison (2000), reflecting participants’ negative emotions, such as anger, disappointment and sadness. A sample item was that “I feel a great deal of anger toward my organization.” All of the items were rated on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “totally disagree” to 6 = “totally agree”. Cronbach’s alpha was .90.

Job Dissatisfaction (T2)

Two items from Job Satisfaction Scale (JSS) of Michigan organization assessment questionnaire (Cammann et al., 1979) was used to measure job satisfaction: “All in all I am satisfied with my job” and “In general, I like working here.” Participants reported their job satisfaction on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “totally disagree” to 6 = “totally agree”. The correlation between the two items was .79 (p < .001).

Work-to-Family Conflict (T3)

A three-item scale was used to measure work-to-family conflict (Powell et al., 1984). Participants were asked to indicate their agreement with the statements, ranging from 1 (“totally disagree”) to 6 (“totally agree”). A sample item was “I have anxiety about my job frequently spilled over into my home life.” Previous studies using this work-to-family conflict scale showed that its Cronbach’s alpha was above 0.70 (Nikandrou et al., 2008: α = 0.76; De Clerq & Belausteguigoitia, 2017: α = 0.77). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.80.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics and correlations among all focal variables. Before testing the hypotheses, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine the discrimination validity of our measurements through maximum likelihood estimation with Mplus 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012). The hypothesized model had a better fit (χ² = 101.10, df = 59, CFI = .95, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .08) than alternative models (see Table 2). These results supported the discriminant validity of our focal variables.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Inter-correlations.

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Qualitative job insecurity (T1)	3.23	0.96	—
2. Job dissatisfaction (T2)	3.00	0.98	0.44**	—
3. Psychological contract violation (T2)	2.69	1.04	0.30**	0.47**	—
4. Work-to-family conflict (T3)	3.32	1.14	0.18*	0.33**	0.29**	—
5. Core self-evaluations (T0)	3.94	0.63	−0.27**	−0.17 +	−0.22*	−0.29^**	—

Note: N = 126. T0 = Time 0, T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2, T3 = Time 3. ⁺p < .10, ^* p < .05, ^** p < .01, two-tailed.

Table 2.

Results of Measurement Models.

Measurement Models	Df	χ²	CFI	TLI	SRMR	RMSEA
1. Hypothesis model	59	101.104	0.948	0.932	0.052	0.076
2. Alternative model 1 (combining psychological contract violation and job dissatisfaction)	62	214.005	0.813	0.765	0.097	0.141
3. Alternative model 2 (combining job insecurity and psychological contract violation)	62	246.452	0.773	0.715	0.125	0.156
4. Alternative model 3 (combining job insecurity and job dissatisfaction)	62	196.382	0.835	0.792	0.086	0.133
5. Alternative model 4 (combining psychological contract violation and work-to-family conflict)	62	224.799	0.800	0.748	0.106	0.146
6. Alternative model 5 (combining job dissatisfaction and work-to-family conflict)	62	211.267	0.816	0.769	0.094	0.140

Note. CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

Testing the Mediation Hypotheses

The mediation hypotheses were tested with Mplus 7.4. In this mediation model, QJI was positively related to psychological contract violation (b = 0.32, p = .00) and job dissatisfaction (b = 0.45, p = .00); psychological contract violation (b = 0.19, p = .07) and job dissatisfaction (b = 0.29, p = .01) were positively related to work-to-family conflict. We used bootstrapping estimates and constructed bias-corrected confidence intervals (90%) to test the indirect effects. The 90% CI was commonly used with small samples (e.g., Bikos & Kocheleva, 2013). As showed in Table 3, the indirect effects of QJI on work-to-family conflict were significant through psychological contract violation T2 (estimate = .06, CI_90% = [0.007, 0.147]) and job dissatisfaction T2 (estimate = 0.13, CI_90% = [0.044, 0.248]). Therefore, Hypotheses 1–2 were supported.

Table 3.

Bootstrapping Results for Indirect Effects and Conditional Indirect Effects.

		Estimate	Upper 5% CI	Lower 5% CI
Indirect Effects
QJI → psychological contract violation → WFC		0.06	0.147	0.007
QJI → Job dissatisfaction → WFC		0.13	0.248	0.044
	Level of CSE	Estimate	Upper 5% CI	Lower 5% CI
Conditional indirect effects
QJI → psychological contract violation → WFC	Low	0.03	0.116	−0.003
QJI → psychological contract violation → WFC	High	0.08	0.185	0.014
QJI→ job dissatisfaction → WFC	Low	0.07	0.171	0.010
QJI→ job dissatisfaction → WFC	High	0.16	0.302	0.052

Note. QJI = qualitative job insecurity; CSE = core self-evaluations; WFC = work-to-family conflict; CI = confidence interval.

Testing the Moderation and the Moderated Mediation Hypotheses

On the basis of the mediation model, we added CSE as a moderator to test the moderation and the moderated mediation hypotheses. The results are shown in Figure 2. The interactive term was significantly related to psychological contract violation T2 (b = 0.13, p = .05) and job dissatisfaction T2 (b = 0.16, p = .00). The moderation was plotted in Figures 3 and 4. Contrary to our hypotheses, simple slope tests revealed a stronger, positive relationship of job insecurity with psychological contract violation (b = 0.41, p = .00) and job dissatisfaction (b = 0.59, p = .00) for those with high CSE, yet a weaker relationship of job insecurity with psychological contract violation (b = 0.16, p = .16) and job dissatisfaction (b = 0.26, p = .01) for those with low CSE. Thus, Hypotheses 3–4 were not supported.

Figure 2.

Results of the proposed research model.

Figure 3.

The moderating effect of core self-evaluations (CSE) on the relationship between qualitative job insecurity (QJI) and job dissatisfaction.

Figure 4.

The moderating effect of core self-evaluations (CSE) on the relationship between qualitative job insecurity (QJI) and psychological contract violation.

The results of the conditional indirect effects are summarized in Table 3. It shows that the indirect effect via psychological contract violation was not significant when CSE was low (estimate = .03, CI_90% = [−0.003, 0.116]) but significant when CSE was high (estimate = .08, CI_90% = [0.014, 0.185]); the indirect effect via job dissatisfaction was weaker when CSE was low (estimate = 0.07, CI_90% = [0.010, 0.171]) than when CSE was high (estimate = 0.16, CI_90% = [0.052, 0.302]). Taken together, Hypotheses 5–6 were not supported.

Discussion

In this study, we examined why and when QJI may affect employee work-to-family conflict. The results based on four-wave time-lagged data showed that QJI was positively related to work-to-family conflict via psychological contract violation and job dissatisfaction, supporting our hypotheses. Yet, contrary to our expectations, QJI was more strongly related to psychological contract violation and job dissatisfaction for employees with high CSE compared to those with low CSE. In other words, employees with higher CSE were more sensitive to QJI, although their psychological contract violation was generally lower than the counterparts (see Figure 4). Additionally, CSE strengthened the indirect effect of QJI on work-to-family conflict. That is, the negative consequences of QJI are more likely to spread to an employee’s family life when employees have higher (vs. lower) positive self-evaluations.

Theoretical Implications

Our study contributes to the extant literature in several ways. First, the majority of job insecurity research has focused on the quantitative aspect of job insecurity (De Witte et al., 2010), while its qualitative nature is less frequently studied (Van den Broeck et al., 2014) despite its prevalence and detrimental consequences. Our study demonstrated that the effect of QJI spreads to the family domain, suggesting that QJI has a broader range of consequences beyond the work domain (Hu et al., 2021). In addition, the limited research that has investigated the relationship between job insecurity and work-to-family conflict was based on samples from American and European countries (Richter et al., 2010). Our findings support that such a relationship also exists in an Eastern cultural context. Meanwhile, we enrich the work-family literature by identifying QJI as an antecedent of work-to-family conflict. Compared to other work stressors, QJI concerns one’s career growth and economic security (Hellgren et al., 1999), thus, potentially having more direct and serious consequences with regard to family and personal life.

Second, although researchers have found that QJI triggers employees’ emotional reactions (Callea et al., 2019; De Witte et al., 2010; De Cuyper & De Witte, 2006), they have overlooked the possibility that the negative work-related affect may transmit the impact of QJI to ones’ family life. So far, only two studies have examined the underlying mechanisms of quantitative job insecurity and work-to-family conflict. Based on longitudinal data from Swedish teachers, Richter et al. (2010) hypothesized and found that quantitative job insecurity was associated with increased workload, which then contributed to their experienced work-to-family conflict. Nauman et al. (2020) hypothesized and found that work withdrawal and emotional exhaustion mediated the relationship between quantitative job insecurity and work-to-family conflict. By conceptualizing QJI as the perceived threat of losing employment-related resources, we examined a negative affective process from the lens of COR theory. Though COR theory has been an important theoretical framework in quantitative job insecurity studies, it is seldomly applied to the context of QJI (see Hu et al., 2021; Van Hootegem & De Witte, 2019 for two exceptions). To our knowledge, there is only one study using COR theory to explain the relationship between QJI and work-to-family conflict (i.e., Hu et al., 2021). However, this study did not reveal the mechanism through which QJI impacted one’s family life. Our results showed that QJI triggered employees’ affective reactions, draining their mental and emotional resources, which, in turn, harm the quality of the family life. Therefore, our study broadened COR theory by applying it in the context of QJI and provided a more nuanced understanding of why experiencing QJI may be harmful to employees’ family life.

Finally, we made an attempt to address the question of who may experience less negative affect resulting from QJI and a subsequently lower level of work-to-family conflict. Building on the COR perspective, we hypothesized that QJI would lead to less negative affective reactions (i.e., psychological contract violation and job dissatisfaction) and subsequent work-to-family conflict when employees have high levels of personal resources (i.e., CSE). Opposing our hypotheses, our results suggest that, in a situation of QJI, employees with high CSE were more negatively influenced compared to those with low CSE. Regarding these unexpected findings, we speculate that employees holding a positive sense of self have higher expectations on their job features and career growth; they tend to think that they deserve the good treatment from their employer in terms of working conditions, salary development, career opportunities, etc. (Judge et al., 2005). As QJI fails their expectations, those with high CSE may be more upset and feel more betrayed by the organization and more dissatisfied with the job compared to those with low CSE. In contrast, employees with low CSE do not have a positive evaluation of themselves. Those employees tend to have low self-efficacy and self-esteem, reflected as low self-perceived value (e.g., being less capable, significant, and worthy) as an organizational member (Judge et al., 2005). Indeed, Callea et al. (2019) found that quantitative job insecurity had a stronger negative effect on job satisfaction among employees with high self-esteem. Previous studies have also shown that individuals with high (vs. low) CSE react more badly to unfavorable work situations (e.g., organizational politics, Kacmar et al., 2009).

Practical Implications

Our findings also have several practical implications. First, our results show that employees in a situation of QJI tend to experience more work-to-family conflict. Managers and employees should be aware of the negative spillover effect of QJI on the family life. We suggest that, to help employees effectively deal with QJI, interventions should be aimed at reducing its detrimental consequences in the work domain as well as the non-work domain. For example, organizations could promote work-life balance programs such as flexible working arrangements to enhance employees’ time and energy resources available for their family life. Second, our results suggest that minimizing psychological contract violation and job dissatisfaction induced by QJI can be an effective way of reducing work-to-family conflict. Managers may consider increasing communication with employees about their future job features to reduce uncertainty, and encouraging employees to freely discuss about their worries (Robinson & Morrison, 2000). In doing so, the detrimental effects of QJI are less likely to spill over to the nonwork domain. Finally, employees with high CSE in general are good performers and tend to be satisfied with the job and committed to the organization (Chang et al., 2012). However, our findings suggest that these employees are more negatively impacted by QJI than their counterparts. Managers should pay more attention to those employees in the context of organization change where employee feelings of job insecurity are more prevalent and stronger.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

It should be noted that there are several limitations to our study. First, as all the variables in our study are reported by focal employees, common method variance may have inflated the relationships among variables (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986), despite the use of multi-wave surveys. Future research may seek to obtain data from multiple sources. For example, focal employees report their own perceptions, feelings, or attitudes, while a family member or partner reports the focal employee’s work-to-family conflict. In addition, we did not measure all concepts at each time point, preventing us from testing the directionality. We, therefore, did not evaluate change in the outcome and mediators of job insecurity nor control for the previous levels of the outcome and mediators when testing our hypotheses. Future studies will benefit from using a longitudinal design to confirm our results and rule out other possible patterns of causality (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010).

Second, participants in our study are quite young and many of them may not be married or have children. Consequently, these young, unmarried participants may have fewer family burdens (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Thus, our study could be seen as a conservative test of the relationship between QJI and work-to-family conflict. We recommend future research to replicate these findings in different types of samples.

Third, researchers suggest use “ten times rule of thumb” (Barclay et al., 1995) as rough estimate of the required sample size. In particular, it is suggested that the bar for adequate sample size is 10 times the amount of the parameters. According to this rule, our sample size (N = 126) is adequate for the analysis of the mediation model with 11 parameters and nearly adequate for the analysis of the moderated mediation model with 15 parameters. Nevertheless, our sample size is relatively small, which is partly due to the low response rate at T1 (65.10%). To improve response rate in longitudinal studies, we suggest that researchers may need to take some feasible measures, such as sending greeting emails or launching lottery activities to keep in touch with participants. Together, we recommend future studies to conduct research with larger sample size to confirm and increase generalizability of our findings.

Fourth, although our research focused on the affective mechanism linking QJI to employee work-to-family conflict, there are other mechanisms worth exploring. For example, previous research has revealed perceived control as an underlying mechanism linking QJI to employee outcomes (Vander Elst, Richter, et al., 2014). We suggest that perceived control may also explain why QJI is associated with family-to-work conflict. In fact, we did assume that the loss of perceived control may explain why QJI would lead to negative affect. We, however, did not measure such a mechanism. We encourage researchers to examine this theoretical perspective in future studies. Besides, job insecurity is related to self-concept and self-identity (especially work-related aspects, e.g., organization-based self-esteem, Lin et al., 2018). Research has also found that in a long-time frame, job insecurity may change one’s personality traits (Wu et al., 2020). Thus, it might be possible that CSE can serve as a mediator linking job insecurity to work-to-family conflict in the long run.

Fifth, we note that the unitary factor structure of the scale does not allow us to analyze components of CSE. In the current study, we measured CSE with a 12-item scale developed by Judge et al. (2003, p. 306), who argued that this measure is “a direct measure, because it is designed to precisely measure the underlying concept itself rather than the indicators of the concept.” As such, empirical studies in the COR literature treat and examine CSE as a single construct (e.g., St-Onge et al., 2020). Although we are not able to use and test separate dimensions, future research will benefit from investigating the moderating effects of dimensions of CSE (self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, neuroticism, and locus of control). Further, despite the moderator of CSE that we focused in the current study, we suggest that researchers could further extend our findings by exploring other moderators. For example, from the lens of sense of control, we suggest that perceived qualitative employability, which reflects the perception of one’s ability to get jobs with better quality (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2011), may help to buffer the negative effects of QJI. Moreover, employees may alleviate the negative effects of QJI by actively managing the risks of job-feature loss. Previous studies suggest that, through impression management, employees could reduce their job insecure feelings (Huang et al., 2013). Thus, we suggest future research to examine the moderating effect of impression management in the context of QJI.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We acknowledge the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Projects 72071086; 71772072; 72132001).

ORCID iD

Hai-Jiang Wang

Notes

Author Biographies

Ziyi Li is a PhD student of Business Administration at Huazhong University of Science and Technology in China. She is interested in job insecurity, proactive behavior and helping behavior. In her free time, she enjoys diving and crossfit. (Email: liziyizoe@163.com; Mailing address: 1037 Luoyu Road, Wuhan, Hubei, 430074, China; Phone: +8615517606622).

Hao-Yun Zou is a PhD student of Business Administration at Huazhong University of Science and Technology in China. She is interested in work stress, social networks, and newcomer socialization and adjustment. In her free time, she enjoys drawing. (Email: zouhaoyun@hust.edu.cn; Mailing address: 1037 Luoyu Road, Wuhan, Hubei, 430074, China; Phone: +8615927432093)

Hai-Jiang Wang (corresponding author) is an associate professor of management at Huazhong University of Science and Technology. He received his PhD in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands. He is interested in work design and job crafting in the contexts of algorithm management, job insecurity and workplace aging. He is sitting on the Editorial Boards of Journal of Vocational Behavior and Management and Organizational Review. In his free time, he likes to run or drink. (Email: wanghaijiang@hust.edu.cn; Mailing address: School of Management, Rm 677, 1037 Luoyu Road, Wuhan, China; Office Phone: +862787559024; Fax: +862787556437)

Lixin Jiang is a senior lecturer of Industrial and Organizational Psychology at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. She received her PhD in Psychology from Washington State University, USA. She is interested in Occupational Health Psychology in general and job insecurity and workplace safety in particular. She is currently the Deputy Editor of Stress and Health and sitting on the Editorial Boards of Journal of Organisational Behaviour and Occupational Health Science. In her free time, she enjoys traveling and reading. (Email: l.jiang@auckland.ac.nz; Mailing address: Building 301, Room 235B, 23 Symonds Street, CBD, Auckland 1010, New Zealand; Phone: +6499239278)

Yan Tu is a lecturer of work and organizational psychology at Central China Normal University in China. She received her PhD in Business Administration from Huazhong University of Science and Technology. She is interested in job insecurity, work stress, and regulatory focus. In her free time, she enjoys drawing and reading. (Email: 13260590691@163.com; Mailing address: 152 Luoyu Road, Wuhan, Hubei, 430079, China; Phone: +8613260590691)

Yi Zhao is an employee at the Human Resource Department, Hangzhou International Airport. She received her Master degree in Business Administration at Huazhong University of Science and Technology in China. She is interested in work stress and work-family conflict. In her free time, she enjoys reading. (Email: zhaoy.joy@foxmail.com; Mailing address: 1037 Luoyu Road, Wuhan, Hubei, 430074, China; Phone: +8613469991448)

References

Barclay

Higgins

Thompson

(1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), 285-309.

Bikos

L. H.

Kocheleva

(2013). Life role salience dimensions and mental health outcomes among female expatriate spouses in Turkey. Journal of Career Development, 40(2), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845311427906

Callea

Lo Presti

Mauno

Urbini

(2019). The associations of quantitative/qualitative job insecurity and well-being: The role of self-esteem. International Journal of Stress Management, 26(1), 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000091

Cammann

Fichman

Jenkins

Klesh

(1979). The Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire. University of Michiganthe United States of America. Unpublished manuscript.

Caplan

R. D.

Cobb

French

J. R. P.

Van Harrison

Pinneau

S. R.

(1975). Job demands and worker health. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Chang

C.-H.

Ferris

D. L.

Johnson

R. E.

Rosen

C. C.

Tan

J. A.

(2012). Core self-evaluations: A review and evaluation of the literature. Journal of Management, 38(1), 81–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311419661

De Clercq

Belausteguigoitia

(2017). The relationship between tenacity and knowledge exchange in a Mexican organization: Moderating effects of within-work and work–family role conflict. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24(2), 246–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051816664680

De Cuyper

De Witte

(2006). The impact of job insecurity and contract type on attitudes, well‐being and behavioural reports: A psychological contract perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(3), 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X53660

De Cuyper

De Witte

(2011). The management paradox: Self‐rated employability and organizational commitment and performance. Personnel Review, 40(2), 152–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481111106057

10.

De Witte

De Cuyper

Handaja

Sverke

Näswall

Hellgren

(2010). Associations between quantitative and qualitative job insecurity and well-being: A test in Belgian banks. International Studies of Management & Organization, 40(1), 40–56. https://doi.org/10.2753/IMO0020-8825400103

11.

Deng

Coyle-Shapiro

Yang

(2018). Beyond reciprocity: A conservation of resources view on the effects of psychological contract violation on third parties. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(5), 561–577. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000272

12.

Edwards

J. R.

Rothbard

N. P.

(2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 178–199. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791609

13.

Greenhalgh

Rosenblatt

(1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 438–448. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4279673

14.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Beutell

N. J.

(1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4277352

15.

Harris

K. J.

Harvey

Kacmar

K. M.

(2009). Do social stressors impact everyone equally? An examination of the moderating impact of core self-evaluations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(2), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9096-2

16.

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398311

17.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513

18.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing Conservation of Resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(3), 337–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062

19.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Halbesleben

Neveu

J.-P.

Westman

(2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640

20.

Huang

G. H.

Zhao

H. H.

Niu

X. Y.

Ashford

S. J.

Lee

(2013). Reducing job insecurity and increasing performance ratings: Does impression management matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 852–862. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033151

21.

Jiang

Probst

T. M.

Liu

(2021). The relationship between qualitative job insecurity and subjective well-being in Chinese employees: The role of work-family conflict and work centrality. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 42(2), 203–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X18759793

22.

Judge

T. A.

Bono

J. E.

Erez

Locke

E. A.

(2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.257

23.

Judge

T. A.

Erez

Bono

J. E.

Thoresen

C. J.

(2003). The core self‐evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 303–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00152.x

24.

Kacmar

K. M.

Collins

B. J.

Harris

K. J.

Judge

T. A.

(2009). Core self-evaluations and job performance: The role of the perceived work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1572–1580. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017498

25.

Kammeyer-Mueller

Wanberg

Rubenstein

Song

(2013). Support, undermining, and newcomer socialization: Fitting in during the first 90 days. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1104–1124. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0791

26.

Koumoundourou

G. A.

Kounenou

Siavara

(2012). Core self-evaluations, career decision self-efficacy, and vocational identity among Greek adolescents. Journal of Career Development, 39(3), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845310397361

27.

Lee

Huang

G. H.

Ashford

S. J.

(2018). Job insecurity and the changing workplace: Recent developments and the future trends in job insecurity research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 335–359. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104651

28.

Lim

Tai

(2014). Family incivility and job performance: A moderated mediation model of psychological distress and core self-evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 351–359. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034486

29.

Lin

X. S.

Chen

Z. X.

Ashford

S. J.

Lee

Qian

(2018). A self-consistency motivation analysis of employee reactions to job insecurity: The roles of organization-based self-esteem and proactive personality. Journal of Business Research, 92, 168-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.028.

30.

Long

L. R.

Wang

H. J.

Jiang

(2021). The content of the threat matters: The differential effects of quantitative and qualitative job insecurity on different types of employee motivation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37(2), 297-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09746-3.

31.

C. Q.

Wang

H. J.

J. J.

D. Y.

Bakker

A. B.

(2014). Does work engagement increase person–job fit? The role of job crafting and job insecurity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(2), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.12.004

32.

McNall

L. A.

Masuda

A. D.

Shanock

L. R.

Nicklin

J. M.

(2011). Interaction of core self-evaluations and perceived organizational support on work-to-family enrichment. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 145(2), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2010.542506

33.

Morrison

E. W.

Robinson

S. L.

(1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 226–256. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/259230

34.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

35.

Nauman

Zheng

Naseer

(2020). Job insecurity and work–family conflict: A moderated mediation model of perceived organizational justice, emotional exhaustion and work withdrawal. International Journal of Conflict Management, 31(5), 729–751. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-09-2019-0159

36.

Nikandrou

Panayotopoulou

Apospori

(2008). The impact of individual and organizational characteristics on work‐family conflict and career outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(5), 576–598. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940810884540

37.

Parzefall

M. R.

Coyle‐Shapiro

J. A. M.

(2011). Making sense of psychological contract breach. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(1), 12–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941111099592

38.

Ployhart

R. E.

Vandenberg

R. J.

(2010). Longitudinal research: the theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36(1), 94–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352110

39.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J.-Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

40.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Organ

D. W.

(1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and Prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408

41.

Powell

G. N.

Posner

B. Z.

Schmidt

W. H.

(1984). Sex effects on managerial value systems. Human Relations, 37(11), 909–921. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678403701103

42.

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X09358370

43.

Robinson

S. L.

Morrison

E. W.

(2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(5), 525–546. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1379(200008)21:5<525::aid-job40>3.0.co;2-t

44.

Robinson

S. L.

Rousseau

D. M.

(1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3), 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030150306

45.

Roth

P. L.

Switzer

F. S.

(1995). A Monte Carlo analysis of missing data techniques in a HRM setting. Journal of Management, 21(5), 1003–1023. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100511

46.

Russell

J. A.

(1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714

47.

Smith

C. A.

Ellsworth

P. C.

(1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 813–838. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.4.813

48.

St-Onge

Haines III

V. Y.

III Ballesteros-Leiva

Poilpot-Rocaboy

(2020). Core self-evaluations, social support and life-domain conflicts. Personnel Review, 50(4), 1112–1127. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-03-2020-0146

49.

Ten Brummelhuis

L. L.

Bakker

A. B.

(2012). A resource perspective on the work–home interface: The work–home resources model. American Psychologist, 67(7), 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027974

50.

Urbanaviciute

Lazauskaite-Zabielske

Vander Elst

De Witte

(2018). Qualitative job insecurity and turnover intention: The mediating role of basic psychological needs in public and private sectors. Career Development International, 23(3), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-07-2017-0117

51.

Van den Broeck

Sulea

Elst

T. V.

Fischmann

Iliescu

De Witte

(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. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-05-2013-0063

52.

Van Hootegem

De Witte

(2019). Qualitative job insecurity and informal learning: a longitudinal test of occupational self-efficacy and psychological contract breach as mediators. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(10), 1847–1870. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16101847

53.

Vander Elst

Richter

Sverke

Näswall

De Cuyper

De Witte

(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 & Stress, 28(2), 143–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2014.899651

54.

Vander Elst

Van den Broeck

De Cuyper

De Witte

(2014). On the reciprocal relationship between job insecurity and employee well‐being: Mediation by perceived control? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(4), 671–693. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12068

55.

Wang

H. J.

C. Q.

Siu

O. L.

(2015). Job insecurity and job performance: The moderating role of organizational justice and the mediating role of work engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4f), 1249–1258. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038330

56.

C. H.

Wang

Parker

S. K.

Griffin

M. A.

(2020). Effects of chronic job insecurity on Big five personality change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(11), 1308–1326. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/apl0000488

57.

Zhou

George

J. M.

(2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682–696. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069410