Profiles of Decent Work and Precarious Work: Exploring Macro-Level Predictors and Mental Health Outcomes

Abstract

Using a person-centered approach, this study explored the interrelationship between decent work and precarious work via a latent profile analysis (LPA). This investigation sought to replicate the latent profiles from Blustein and colleagues (2020) and extend the results by examining the role of individual lifetime experiences of macro-level factors (economic constraints and marginalization) as predictors and selected mental health indices (depression and anxiety) as outcomes of profile membership. Using a sample of 422 working adults in the U.S., the findings of the LPA yielded four profiles (indecent-precarious, low healthcare-low rights, highly decent, and vulnerability dominant), replicating four out of the five of the profiles identified in Blustein et al. Informed by psychology of working theory (PWT) and precarity theory, we assessed a structural model of the aforementioned predictors and outcomes in relation to profile membership. Consistent with theoretical expectations, economic constraints and marginalization positively predicted profiles that reflected greater instability and precarity. In addition, the profiles that reflected greater instability and precarity predicted both depression and anxiety. Implications for theory, counseling practice, public policy, and new directions in research are presented.

Keywords

precarious work decent work psychology of working work and mental health latent profile analysis

Although attention to work conditions has been evident in vocational, counseling, and organizational psychology for many decades, the individual focus on how people manage work-related tasks has tended to overshadow contextual factors (see Blustein & Duffy, 2020; Brewster & Molina, 2021; Duffy et al., 2016; McWhirter & McWha-Hermann, 2021 for critiques of the individualistic ethos). As reflected in previous research, the nature, antecedents, and outcomes of diverse work contexts are essential factors in shaping the work lives of people across the globe (e.g., Blustein, 2019; Christie et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2020). One particularly illuminating theme in this work pertains to the accessibility of decent and stable work, which is associated with positive individual and systemic outcomes (e.g., Allan et al., 2021; Brill, 2021; Pereira et al., 2019). Two noteworthy ways of defining these attributes are the International Labor Organization’s decent work construct (ILO; a multinational institution affiliated with the United Nations; (International Labor Organization, 2008) and precarious work (Allan et al., 2021; Kalleberg, 2018). Decent work refers to the baseline criteria of minimally acceptable conditions for workers across the globe, which the ILO established as a means of advocating for better work conditions. Precarious work refers to unstable, short-term, and often part-time work that does not consistently offer social and legal protections (Allan et al., 2021; Kalleberg, 2018). These two dimensions reflect essential aspects of contemporary work, particularly in relation to rising uncertainty in the labor market, growing precarity, and ongoing violations of the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda (Blustein et al., 2022; ILO, 2022). In this study, we examine decent work and precarious work via the lens of a person-centered analysis (Hofmans et al., 2020; Pereira et al., 2019), which provides a means of determining unique groups of people distinguished by their responses to a given set of attributes (in this case, decent work and precarious work).

The emergence of decent work and precarious work as important indices of work conditions is linked to the rapid and often unpredictable changes that are taking place in the world of work across the globe. Many of these changes are associated with neoliberal policies that have resulted in diminished worker protections, reduced labor union power and prevalence, deindustrialization, and the gig economy (Blustein, 2019; Brill, 2021). Changes in the workplace are mirrored in rising precarity across life contexts, resulting in growing levels of vulnerability and insecurity (Blustein et al., 2022). Decent work and precarious work reflect two dimensions that capture the level of decency and stability of a given work context and have significant relevance to individual functioning and public policy about work. As such, examining the relationship between decent work and precarious work as well as identifying theoretically-informed predictors and outcomes can enrich the literature and inform policy. Therefore, the goals of the present study were to (a) replicate Blustein et al.’s (2020) LPA study of decent work and precarious work and (b) extend these findings by incorporating individual perceptions of structural predictors (individual lifetime experiences of economic constraints and marginalization) and mental health outcomes (depression and anxiety) of a group membership.

We chose a latent profile analysis (LPA) approach to provide an in-depth perspective on how indicators of decent work and precarious work uniquely combine to differentiate groups of people. In contrast to methodologies that aggregate individual responses or phenomena, LPA defines coherent groups of responses across variables to create “a cross-sectional clustering of individuals to latent groups…” (Spurk et al., 2020, p. 3). This study assesses the replicability of the profiles that Blustein et al. (2020) identified of decent work and precarious work, thereby providing a much-needed means of validating latent profiles, which is essential in advancing research and practice/policy innovations (Spurk et al., 2020). The profiles that were identified by Blustein et al. (2020) revealed the role of vulnerability as a major factor in the workplace, an inverse relationship between decent work and precarious work, and the important role of access to healthcare in contemporary work in the U.S. These results have yielded significant insights into the nature of work conditions that are not readily discernible via traditional quantitative methodologies, thereby meriting replication and further elaboration. By integrating replication and exploration of new relations, this study provides both confidence in the structure of the profiles and new knowledge about predictors and outcomes of these profiles.

We also explore two important macro-level factors—economic constraints and marginalization—as predictors of profile membership. Our approach to these two factors is informed by psychology of working theory (PWT; Duffy et al., 2016), which assesses these constructs via the lens of individuals’ self-reports of their lifetime experiences of economic constraints and marginalization. (Please note that the terms “macro-level,” “economic constraints,” and “marginalization” are used in this paper to reflect individual self-reports of these factors.) In addition, we examine the role of anxiety and depression, two notable mental health indices that are conceptually and empirically linked to various work-related constructs (Allan et al., 2022; Harvey et al., 2017; Paul & Moser, 2009), as potential outcomes of membership in decent work and precarious work profiles. The theoretical threads that link these constructs derive from PWT and precarity theory, which are reviewed next.

Theoretical Frameworks: Psychology of Working Theory and Precarity Theory

PWT is a broad, multifaceted theory that explores the complex interwoven connections between one’s work-life, relationships, and experiences of oppression based on social and economic macro-level factors, psychological needs, and well-being outcomes (Blustein & Duffy, 2020; Duffy et al., 2016). More specifically, PWT suggests that lifetime experiences of marginalization and economic constraints shape one’s access to developing career adaptability and work volition. These macro-level and psychological factors predict securing decent work and fulfilling core psychological needs identified by PWT, including survival, social contribution, and self-determination, which optimally culminate in work fulfillment and well-being (Duffy et al., 2016). In this study, we consider decent work and precarious work in tandem as the center of the PWT model, given that these two constructs represent a broad continuum of work conditions. The outcome variables used in this study—depression, and anxiety—reflect elaborations of well-being that have the potential to deepen understanding of PWT as well as questions about the outcomes of relevant macro-level factors and decent work and precarious work.

Precarity theory (Blustein et al., 2022) seeks to explain how people understand, react to, and resist existential threats and uncertainty, which are growing attributes of life for many people across the globe (Butler, 2012; Han, 2018). While changes in work are notable contexts for precarity, radical shifts in health (due in part to COVID-19), as well as political crises, climate change, and ongoing struggles related to marginalization and oppression, have created a broader sense of instability. Precarity theory has also been linked to PWT; the synthesis of these two theories underscores the powerful role of structural barriers in constraining access to decent and stable work and in creating and sustaining precarious lives (Blustein et al., 2022). A fundamental tenet of precarity theory is that sources of precarity are differentially distributed in society, with marginalized communities experiencing far more insecurity (Han, 2018). Another important factor in precarity theory is that people strive for stability and that the absence of a sense of security can result in psychological distress (Blustein et al., 2022). As such, precarity theory supports the rationale for exploring the latent profiles of precarious work and decent work and examining macro-level predictors and mental health outcomes of these profiles.

Decent Work and Precarious Work

In contrast to other constructs in vocational and organizational psychology, decent work represents a social policy that is an outgrowth of the (International Labor Organization, 2008) Decent Work Agenda. The ILO developed the concept of decent work to reflect its four strategic objectives: “the promotion of rights at work; employment; social protection; and social dialogue” (Somavia, 1999, p. 6). Initially, decent work was defined via economic indicators, which provided information about the prevalence of decent work within communities and regions (Brill, 2021). Recent reviews have revealed that the aspiration of attaining decent work as a global standard has not been fulfilled, with notable deficits in decent work conditions evident across the globe (Brill, 2021; Pereira et al., 2019). Moreover, access to decent work has been significantly attenuated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has forced many workers to contend with increasingly dangerous health conditions and other sources of stressors (ILO, 2022).

In this study, decent work is operationalized by a psychological self-report measure that assesses individuals’ experience of decent work conditions (Decent Work Scale; DWS; Duffy et al., 2017). The Decent Work Scale includes five factors (safe conditions, access to health care; adequate compensation; time for rest; congruent values with the employer) that are derived from the ILO’s definition of decent work. From an individual perspective, deficits in decent work predict physical and mental health challenges, difficulties in fulfilling fundamental work-based and survival needs, and less access to meaningful work (Blustein et al., 2020; Brill, 2021; Duffy et al., 2019a, 2019b; Pereira et al., 2019). From a systemic perspective, lack of decent work is associated with political instability, inequity, poverty, and other social and economic outcomes that create adversity for people and communities (ILO, 2022). In addition, research using the DWS has revealed that economic constraints and marginalization predict deficits in decent work (Blustein & Duffy, 2020). However, to capture a fuller picture of work conditions, exploring the intersection of decent work and precarious work, as revealed in LPA, will be maximally informative.

Precarious work “is unstable and insecure in the continuity and quantity of work, restricts the power of workers to advocate for change, and does not provide protection from workplace abuses and unsafe working conditions…” (Allan et al., 2021, p. 2). Adding a measure of precarious work to decent work has the benefit of elaborating on the work conditions constructed within PWT. Specifically, precarious work represents one prominent way that work can be indecent for people, as reflected in the insecure nature of the work arrangements, diminished worker voice, lower wages, and lack of access to the benefits of full-time, decent work (Allan et al., 2021; Kalleberg, 2018). While it is not the only way work can be indecent, precarious work reflects a global trend that increasingly challenges workers and societies facing emerging work conditions that are not well-understood. Including precarious work and decent work in tandem, therefore, can elaborate two salient work conditions that are conceptually-related, yet distinct. For example, while both decent and precarious work focus on the adequacy of wages, the precarious work construct frames this consideration within the context of the stability and security of a given job, whereas decent work’s focus is broader.

In this study, we use a self-report measure of precarious work (Employment Precariousness Scale; EPRES: Vives et al., 2010; Vives et al., 2013), which assesses: vulnerability (a lack of power and agency to advocate for better conditions); inadequate wages (the perception of inadequate compensation particularly in relation to unexpected expenses); inadequate rights (the absence of family leave, severance pay, pension, and unemployment benefits); and inability to exercise rights (limitations in one’s capacity to take time off for vacations or being ill). Research using the EPRES has revealed that precarious work is inversely associated with job satisfaction and predicts physical and psychological health challenges (Vives et al., 2013). In a psychologically-informed review of precarious work, Allan et al. (2021) argued that more research is needed to unpack the nuanced meaning and outcomes of precarious work, which is one of the primary objectives of this investigation.

Integrating Decent Work and Precarious Work

From a conceptual standpoint, several scholars have argued that decent work and precarious work reflect opposite points along a continuum of work conditions (Allan et al., 2021; Seubert et al., 2021). The integration of decent work and precarious work offers an essential perspective on work conditions, capturing both the ILO’s global initiative to create a standard for work and an increasingly disconcerting level of precarity in the workplace. Synthesizing these constructs via LPA offers the possibility of gaining insights into the nature of work in ways that are not easily discernible at the present time. For example, the Blustein et al. (2020) profile analysis, which integrated both the DWS and the EPRES, revealed informative perspectives about the intersection of decent work and precarious work. In their analysis, five profiles emerged that each contained key attributes distinguishing them from the other profiles: (1) indecent-precarious; (2) highly decent; (3) low health care-low rights; (4) vulnerability-dominant; (5) health care-stability. Furthermore, using variables suggested by PWT (Duffy et al., 2016), work volition, age, income level, and educational level predicted membership in profiles in theoretically consistent ways. The profiles also differentially and meaningfully predicted relevant outcomes, including autonomy, survival needs, social contribution, and job/life satisfaction. When considered collectively, these findings underscore the role of access to health care as a prominent feature of decent work in the U.S. and, inversely as an attribute of precarious work. Similarly, Kim et al. (2020) conducted a profile analysis of only the DWS, revealing the prominence of access to health care within the U.S. However, the addition of precarious work to decent work in the profile analysis by Blustein et al. (2020) identified the importance of vulnerability (a factor of precarious work that highlights the cost of precarity), further supporting psychological analyses of the nature and impact of decent work and precarious work (Allan et al., 2021; Blustein et al., 2022). The Blustein et al. study also provided sound support for inferences about the inverse relationship between decent work and precarious work. Despite the promise of these findings, questions remain: For example, how stable are these profiles? And what additional predictors and outcomes can be used to deepen knowledge about the nature of decent work and precarious work?

Predictors of Profile Membership: Economic Constraints and Marginalization

PWT posits that individual self-reports of lifetime experiences of economic constraints and marginalization are key factors that directly and indirectly influence an individual’s ability to secure decent and stable work (Duffy et al., 2019a). Economic constraints consist of having limited access to economic resources (e.g., household income, family wealth, savings) and social capital (Duffy et al., 2016), which are critical to educational achievement, access to decent work, and career development resources (Diemer & Ali, 2009). Marginalization refers to the relegation of individuals or groups to less powerful positions within society (Duffy et al., 2016), which hinders the capacity of individuals with socially marginalized identities to secure decent and stable work (Blustein & Duffy, 2020; Duffy et al., 2018). For example, marginalization creates oppressive barriers such as discriminatory hiring practices, income inequality, and hostile working environments that negatively affect an individual’s ability to attain decent and stable work. Accordingly, economic constraints and marginalization are associated with the ability to obtain decent work in many vulnerable populations (Douglass et al., 2017; Duffy et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2020). However, no research to date has been conducted on the role of these two predictors on conjoint profiles of decent work and precarious work.

Mental Health Outcomes of Decent Work and Precarious Work

Both personal and work-related experiences intertwine in people’s lives, with each domain’s stressors seeping into the other (Richardson, 2012). This can particularly occur with work affecting mental health, either positively or negatively. For example, individuals working in decent jobs tend to endorse better mental health due to fulfilling the core PWT needs of survival, social contribution, and self-determination (Duffy et al., 2019b). Conversely, unemployment and underemployment precipitate mental health problems (e.g., Allan et al., 2022; Paul & Moser, 2009).

To extend these studies with a person-centered approach, we included measures of depression and anxiety to capture multiple dimensions of mental health. We elected to focus on depression and anxiety because of the prevalence of these issues in the working context and because of their centrality in considerations about mental health and psychological treatments (Paul & Moser, 2009; Rasool et al., 2019; Spitzer et al., 2006). Characterized by a sad or irritable mood, loss of interest in activities, poor concentration, and excessive guilt or hopelessness, depression is a leading cause of disability worldwide (World Health Organization, 2021). In the workplace, depression is associated with “toxic” work environments (e.g., harassment, bullying, and ostracism), harming productivity directly or indirectly (Rasool et al., 2019). Often occurring in tandem with depression, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is characterized by feelings of excessive worry, fear, or feelings of impending doom (Spitzer et al., 2006). These two mental health measures also are associated with many social inequities, including poverty and inadequate or challenging work conditions (Ridley et al., 2020).

The Present Study

This study seeks to deepen our understanding of the relationship between decent work and precarious work by replicating the latent profiles identified by Blustein et al. (2020) and identifying relevant macro-level predictors and mental health outcomes of latent profiles of these critical work conditions. After determining the ideal number of profiles, we used profile assignments to create dummy codes (with highly decent work as the referent) to use in a structural equation model. The theoretical underpinnings of the structural model used in this study are derived from PWT and precarity theory, which suggest the role of lifetime experiences of economic constraints and marginalization as predictors of work conditions; in turn, adverse work conditions are theoretically linked to both depression and anxiety. This approach to exploring the predictors and outcomes of the profiles allowed us to control shared variance among variables (e.g., economic constraints and marginalization) while removing the error inherent to observed variables. Given the conceptual rationale for this study and the findings Blustein et al. reported on their LPA of decent work and precarious work, we predicted that the replication would yield a similar array of profiles. We also predicted that economic constraints and marginalization would predict a greater likelihood of membership in profiles characterized by precarious or indecent work and that membership in these groups would predict greater depression and anxiety.

Method

Participants

Four hundred and 22 adults with a mean age of 36.05 years (SD = 10.746) comprised the sample. In terms of gender, 271 participants identified as male (64.2%), 145 as female (34.4%), and 3 as other (0.7%). Three hundred 17 participants identified as White/European American/Caucasian (75.1%), 48 as African/African American/Black (11.4%), 29 as Asian/Asian American (6.9%), 25 as Hispanic/Latina/o American (5.9%), 9 as American Indian/Native American/First Nation (2.1%), 1 as Arab American/Middle Eastern (.2%), 5 as Asian Indian (1.2%), 1 as Pacific Islander (0.2%), and 4 as other (0.9%). Participants’ incomes were less than $25,000 (n = 62, 14.7%), $25,000–$50,000 (n = 148, 35.1%), $51,000–$75,000 (n = 94, 22.3%), $76,000–$100,000 (n = 60, 14.2%), $101,000–$125,000 (n = 22, 5.2%), $126,000–$150,000 (n = 13, 3.1%), $151,000–$175,000 (N = 6, 1.4%), $176,000–$200,000 (n = 7, 1.7%), $201,000 + (n = 4, 0.9%). Participants reported that their highest level of education obtained was less than high school (n = 0, 0.0%), some high school (n = 2, 0.5%), high school graduate (n = 40, 9.5%), trade/vocational school (n = 22, 5.2%), some college (n = 89, 21.1%), college degree (e.g. BA, B.S.) (n = 212, 50.2%), and professional degree (e.g., M.BA, M.S., PhD, M.D., etc.) (n = 54, 12.8%).

Measures

Decent Work Scale

The Decent Work Scale (DWS; Duffy et al., 2017) is a fifteen-item self-report assessment of the participant’s level of decent work at their current job that was developed from the (International Labor Organization, 2008) definition of decent work; the measure includes five dimensions: safe working conditions (e.g., “I feel physically safe interacting with people at work”), access to health care (e.g., “I get good healthcare benefits from my job”), adequate compensation (e.g., “I am rewarded adequately for my work) time for rest (e.g., “I have free time during the work week”), and congruence of values with one’s employer (e.g., “My organization’s values align with my family values”). Participants were asked to indicate their agreement with each statement on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Both general and factor scores have shown excellent reliability in prior research utilizing the DWS. Evidence supporting the validity of the DWS can be inferred from the theoretically predictive relationships between decent work and positive work-related outcomes, including satisfying survival and self-determination needs, work fulfillment, and social contribution (Blustein & Duffy, 2020). The estimated internal consistencies in the present study were: safe working conditions (α = .82), access to health care (α = .96), adequate compensation (α = .85), time for rest (α = .84), and congruent values (α = .91).

Precarious Work Scale

We selected several subscales from the EPRES measure created by Vives et al. (2010) to assess self-reports of precarious work. Consistent with the Blustein et al. (2020) study, we chose the following subscales of the EPRES to assess precarious work because of their centrality to the definition of precarious work used in this study: vulnerability, inadequate wages, inadequate rights, and inability to exercise rights. The vulnerability and rights measures asked participants to respond “yes” or “no” to a series of questions (e.g., “You feel afraid to demand better work conditions” and “I have a right to paid vacations”). The exercise rights subscale asked participants how often they can achieve benefits (e.g., sick leave, take vacations) on a Likert scale from 1–4 ranging from “almost never” to “often.” Higher scores on the EPRES subscales indicate greater levels of precarity; research has shown consistently high reliability using the measure (Blustein et al., 2020; Vives et al., 2010). Additionally, previous research has revealed an association between EPRES scores and relevant physical and psychological health indicators, supporting the validity of EPRES (Blustein et al., 2020; Vives et al., 2010). The estimated internal consistencies in the present study were: vulnerability (α = .90), inadequate wages (α = .80), inadequate rights (α = .77), and inability to exercise rights (α = .89).

Marginalization

We used the Lifetime Experiences of Marginalization Scale (LEMS) developed by Duffy et al., 2019a as a measure of marginalization. The LEMS uses a prompt that defines marginalization as being relegated to a less powerful position, being socially excluded, or having less access to resources based on membership to a specific group (see Duffy et al., 2019a for the full prompt). Participants then completed a four-question survey. Each question asked participants to rate on a 7-point Likert scale their agreement or disagreement with a statement (e.g., “Throughout my life, I have had many experiences that have made me feel marginalized”). Previous research using the LEMS has shown high levels of reliability (Duffy et al., 2019a). In addition, scores on the LEMS were associated in predictable ways with related constructs (e.g., everyday discrimination; Duffy et al., 2019a), supporting the validity of this measure. The estimated internal consistency in the present study was α = .96.

Economic Constraints

We selected the 5-item Economic Constraints Scale (ECS; Duffy et al., 2019a, 2019b) to assess perceived lifetime economic constraints, assessing such barriers as limited economic or financial resources (e.g., “Throughout most of my life, I have struggled financially”). High scores on the ECS reflect higher levels of economic constraints experienced across one’s lifetime. The ECS has demonstrated strong reliability and validity, as reflected in the predictable correlation between ECS and social status, annual income, and subjective social class (Duffy et al., 2019a). The estimated internal consistency in the present study was α = .97.

Depression

To assess depression, we used the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977), which is a 20-item measurement that reflects major dimensions of depression, including depressed mood, feelings of guilt and worthlessness, feelings of helplessness, and hopelessness, psychomotor retardation, loss of appetite, and sleep disturbance. Sample items include, “I was bothered by things that usually don’t bother me” and “I thought my life had been a failure.” Participants were asked to respond to each statement on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “Rarely or none of the time” to “Most or all of the time.” Higher scores indicate more depressive symptoms. The validity of the scale is supported by the moderate correlations of the CES-D with other measures of depression (Radloff, 1977). The estimated internal consistency in the present study was α = .95.

Anxiety

We selected the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder −7 (GAD-7; Spitzer et al., 2006) to assess generalized anxiety. Higher scores on the GAD-7 reflect more severe anxiety symptoms. Items begin with the prompt, “Over the last 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by the following problems?” and sample items include “Feeling nervous, anxious or on edge” and “Worrying too much about different things.” Participants were asked to respond to each statement on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “Not at all” to “Nearly every day.” Supporting construct validity, scores from the GAD-7 correlate with other measures of anxiety, such as the Beck Anxiety Inventory. The estimated internal consistency in the present study was α = .94.

Procedure

After receiving IRB approval from our university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), we recruited participants through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) during the summer of 2019. This platform, which provides a means for people to complete surveys for payment, has been increasingly used in counseling and vocational psychology research for quantitative and qualitative research designs (Blustein et al., 2020; Duffy et al., 2017). This study was advertised with the statement: “You are being asked to participate in a research study to understand people’s experience of working in the United States, particularly those who are struggling in obtaining stable work.” Participants had to meet several inclusion criteria to participate in the study. Inclusion criteria are as follows: (1) 18 years of age or older, (2) currently employed at least part-time, and (3) currently living and working in the United States. The participants who met eligibility criteria and volunteered to participate in the study were taken to a Qualtrics survey. Before beginning the survey, participants read an informed consent page explaining the procedures, risks and benefits, compensation, confidentiality, and voluntary participation and withdrawal. After acknowledging the informed consent page, participants answered survey questions which took between 15 and 25 minutes. Participants were rewarded $3 for their time completing the survey.

A total of 516 participants initially accessed the survey. However, we removed 13 participants who did not respond correctly to three attention check items (e.g., “Please select strongly agree”), 20 participants who completed only demographic questions, and ten who did not provide data for decent work and precarious work. Finally, to further ensure data quality, we created two new validity items that identified significant gaps between similarly worded items (DeSimone et al., 2015). We removed 51 participants with highly improbable differences between items, which yielded the final sample size of 422.

Analysis Plan

For our analyses, we first conducted latent profile analysis (LPA) in Mplus using robust maximum likelihood estimation (Muthén et al., 2017), which is an inductive and exploratory modeling approach that detects heterogeneous population subgroups based on the means of observed continuous indicators (Nylund et al., 2007; Oberski, 2016; Spurk et al., 2020). Following Blustein and colleagues’ (2020) approach, we used the five decent work subscales from the DWS (safety, health, pay, rest, and values) and four precarious work subscales from the EPRES (vulnerability, wages, rights, and exercise rights) as indicators.

To identify the ideal number of latent profiles, we used the Bayesian information criterion (BIC), the bootstrapped likelihood-ratio test (BLRT), the adjusted Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test (LMR), and entropy. We also examined the solutions for theoretical and conceptual consistency (Spurk et al., 2020). Lower values of BIC indicate a better fit when comparing models, and we also examined BIC plots to observe plateauing (Masyn, 2013). Models with higher entropy are better distinguished, with values greater than .80 indicating good differentiation (Spurk et al., 2020). Finally, the BLRT and LMR compare a given model to a model with one less profile using a log-likelihood difference test. If the test is significant, this suggests that the current model improved upon the model with one less profile (Spurk et al., 2020). To examine whether profiles differed on the indicator variables, we incorporated profile assignments into our dataset in SPSS and conducted a series of one-way ANOVA tests. We first conducted Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance and used Welch’s F test and Games-Howell post hoc tests if significant. Otherwise, we used Bonferroni post hoc tests.

To examine our hypotheses related to predictors and outcomes of profile membership, we tested a single latent structural model. To create variables for the model, we first generated three dummy variables for the profile groups (e.g., 0 = all other groups and 1 = indecent-precarious group). We used the highly decent group as the reference group because it represented the aspiration group with the greatest well-being, need satisfaction, and volition (Blustein et al., 2020). We then used individual scale items as indicators for corresponding latent variables. However, given that the CES-D scale had 20 items, we created four parcels for this variable by conducting an exploratory factor analysis and assigning items to parcels according to their factor loading size so that the parcels would have approximately equivalent factor loadings (Weston & Gore, 2006). Within the model, we allowed variables on the same level to correlate (e.g., the predictors) but did not allow direct relations from the predictors to the outcomes. To evaluate fit, we used the chi-square test (χ²), the comparative fit index (CFI; ≥ .95), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; ≥ .06), and the standardized root-mean-residual (SRMR; ≥ .08) (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Given that we had categorical variables, we used the diagonally weighted least squares (WLSMV) estimator in Mplus.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

No variable distributions evidenced severe skew or kurtosis, and absolute values were within acceptable ranges (Weston & Gore, 2006). In terms of missing data, 60.9% (n = 257) of participants had no missing data, 31.0% (n = 131) were missing data on one variable, and the remaining 2.7% (n = 12) were missing data on three or more variables. However, Little’s missing completely at random test (Little, 1988) was not significant, χ² (366) = 343.12, p = .799, which suggests that the data was missing completely at random. Therefore, we used full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data in Mplus and pairwise deletion within SPSS (Schafer & Graham, 2002).

Latent Profile Analysis

Table 1 displays the metrics for determining the ideal number of profiles. While BLRT was not informative, LMR indicated that the four-profile solution was the best. BIC values continued to decline with each additional profile, but the BIC plot had a clear elbow at four profiles and plateaued after that. Entropy for the four-profile solution was also higher than all other solutions (.91), and classification probabilities were excellent for each profile (.92, .91, .98, and .95, respectively). Despite the four-profile solution being superior, we examined the five-profile solution to observe whether it aligned with Blustein and colleagues (2020) findings. The five-profile solution replicated Blustein and colleagues (2020) findings exactly, including a profile missing from the four-profile solution – healthcare stability. Therefore, the five-profile solution replicated previous findings but was not the best fit for our data.

Table 1.

Comparison of Models in Latent Profile Analyses.

Model	LL	BLRT p-value	LMR	BIC	Entropy
1-Profile	—	—	—	10,413.14	—
2-Profile	−4709.36	<.001	<.001	9587.99	.86
3-Profile	−4574.80	<.001	.057	9379.31	.87
4-Profile	−4437.40	<.001	.003	9164.96	.91
5-Profile	−4379.22	<.001	.409	9109.05	.87
6-Profile	−4333.74	<.001	.233	9078.55	.88
7-Profile	−4300.83	<.001	.510	9073.17	.87
8-Profile	−4265.97	<.001	.518	9063.90	.88

Note. LL = Loglikelihood BLRT = Bootstrap likelihood-ratio test, LMR = Adjusted Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test, BIC = Bayesian information criterion.

Figure 1 depicts the four profiles, which align with four of the five profiles found by Blustein and colleagues (2020): indecent-precarious, low healthcare-low rights, highly decent, and vulnerability dominant. Table 2 reports the mean differences between these groups on the indicator variables. The indecent-precarious group (11.8%) had consistently low decent work and high precarious work variable scores; the low healthcare-low rights group (16.1%) had low access to healthcare and high precariousness with respect to rights; the highly decent group (40.8%) had high decent work and low precarious work variable scores; and the vulnerability dominant group (21.3%) reported high vulnerability, low safety, and low time for rest.

Figure 1.

Four-profile solution for decent and precarious work.

Table 2.

Mean Differences Across the Four Profiles.

	η²	Indecent-Precarious	Low Health Care-Low Rights	Highly Decent	Vulnerability Dominant
Safety	.42	13.76_a (3.81)	18.53_b (2.37)	19.27_b (2.03)	14.89_a (2.80)
Access to healthcare	.78	5.00_a (2.72)	5.32_a (2.68)	18.28 (2.69)	13.35 (6.10)
Fair pay	.42	6.62 (3.51)	11.63_a (4.62)	16.40 (4.14)	11.41_a (2.97)
Time for rest	.47	8.30 (4.35)	14.74 (3.80)	17.27 (3.33)	11.40 (3.11)
Values	.39	8.14 (3.59)	14.06_a (3.57)	16.91 (3.33)	13.43_a (3.45)
Vulnerability	.56	15.71_a (5.51)	9.13 (3.10)	7.47 (2.40)	17.12_a (5.10)
Wages	.36	7.32 (1.48)	5.87 (1.58)	3.94 (1.44)	5.24 (1.50)
Rights	.49	11.03_a (1.38)	10.66_a (1.42)	7.49 (1.43)	8.53 (1.43)
Exercise rights	.35	18.98 (4.22)	11.60_a (4.93)	9.27 (3.96)	13.30_a (4.11)

Note. Subscripts indicate means that are not significantly different. Otherwise, all means are significantly different at p < .001.

As a secondary analysis, we examined the relationship between demographic variables and profile membership. Age, F(3, 414) = 2.17, p = .091, and gender, χ² (3) = 0.26, p = .967, were not related to profile membership. However, education – having or not having a college degree – was related to profile membership, χ² (3) = 36.83, p < .001. Specifically, people without a college degree were significantly overrepresented in the indecent-precarious (count = 27; expected = 18.7) and low health care-low rights (count = 43; expected = 25.1) groups and underrepresented in the vulnerability dominant group (count = 34; expected = 48.8). Finally, for race, we examined white participants and participants of color, which was significant, χ² (3) = 10.64, p = .014. However, none of the expected versus actual counts were significantly different.

Structural Model

Table 3 displays the correlations and descriptive statistics for the variables used in the structural model. We first tested a measurement model to evaluate whether indicators loaded appropriately onto their factors. The measurement model had good fit, χ² (191) = 276.55, p < .001, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .03, 90% CI [.02, .04], and SRMR = .03, and all variables loaded on their factors at .79 or above. The structural model also had good fit, χ² (195) = 274.50, p < .001, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .03, 90% CI [.02, .04], and SRMR = .05. Figure 2 displays the standardized coefficients for the structural model. Economic constraints positively predicted the indecent-precarious dummy variable (.48) and the low healthcare-low rights dummy variable (.32), whereas marginalization negatively predicted the low healthcare-low rights dummy variable (−.23) and positively predicted the vulnerability dominant dummy variable (.46). All three dummy variables predicted anxiety and depression (indecent-precarious: .49, .59; low healthcare-low rights: .28, .23; vulnerability dominant: .67, .73).

Table 3.

Correlations Among Study Variables.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Indecent-Precarious	—
2. Low healthcare-low rights	−.16**	—
3. Vulnerability dominant	−.25**	−.30**	—
4. Economic constraints	.30**	.13**	.24**	—
5. Marginalization	.16**	−.02	.38**	.56**	—
6. Generalized anxiety	.21**	−.06	.35**	.46**	.42**	—
7. Depression	.29**	−.10	.41**	.54**	.48**	.84**	—
Mean	.12	.16	.31	18.62	10.23	5.28	15.44
Standard Deviation	.32	.37	.46	9.01	5.43	5.62	13.38

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01.

Figure 2.

Structural Model with Economic Constraints and Marginalization Predicting Mental Health via Profile Groups. Note. **p < .01. Correlations among profiles groups, nonsignificant paths, factor loadings, and error terms are not shown.

Discussion

The results from this study yielded a strong fitting solution that replicated four out of the five profiles reported in Blustein et al. (2020) and extended knowledge about the meaning and implications of these profiles. As such, the results from this study provide greater confidence in the structure of the profiles of decent work and precarious work. In addition, the relationships found in the structural equation model that served as an insightful explication of the predictors and outcomes of profile membership were consistent with theoretical expectations.

The LPA yielded the following four profiles, which were also identified in the Blustein et al. (2020) study: indecent-precarious, low healthcare-low rights, highly decent, and vulnerability dominant. The indecent-precarious profile was conceptually consistent with the dimensions of decent work and precarious work loading on an opposite valence, yielding a somewhat more coherent profile than the Blustein et al. profile that included a modestly elevated level of adequate compensation. The low health care-low rights profile was characterized by the same configuration found in the Blustein et al. (2020) study: low levels of rights at work and a lack of access to health care were complemented by low levels of vulnerability and somewhat elevated levels of safe work conditions. As suggested by Blustein et al., the low health care-low rights profile may reflect the uniquely U.S. conundrum of growing precarious work that does not include access to health insurance, coupled with safe work conditions and a relative absence of vulnerability. The highly decent profile also replicated the structure of the Blustein et al. version of this profile. The structure of the vulnerability-dominant profile was relatively consistent with the Blustein et al. profile, reflecting a particularly precarious status with elevated levels of vulnerability and lower levels of safety and time for rest.

When considered collectively, the relative stability of these profiles in relation to the Blustein et al. (2020) study offers greater confidence in the inferences derived about these configurations. Second, the findings support conceptual frameworks describing decent work and precarious work as opposite poles on a continuum (Allan et al., 2021; Seubert et al., 2021). However, the profiles offer greater nuance in understanding the nature of these relationships. For example, the roles of vulnerability and access to health care were prominent in some of the profiles in ways that were not consistent with the direction of other variables within decent work and precarious work, respectively. Thus, the relationship between decent and precarious work needs to be carefully considered for different groups of individuals, which may reflect diverse interactions between individual attributes and contextual factors.

Predictors of Profile Membership

In this study, we explored the role of self-reported lifetime experiences of economic constraints and marginalization as predictors of profile membership, which yielded findings consistent with PWT (Duffy et al., 2016), precarity theory (Blustein et al., 2022), and related perspectives in vocational and organizational psychology (Brewster & Molina, 2021; McWhirter & McWha-Hermann, 2021). Specifically, the findings suggest that economic constraints and marginalization predicted membership in the three profiles characterized by different manifestations of indecent and precarious work. First, compared to being in the highly decent work group, greater economic constraints were associated with a greater likelihood of being in the indecent-precarious and low healthcare-low rights groups. In contrast, greater marginalization was associated with a greater likelihood of being in the vulnerability-dominant group and a smaller likelihood of being in the low healthcare-low rights group. Therefore, economic constraints might be the predominant structural factor restricting people to work conditions characterized by a lack of decent work and access to benefits. In contrast, marginalization may be more relevant for vulnerable and unsafe work environments. Taken together, these findings suggest that economic constraints and marginalization may create independent pathways to different work conditions, which has wide-reaching implications for understanding how profiles of workers manifest over the lifespan. For example, these results add significant complexity to PWT and encourage future research into how economic constraints and marginalization unfold over time to shape different constellations of decent and precarious work.

Outcomes of Profile Membership

The results of the two outcomes in this study–depression and anxiety--provide further insights into the nature and consequences of indecent and precarious work; in short, work conditions and lifetime experiences of economic constraints and marginalization matter deeply to mental health. The differential nature of the standardized coefficients provides some insights into the nature of the relations between the profiles and mental health outcomes. The indecent-precarious and vulnerability-dominant profile dummy codes strongly predicted depression and anxiety, but the vulnerability-dominant dummy variable had the largest relations. In addition, while the low health care-low rights dummy variable also predicted depression and anxiety, this effect was not as strong as the two dummy variables that captured core elements of indecent and precarious work. Therefore, the experiences of vulnerability, precarity, and insecurity may be predominant factors for mental health. These observations are consistent with previous research (Allan et al., 2022; Duffy et al., 2018, 2019b) and relevant theory (Blustein et al., 2022; Duffy et al., 2016). For example, the strong predictive power of the vulnerability-dominant dummy variable suggests that the experience of precarity may be fundamental in understanding how work connects with mental health, which contributes to an emerging literature on the effects of uncertainty in contemporary life. As Blustein et al. (2022) stated, “precarity is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon that reflects the human impact of disruption, existential threat, uncertainty, and instability” (p. 11). This sense of precarity, which may be rooted in work but not limited to this context, may represent a notable risk factor for the development of depression and anxiety.

Implications for Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy

A promising conceptual lens that may be useful in explaining the relations identified in this study is in the literature on precarity. As indicated earlier, precarity reflects the overriding sense of instability and vulnerability that is pervasive and often rooted in intersecting sources of dominance and privilege (Blustein et al., 2022; Butler, 2012; Han, 2018). The model presented in this study provides a template for understanding selected aspects of precarity in the work context. The precarity literature clearly implicates “the differential distribution of a common human vulnerability” (Han, 2018, p. 339) that characterizes precarious lives. The predictors of the model capture the essence of inequity and social oppression as reflected in economic constraints and marginalization, which were robust predictors of profile membership. Similarly, the nature and stability of the profiles highlight the close relationships between decent work and precarious work, which illuminates the complex and pernicious ways that precarity is reflected in work. The mental health outcomes also reflect the profound human costs of such political and economic systems as neoliberalism, racism, and late-stage capitalism (Blustein, 2019; Brewster & Molina, 2021; Erby et al., 2021), thereby supporting the core premises of precarity theory.

The findings also are informative to PWT, which framed this investigation. The emergence of relatively consistent profiles in this study and the Blustein et al. (2020) investigation provides further support for elaborating the decent work construct in the PWT model. Adding precarious work to decent work may provide further insights into the explanatory potential of PWT. Moreover, expanding the overall range of work conditions may be useful as scholars continue to refine PWT, including such constructs as dignity at work and relational support at work. In addition, the role of the mental health variables in this study further elaborates the range of well-being constructs that have been used as outcomes in PWT. Finally, the strong role of economic constraints and marginalization affirms the powerful role of macro-level barriers in understanding how people navigate their work lives.

Several promising research directions follow from this study and related investigations (e.g., Allan et al., 2022; Blustein et al., 2020; Duffy et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2020). The meaningful relations identified between decent work and precarious work point to a useful direction in enriching conceptualizations of decent work. For example, developing an integrative scale of decent work and precarious work would be helpful in promoting further research on these essential work conditions. In addition, the prominence of vulnerability in this study coupled with recent advances in precarity theory suggests that exploring the nature of the underlying experience of precarity would be informative. Further elaborations of the nature of the macro-level factors and mental health outcomes would be useful; for example, multilevel modeling using global macro-level factors combined with the individual constructs used in this study might yield important insights into the nature of the relations explored in this study.

From a practice perspective, the results support the utility of social justice-informed frameworks in mental health and work-based interventions. The findings point to the pervasive role of economic constraints and marginalization in shaping access to decent and stable work. PWT-informed interventions provide a valuable framework for attending to individual and systemic factors in individual counseling and systemic change efforts (Blustein et al., 2019). In addition, the consistent relations between various work-based factors and mental health indices (Allan et al., 2022; Duffy et al., 2018) provide support for integrative interventions. Numerous models of integrative interventions exist, each of which has created both strong rationales and approaches for intervening in work and mental health issues (e.g., Blustein et al., 2021; Richardson, 2012). Richardson’s richly informative model for counseling for work and relationships is a particularly apt framework for practitioners who seek to develop skills and sensitivity to the complex ways that work and non-work contexts intersect.

The findings have important implications as well for public policy. First, the results from this study and related research support the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda (e.g., Brill, 2021), which represents a global effort to improve work conditions. As reflected in these findings and the growing scholarship from PWT-inspired and related research, access to decent work has a broad and deep impact on people’s lives. Policy-based efforts to fully implement the Decent Work Agenda are needed to help move this initiative from an aspiration to a consensually-agreed upon global labor policy. Second, the importance of economic constraints and marginalization implicates the powerful role of social, political, and economic barriers that differentially affect people based on the complex intersection of race, social class, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other social identities. Third, the intersection between work and mental health merits careful attention in reform efforts in both the mental health and work-based fields. As nations and institutions rethink work, efforts must be devoted to ensuring that decent and stable conditions exist in the workplace and that sources of inequity and marginalization are recognized and transformed into supportive and humane institutions. Fourth, the infusion of precarity as an organizing framework points to the need to engage in resistance and advocacy as tools to change the inequitable contexts that constrain the work lives of so many people. Specific interventions that may make a difference would encompass advocating for greater worker rights and protections via expanded power for labor unions as well as active protests about precarious and indecent work (Blustein et al., 2022; Brewster & Molina, 2021).

Limitations and Conclusion

This study had several limitations. First, we used self-report measures, which was mitigated to some extent by the well-documented evidence of validity for the scales used. Second, MTurk as a data source may have limited the scope of the sample. Our use of validity questions provided a means of ensuring that the participants were attending to the questions. Third, the use of a cross-sectional design limits the inferences that can be derived from the results; however, the fact that this study replicated four of the five profiles from a previous study (Blustein et al., 2020) using the same constructs provides confidence in the validity of the findings. Fourth, the use of a U.S.-based sample limits the generalizability of the study. Finally, the use of indices of depression and anxiety limits the scope of the mental health variables; expanding the array of mental health issues would be a useful follow-up in studies of work conditions.

In closing, this study has provided important and unique insights into the nature of decent work and precarious work, affirming the interconnection between these constructs. As reflected in this study, macro-level factors set the stage for access to decent work and precarious work, which are experienced in complex yet predictable ways. In turn, adverse work contexts and conditions are associated with depression and anxiety, underscoring the human costs of ongoing precarity, inequity, instability, and marginalization at work.

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

ORCID iDs

David L. Blustein

Alekzander Davila

References

Allan

B. A.

Autin

K. L.

Wilkins-Yel

K. G.

(2021). Precarious work in the 21st century: A psychological perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 126, Article, 103491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103491

Allan

B. A.

Kim

Shein

(2022). Underemployment and mental health: A longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000610

Blustein

D. L.

(2019). The importance of work in an age of uncertainty: The eroding work experience in America. Oxford University Press.

Blustein

D. L.

Duffy

R. D.

(2020). Psychology of working theory. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 201–236). John Wiley & Sons.

Blustein

D. L.

Kenny

M. E.

Autin

Duffy

(2019). The psychology of working in practice: A theory of change for a new era. Career Development Quarterly, 67(3), 236–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12193

Blustein

D. L.

Perera

H. N.

Diamonti

A. J.

Gutowski

Meerkins

Davila

Erby

Konowitz

(2020). The uncertain state of work in the US: Profiles of decent work and precarious work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 122, Article 103481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103481

Blustein

D. L.

Smith

C. M.

Guarino

P. A.

Joyner

Milo

Bilodeau

D. C.

(2022). “Like a tsunami coming in fast”: A critical qualitative study of precarity and resistance during the pandemic. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000615

Blustein

D. L.

Thompson

M. N.

Kozan

Allan

B. A.

(2021). Intersecting losses and integrative practices: Work and mental health during the COVID-19 era and beyond. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 52(5), 523-532. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000425

Brewster

M. E.

Molina

D. A. L.

(2021). Centering matrices of domination: Steps toward a more intersectional vocational psychology. Journal of Career Assessment, 29(4), 547–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727211029182

10.

Brill

(2021). What is decent work? A review of the literature. In Christie

Antoniadou

Albertson

Crowder

(Eds.), Decent work (pp. 11–26). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80117-586-920211002

11.

Butler

(2012). Precarious life, vulnerability, and the ethics of cohabitation. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 26(2), 134–151. https://doi.org/10.5325/jspecphil.26.2.0134

12.

Christie

Cunningham

Houston

(2020). Overview and Introduction/Covid-19, career guidance and the importance of decent work. Journal of the National Institute for Career Education and Counselling, 44(1), 2–4.

13.

DeSimone

J. A.

Harms

P. D.

DeSimone

A. J.

(2015). Best practice recommendations for data screening. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(2), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1962

14.

Diemer

M. A.

Ali

S. R.

(2009). Integrating social class into vocational psychology: Theory and practice implications. Journal of Career Assessment, 17(3), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072708330462

15.

Douglass

R. P.

Velez

B. L.

Conlin

S. E.

Duffy

R. D.

England

J. W.

(2017). Examining the psychology of working theory: Decent work among sexual minorities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(5), 550. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000212

16.

Duffy

R. D.

Allan

B. A.

England

J. W.

Blustein

D. L.

Autin

K. L.

Douglass

R. P.

Ferreira

Santos

E. J.

(2017). The development and initial validation of the Decent Work Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(2), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000140

17.

Duffy

R. D.

Blustein

D. L.

Diemer

M. A.

Autin

K. L.

(2016). The psychology of working theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(2), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000140

18.

Duffy

R. D.

Dik

B. J.

Douglass

R. P.

England

J. W.

Velez

B. L.

(2018). Work as a calling: A theoretical model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65(4), 423–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000276

19.

Duffy

R. D.

Gensmer

Allan

B. A.

Kim

H. J.

Douglass

R. P.

England

J. W.

Blustein

D. L

Kim

H. J.

(2019a). Developing, validating, and testing improved measures within the psychology of working theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.02.012

20.

Duffy

R. D.

Kim

H. J.

Gensmer

N. P.

Raque-Bogdan

T. L.

Douglass

R. P.

England

J. W.

Buyukgoze-Kavas

(2019b). Linking decent work with physical and mental health: A psychology of working perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 384–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.05.002

21.

Erby

Smith

Blustein

Davila

(2021). Racism and the future of work. Career Planning & Adult Development Journal, 37(2), 167–170.

22.

Han

(2018). Precarity, precariousness, and vulnerability. Annual Review of Anthropology, 47(1), 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102116-041644

23.

Harvey

S. B.

Modini

Joyce

Milligan-Saville

J. S.

Tan

Mykletun

Bryant

R. A.

Christensen

Mitchell

P. B.

(2017). Can work make you mentally ill? A systematic meta-review of work-related risk factors for common mental health problems. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 74(4), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2016-104015

24.

Hofmans

Wille

Schreurs

(2020). Person-centered methods in vocational research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 118, Article 103398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103398

25.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

26.

International Labor Organization . (2022). Decent work and the social solidarity economy. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/–-ed_norm/–-relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_841023.pdf

27.

International Labor Organization . (2008). Work of work report 2008: Income inequalities in the age of financial globalization . Retrieved from: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/publication/wcms_100354.pdf

28.

International Labor Organization . (2012). Decent work indicators: Guidelines for procedures and users of statistical and legal framework indicators. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/–-dgreports/–-integration/documents/publication/wcms_229374.pdf

29.

Kalleberg

A. L.

(2018). Precarious lives: Job insecurity and well-being in rich democracies. John Wiley & Sons.

30.

Kim

Duffy

R. D.

Allan

B. A.

(2020). Profiles of decent work: General trends and group differences. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68(1), 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000434

31.

Masyn

K. E.

(2013). Latent class analysis and finite mixture modeling. In Little

T.D.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of quantitative methods volume 2 (pp. 551–611). Oxford University Press.

32.

McWhirter

E. H.

McWha-Hermann

(2021). Social justice and career development: Progress, problems, and possibilities. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 126, Article 103492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103492

33.

Muthén

B. O.

Muthén

L. K.

Asparouhov

(2017). Regression and mediation analysis using Mplus. Muthén & Muthén.

34.

Nylund

K. L.

Asparouhov

Muthén

B. O.

(2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396

35.

Oberski

(2016). Mixture models: Latent profile and latent class analysis. In Modern statistical methods for HCI (pp. 275–287). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26633-6_12

36.

Paul

K. I.

Moser

(2009). Unemployment impairs mental health: Meta-analyses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 264–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.01.001

37.

Pereira

dos Santos

N. R.

Pais

(2019). Empirical research on decent work: A literature review. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 44(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjwop.53

38.

Radloff

L. S.

(1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306

39.

Rasool

S. F.

Maqbool

Samma

Zhao

Anjum

(2019). Positioning depression as a critical factor in creating a toxic workplace environment for diminishing worker productivity. Sustainability, 11(9), 2589. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092589

40.

Richardson

M. S.

(2012). Counseling for work and relationship. The Counseling Psychologist, 40(2), 190–242. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/0011000011406452

41.

Ridley

Rao

Schilbach

Patel

(2020). Poverty, depression, and anxiety: Causal evidence and mechanisms. Science, 370(6522), eaay0214. https://doi.org/10.3386/w27157

42.

Schafer

J. L.

Graham

J. W.

(2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.7.2.147

43.

Seubert

Hopfgartner

Glaser

(2021). Living wages, decent work, and need satisfaction: An integrated perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30(6), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2021.1966094

44.

Somavia

(1999). Decent work. In report of the director-general to the 87th session of the international labour conference. ILO.

45.

Spitzer

R. L.

Kroenke

Williams

J. B.

Löwe

(2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092–1097. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092

46.

Spurk

Hirschi

Wang

Valero

Kauffeld

(2020). Latent profile analysis: A review and “how to” guide of its application within vocational behavior research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 120, Article 103445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103445

47.

Vives

Amable

Ferrer

Moncada

Llorens

Muntaner

Benavides

F. G.

Benach

(2013). Employment precariousness and poor mental health: Evidence from Spain on a new social determinant of health. Journal of environmental and public health, 2013, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/978656

48.

Vives

Amable

Ferrer

Moncada

Llorens

Muntaner

Benavides

F. G.

Benach

(2010). The employment precariousness scale (EPRES): Psychometric properties of a new tool for epidemiological studies among waged and salaried workers. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 67(8), 548–555. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2009

49.

Weston

Gore

P. A

Jr. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006286345

50.

World Health Organization . (2021). Depression fact sheet. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/depression