Source psikologi: Oktober 2016

Who Suffers More from Job Insecurity?

A Meta-Analytic Review

Grand H.-L. Cheng

University of Queensland, Australia

Darius K.-S. Chan*

The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

The present meta-analysis examined the tenure, age, and gender differences in the relationship between job insecurity and its job-related and health-related consequences. A total of 133 studies, providing 172 independent samples, were included in the analysis. Our results basically replicated Sverke et al.’s (2002) meta-analytic findings with an updated methodological approach and a larger database. The main differences between our findings and Sverke et al.’s are that the negative association between job insecurity and job performance was significant and that the relationship between insecurity and job involvement was smaller in our study. The moderator analysis also indicated that: (1) the positive association between job insecurity and turnover intention was stronger among employees with shorter tenure than those with longer tenure, and was stronger among younger than older employees; (2) the negative effect of insecurity on its health outcomes was more severe among employees with longer tenure than those with shorter tenure, and was more severe among older than younger employees; (3) the relationship between insecurity and the criterion variables was similar across gender. Results are discussed with refer- ence to Hulin’s (1991) theory of job adaptation and Greenhalgh and Rosen- blatt’s (1984) job dependence perspective.

La présente méta-analyse étudie les différences de statut (titulaire ou non), d’âge et de genre dans la relation entre l’insécurité de l’emploi et ses con- séquences relatives au travail et à la santé. Un total de 133 recherches, comprenant 172 échantillons indépendants, a été inclu dans l’analyse. Nos résultats, obtenus avec une approche méthodologique actualisée et sur une plus grande base de données, sont pour l’essentiel congruents avec ceux de la méta- analyse de Sverke et al. (2002). Les différences principales entre nos résultats

* Address for correspondence: Darius Chan, Department of Psychology, The Chinese

University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. Email: dchan@cuhk.edu.hk

The paper is based in part on the first author’s masters thesis, under the supervision of the second author, submitted to the Chinese University of Hong Kong. We would like to thank Dr Robert Haccoun, the action editor, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied Psychology. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

et ceux de Sverke et al. sont les suivantes: d’une part, entre l’insécurité de l’emploi et la productivité la relation est significativement négative, d’autre part la relation entre l’insécurité de l’emploi et l’engagement au travail est moindre dans notre étude. L’analyse indique aussi que: (1) la relation positive entre l’insécurité de l’emploi et l’intention de le quitter est plus forte parmi les employés ayant un contrat à courte durée contrairement à ceux ayant un contrat à plus longue durée et est plus forte parmi les employés les plus jeunes; (2) l’effet négatif de l’insécurité sur la santé est plus important parmi les employés ayant un contrat de longue durée que pour ceux ayant un contrat de plus courte durée, ce qui est aussi le cas pour les employés les plus âgés; (3) le genre n’a pas d’effet sur la relation entre l’insécurité et les variables choisies. Les résultats sont discutés en référence à la théorie de l’adaptation au travail de Hulin (1991) et la perspective de dépendance au travail de Greenhalgh et Rosenblatt (1984).

INTRODUCTION

Job insecurity has received a considerable amount of research attention in recent years (Sverke, Hellgren, & Naswall, 2002). Numerous organisations worldwide have undergone downsizing (Armstrong-Stassen, 2004) to reduce expenditure and raise their effectiveness (Burke & Nelson, 1998). According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2001), a total of 21,345 mass layoffs events occurred there in 2001. Forty-three per cent of the organisations surveyed by the Society for Human Resource Management (2001) reported that they had carried out layoffs, with reductions in 10 per cent and 13 per cent of their locations’ workforces in 2000 and 2001, respec- tively. Long-term employment has become rare. More and more job oppor- tunities are temporary or contract-based (Sparks, Faragher, & Cooper, 2001). All these changes have led to a heightened sense of job insecurity among the workforce worldwide (Hartley, Jacobson, Klandermans, & van Vuuren,

1991).

The purpose of the present meta-analysis was to examine how three demo- graphic variables of employees, namely, organisational tenure, age, and gender, moderated the relationship between job insecurity and its job-related and health-related consequences. We argue that it is important to examine these moderating effects for four reasons. First, after 25 years of job insecurity research, little is known about who would suffer more from job insecurity than others. Specifically, as described below, there are conflicting views and inconsistent findings on how organisational tenure, age, and gender may moderate the effects of job insecurity on its outcomes. The present meta- analysis will help fill this gap in the job insecurity literature.

Second, investigating the moderating effects of demographic variables helps advance our understanding of the underlying psychological processes of job insecurity and is essential for theoretical development in this field. For instance, Sverke and his colleagues (2002) examined how occupational status

moderates the relationship between job insecurity and its consequences. The results shed light on how job dependence, which is reflected by occupational status, moderates the effect of job insecurity on its outcomes (discussed below). In the present study, through examining the moderating effects of tenure, age, and gender, we tested predictions drawn from the theory of job adaptation (Hulin, 1991) and the job dependence perspective (Green- halgh & Rosenblatt, 1984) on how different employees may react to job insecurity.

Specifically, Hulin’s (1991) theory of job adaptation suggests how organ- isational commitment and job involvement may moderate the relationship between job insecurity and its consequences. While organisational tenure was not included in the original formulation of Hulin’s theory, it has con- sistently been found to be associated with organisational commitment and job involvement (Brown, 1996; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). It is reasonable to conceptualise the moderating effects of tenure by referring to the theory of job adaptation. In a similar vein, Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt’s (1984) job dependence perspective predicts how occupational mobility and economic insecurity may moderate the relationship between job insecurity and its consequences. While age and gender were not included in Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt’s original idea, these two demographic variables are associated with occupational mobility and economic insecurity (Kuhnert & Vance,

1992; Rosenblatt, Talmud, & Ruvio, 1999). We thus argue that the moder- ating effects of age and gender can be conceptualised with reference to the job dependence perspective. In other words, there is theoretical basis for proposing these moderating effects.

Third, understanding who would suffer more from job insecurity merits examination because of its practical implications. A sense of insecurity has a negative impact on employees’ health and elicits withdrawal cognitions such as turnover intention (Sverke et al., 2002). Health problems and volun- tary turnover of employees are detrimental to organisational effectiveness and are costly to organisations (Ramlall, 2003; Sagie, Birati, & Tziner, 2002; Sparks et al., 2001). It is essential for organisations to know if certain employees suffer more from job insecurity than others (Probst, 2000; Sparks et al., 2001).

Fourth, the previous meta-analysis of job insecurity by Sverke et al. (2002) revealed that there were large variations in the effect sizes of the relationship between job insecurity and its outcomes. However, some of these variations were not explained by the moderators identified by Sverke et al. (i.e. type of measure and occupational status). The present meta-analysis, using a larger database and different meta-analytic proce- dures, attempted to extend Sverke et al.’s findings by examining whether organisational tenure, age, and gender would account for some of these variations.

Definition and Conceptualisation of Job Insecurity

Davy, Kinicki, and Scheck (1997) defined job insecurity as an employee’s “expectations about continuity in a job situation” (p. 323). Similarly, van Vuuren and Klandermans (1990) defined job insecurity as an individual’s “concern about the future permanence of the job” (p. 133), and Heaney, Israel, and House (1994) defined the construct as an individual’s “percep- tion of a potential threat to continuity in his or her current job” (p. 1431). All in all, researchers have generally regarded job insecurity as “an overall concern about the continued existence of the job in the future” (Sverke et al., 2002, p. 243; see also De Witte, 1999), and it is often assessed in terms of respondents’ perceived probability of job loss (e.g. Mohr, 2000).

Job insecurity is a job stressor (Ashford, Lee, & Bobko, 1989; Probst, 2002; Sverke et al., 2002), which not only brings about negative psychological and physical health (Crandall & Perrewe, 1995; Quick & Tetrick, 2003), but also negative job-related reactions. According to the theory of job adaptation (Hulin,

1991), employees would attempt to alleviate job dissatisfaction through various job adaptation responses. For instance, employees may withdraw themselves from the stressor by being less satisfied with the job and less committed to the organisation, and having a stronger intention to leave the organisation (Davy et al., 1997; Probst, 2000, 2002). In fact, the meta-analysis conducted by Sverke and his colleagues (2002) showed that job insecurity was negatively related to job satisfaction, organisational commitment, trust, and job involve- ment, and was positively related to turnover intention. In addition, job insecurity was negatively related to psychological and physical health.

The Relationship between Job Insecurity and its

Consequences

Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) identified a number of factors that may moderate the relationship between job insecurity and its consequences. Spe- cifically, they suggested that social support, job dependence, and individual differences like work orientation may moderate the effect of job insecurity. Job insecurity may be particularly stressful to those who lack social support and/or tend to rank work high in their lives. Job dependence is a function of occupational mobility (the perceived likelihood of finding a similar job in another organisation) and economic insecurity (the perceived inability to meet living expenses if losing the current job). According to Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt’s job dependence perspective, employees who are highly depend- ent on their current jobs should suffer more from and react more strongly to job insecurity.

Sverke et al.’s (2002) meta-analysis examined the moderating effects of type of measure of job insecurity and occupational status of employees on

the relationship between job insecurity and its consequences. They found that the negative effect of job insecurity on job satisfaction, trust, and per- formance was stronger when job insecurity was captured by multiple-item than by single-item measures. Furthermore, the negative impact of job insecu- rity on performance and turnover intention was more profound among manual employees (blue-collar workers) than non-manual employees (white-collar workers, professionals, and managers). Sverke et al. argued that manual employees react more strongly to insecurity because these employees gener- ally have lower levels of education and skills, and are more dependent on their current jobs.

However, Sverke et al. (2002) showed that type of measure and occupa- tional status did not moderate the relationship between job insecurity and its health-related outcomes. This has raised two questions. First, as revealed by Sverke et al., the effect sizes of the relationship between job insecurity and its health-related outcomes varied greatly across studies. There should be other moderating factors accounting for these variations, which were not captured by type of measure and occupational status. Second, the finding that occupational status did not moderate the impact of job insecurity on psychological and physical health left a question about whether job depend- ence moderates the relationship between job insecurity and its health-related consequences (see Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984). In this light, we pro- posed to examine other factors which may account for the variations in the relationship between job insecurity and its consequences.

The Moderating Effects of Organisational Tenure and Age

Organisational tenure and age are closely related. Employees with longer tenure are likely to be older than those with shorter tenure. The moderating effect of age, if any, should be consistent with that of tenure. However, it is also important to examine the moderating effects of tenure and age separately. According to Cohen (1991), tenure and age seem to capture different mean- ings. Specifically, age is associated with both career issues and psychological issues in one’s life events. It has implications not only on one’s status in the organisation but also on one’s non-work aspects such as family and social life. On the contrary, tenure mainly captures career issues with fewer effects upon life events. As described below, age indicates one’s occupational mobility (a career issue) and economic insecurity (related to family obliga- tions). While tenure mainly reflects career issues, it seems to be associated with some specific aspects of career issues (e.g. organisational commitment and job involvement) that may not be captured by age. That is, the moder- ating effects of tenure and age on the relationship between job insecurity and its outcomes may be manifest through different psychological processes.

One perspective on the moderating effects of organisational tenure and age on the impact of job insecurity is that the association should be stronger among employees with longer tenure than those with shorter tenure, and be stronger among older than younger employees. Organisational tenure is positively related to organisational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990), which is positively associated with job involvement (Brown, 1996). Employ- ees with longer tenure are typically more committed to their organisations, and are identified more with and invest more in their jobs than employees with shorter tenure. They should then have greater negative reactions to job insecurity (Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt, 1984; Kuhnert & Palmer, 1991; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). In fact, Probst (2000) found that only among employees who were highly involved in their jobs, were high job insecurity perceptions related to lower level of psychological well-being than low job insecurity perceptions. Similarly, Allen, Freeman, Russell, Reizenstein, and Rentz (2001) reported that the association between job insecurity and turn- over intention was stronger among employees highly involved in their jobs than the less involved employees.

Older employees may also react more strongly to job insecurity than their younger counterparts. Age reflects occupational mobility and economic insecurity, which are the two indicators of job dependence (see job dependence perspective; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984). Compared with their younger counterparts, older employees perceive a lower level of occupational mobil- ity, and should thus be more dependent on their current jobs and react more strongly to job insecurity (Kuhnert & Vance, 1992). Furthermore, older employees generally have more family obligations than younger employees (Finegold, Mohrman, & Spreitzer, 2002; Kuhnert & Vance, 1992). With more family obligations, older employees may be more sensitive to economic insecurity and thus be more vulnerable to job insecurity. In fact, Kuhnert and Vance (1992) found that there was a stronger relationship between job insecurity and well-being among employees with a lower level of occupa- tional mobility than those with a higher level of occupational mobility. Similarly, Finegold et al. (2002) reported that job insecurity had a more negative impact on organisational commitment and turnover intention among older employees than younger employees.

However, an opposite view on the moderating effects of organisational tenure and age on the impact of job insecurity is that the association should be stronger among employees with shorter tenure than those with longer tenure, and be stronger among younger than older employees. First, let us examine the tenure effect. According to Hulin’s (1991) theory of job adapta- tion, employees engage in job adaptation (e.g. having a stronger intention to leave the organisation) in order to relieve stressful job situations, such as a sense of job insecurity. Although the range of job adaptation responses is potentially broad, the choice is usually limited by individual

and organisational contingencies. Depending on the situation, employees, particularly those who value their jobs, would choose the potentially adaptive cognitions and behaviors that are most likely to reduce job stress (Roznowski & Hulin, 1992). Because work withdrawal simply jeopardises the employment and exacerbates the stressor (Probst, 2000), one can expect that compared to those with shorter tenure, employees with longer tenure would be less likely to engage in work withdrawal as a way of adaptation because these employees are usually more involved in their jobs. In other words, employees with shorter tenure should react more strongly to job insecurity than those with longer tenure.

Regarding the age effect, younger employees may also react more strongly to job insecurity than their older counterparts. Kuhnert and Vance (1992) reported that under the threat of job loss, older employees reported better well-being than did younger employees. These authors attributed this finding to the difference in attitudes toward job loss between younger and older employees. As suggested by De Witte (1999), older employees may simply consider job loss as an earlier retirement, and thus suffer less from job insecurity than younger employees.

The Moderating Effect of Gender

Gender has also been suggested as a moderator of the association between job insecurity and its consequences. Rosenblatt and her colleagues (1999) reported that the negative effect of job insecurity on female employees’ work attitudes was stronger than on male employees’ attitudes. These authors argued that men typically have a higher occupational mobility than women, and thus the threat of job loss should be less distressing to men (see job dependence perspective; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984).

On the contrary, De Witte (1999) found that job insecurity was negatively related to male employees’, but not female employees’, well-being. Tradi- tionally, it is believed that men regard themselves as the “breadwinner” of their families (Bernard, 1981), while women consider financial matters as their secondary responsibility (Conger, Lorenz, Edler, Simons, & Xiaojia,

1993). Male employees may thus suffer more from job insecurity than female employees because male employees are more aware of the possible negative consequences of job loss (De Witte, 1999). According to the job dependence perspective (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984), people who are economically insecure, or worry that they cannot meet living expenses if they lose their current job, are vulnerable to job insecurity.

In sum, one view on the moderating effect of gender is that the threat of job loss should be less distressing to men than to women because men usually have higher occupational mobility. However, an opposing view would argue that men are more vulnerable to job insecurity than women because

they are more sensitive to economic insecurity. Both views have received empirical support and it is unclear whether men would suffer more from and react more strongly to job insecurity than women.

The Present Study

The present meta-analysis was thus designed to examine the moderating effects of organisational tenure, age, and gender on the relationship between job insecurity and its job-related and health-related consequences.1 Follow- ing Sverke et al. (2002), we included job satisfaction, organisational commitment, turnover intention, work performance, trust, and job involve- ment as the job-related criterion variables. Furthermore, we included psychological health and physical health as the health-related criterion variables.

METHOD

Literature Search, Inclusion Criteria, and

Coding Procedure

The search for published studies involved both computer and manual methods. The keywords for our search were job security and job insecurity, and the time frame was 1980 to 2006. The computer-based search was conducted on PsycINFO, ABI/INFORM, Social Science Citation Index and Medline. The issue-by-issue manual search was conducted on 15 academic journals, namely, Academy of Management Journal, Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal, Applied Psychology: An International Review, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psy- chology, Human Relations, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Man- agerial Psychology, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Psychological Bulletin, Social Science and Medicine, Stress Medicine (Stress and Health), and Work and Stress.

In addition to published papers, we also tried to include dissertations and unpublished studies. We searched for dissertations shown in Dissertation Abstracts International for the current meta-analysis. We also contacted

1 Other potential moderating factors like mood dispositions (Roskies, Louis-Guerin, & Fournier, 1993) and social support (Lim, 1996) were not included because these factors have not been examined in a sufficient number of primary studies or cannot be aggregated meaning- fully for meta-analysis.

prominent scholars in the area of job insecurity and asked them for their unpublished studies of job insecurity, if any. Twelve scholars responded to our request.2 Moreover, we inspected the reference lists of the studies obtained and review papers on job insecurity (e.g. Sverke & Hellgren, 2002; Sverke et al., 2002) to locate additional studies.

To be included in the current meta-analysis of job insecurity, studies must be in English3 and measure the subjective experience of job insecurity (e.g. perceived likelihood of job loss) of employed people. Moreover, they must report zero-order correlation or other statistics that can be transformed into a correlation coefficient (e.g. the t-value; see Hunter & Schmidt, 1990) between individual employees’ job insecurity and at least one of the crite- rion variables of interest (i.e. job satisfaction, organisational commitment, turnover intention, psychological health, physical health,4 work perform- ance, trust, and job involvement). Articles that used multiplicative com- posites to measure job insecurity were excluded5 (unlike Sverke et al., 2002). For longitudinal studies, only the first-wave data were considered. Some papers provided data from the same or overlapping samples, so preference (in descending order) was given to the one allowing us to test the moderat- ing effect, including more criterion variables, involving a larger sample and published most recently.

A total of 133 studies were included in the current analysis (121 published studies and 12 dissertations;6 all marked with an asterisk in the References section). These studies provided 172 independent samples, with 132,927 employees involved. The number of independent samples included in our study was 86 more than that included in Sverke et al. (2002).

2 We thank Marjorie Armstrong-Stassen, Julian Barling, Ronald Burke, Hans De Witte, Leon Grunberg, Johnny Hellgren, John Kammeyer-Mueller, Ulla Kinnunen, Saija Mauno, Sarah Moore, Tahira Probst, and Magnus Sverke for their replies.

3 Based on the results of Egger, Zellweger-Zahner, Schneider, Junker, Lengeler, and Antes (1997) and Juni, Holstein, Sterne, Barlett, and Egger (2002), Dickersin (2005) concluded that one does not necessarily assume that publication practices are language related. It seems to be equally likely for both non-English studies and English studies to report statistically significant results. On the other hand, we should note that excluding non-English studies might have reduced the number of samples in our analysis.

4 Indicators like anxiety and psychological distress were considered as the indicators of psychological health such that absence of anxiety and psychological distress implied good psychological health. Physical symptoms like headache and back pain were considered as indicators of physical health such that absence of physical symptoms implied good physical health.

5 Evans (1991) noted that it is inappropriate to include the multiplicative composite in bivariate correlational analysis. Analysis addressing the simple bivariate relationship between the multiplicative composite and criterion variables is subject to scaling effect and may thus give rise to spurious results. Meta-analysing such correlations may lead to problematic conclusions.

6 The unpublished studies provided by other researchers did not meet our inclusion criteria and, hence, were not included in the analysis.

Two raters, who were psychology graduate students, coded the 172 in- dependent samples included in the analysis. Specifically, for each independ- ent sample, raters coded its sample size, the reliabilities of job insecurity and each criterion variable, and the uncorrected effect sizes that indicate the relationship between job insecurity and the criterion variables. Raters also recorded the potential moderators, i.e. mean organisational tenure, mean age, and gender composition (percentage of males) of each sample.7 Over 90 per cent of the initial coding decisions were consistent. Any inconsistencies were resolved by discussion among the raters and the authors.

For samples not reporting the reliability of a multi-item measure of a certain variable, the sample size–weighted mean reliability of the multi-item measure of that variable across the samples was used as the substitute (see e.g. Judge & Ilies, 2002; Shaw, Wild, & Colquitt, 2003; Sverke et al., 2002). For studies using a single-item measure for a certain variable, when the corresponding reliability was missing we followed the procedure proposed by Williams, McDaniel, and Nguyen (2006). Specifically, we estimated the sample size–weighted mean reliability of single-item measures of each vari- able and used this estimate as the substitute (but see Sverke et al., 2002). The mean reliabilities of multi-item measures of job insecurity, job satisfac- tion, organisational commitment, turnover intention, psychological health, physical health, work performance, trust, and job involvement were .77, .79,

.80, .76, .84, .81, .72, .82, and .74, respectively. The mean reliabilities of single-item measures of these variables were .46, .48, .40, .44, .34, .30, .34,

.48, and .49, respectively.

Effect sizes like the t-value were transformed into Pearson’s correlation coefficients. For samples reporting effect sizes between job insecurity and multiple measures of a criterion variable (e.g. correlations between job in- security and anxiety as well as distress), we computed a single estimate when standard deviations of these variables and the intercorrelations among these variables were available (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). A simple average was instead computed when such information was not offered (cf. Martinussen

& Bjornstad, 1999).

7 Some may question the validity of testing the moderating effect of individual-level variables such as organisational tenure and age in a meta-analysis. It is because the unit of analysis in a meta-analysis is samples, not individuals. Mean tenure and mean age of samples are used, and within-sample variances in tenure and age are not captured. However, we argued that our predictions were all drawn from theories (our discussions about the moderating effects of organisational tenure, and the moderating effects of age and gender were based on the theory of job adaptation and the job dependence perspective, respectively). In addition, it is a common practice to examine the moderating effects of demographic variables such as organisational tenure, age, and gender in meta-analysis (e.g. Chapman, Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, & Jones,

2005; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003; Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Riketta, 2002).

Meta-Analytic Procedures

Hunter and Schmidt’s (1990) meta-analytic method was employed to estimate the “true” correlations (corrected effect sizes) between job insecurity and its consequences. Each observed correlation was corrected for measurement error by taking the reliabilities of job insecurity and the criterion variables into account, and weighted by sample size and degree of artifact correction (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990; see e.g. Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topol- nytsky, 2002; but see Sverke et al., 2002). A 95 per cent confidence interval was constructed for the association between job insecurity and each criterion variable to test if each of these associations was non-zero. The 75 per cent rule and the credibility interval of each relationship were used to examine the presence of moderators (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990; Whitener, 1990; see e.g. Zhao & Seibert, 2006).

For the identification of moderators, we referred to the results of Hunter and Schmidt’s (1990) subgroup analysis.8 According to Hunter and Schmidt, the main criterion for the identification of moderators is whether the corrected effect sizes of subgroups differ substantially (e.g. Judge & Ilies, 2002; Meyer et al., 2002). Following Brown (1996), Mathieu and Zajac (1990), and Sverke et al. (2002), we conducted a t-test for small samples (Winer, Brown,

& Michels, 1991) to test for the differences in corrected correlations across subgroups. We also applied the Bonferroni method to control for Type I errors.

It is a common practice to break down continuous variables into categories to test moderating effects in subgroup analysis (Steel & Kammeyer- Mueller, 2002). Following previous operationalisations of time frames of organisational tenure (e.g. Gould & Hawkins, 1978; Mount, 1984) and age (e.g. Gould, 1979; Rush, Peacock, & Milkovich, 1980), and previous meta-analyses such as Cohen (1991, 1993) and Griffeth, Hom, and Gaertner (2000), in our subgroup analysis samples with mean organisa- tional tenure equal to or longer than 9 years were regarded as being of

8 The correlation between organisational tenure and age in our database was quite high (r = .69, p < .001). However, we did not run a multiple weighted least square (WLS) regression (Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Steel & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2002; Viswesvaran & Sanchez, 1998), which takes multicollinearity into account, to examine the moderating effects of tenure, age, and gender because there were only a handful of studies reporting all three pieces of informa- tion about tenure, age, and gender composition. On the other hand, we ran a simple WLS regression as a reference to subgroup analysis for the identification of moderators. Note that subgroup analysis, which involves splitting studies into subgroups, may be less powerful to detect continuous moderators than WLS regression (Steel & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2002). Sample size and degree of artifact correction were used as the weight in the regression analysis. The corrected effect sizes were regressed on tenure, age, and gender composition, respectively. The Bonferroni adjustment was applied.

longer organisational tenure. And samples with mean age equal to or higher than 40 were regarded as older. Note that a subgroup analysis was not run for the relationship between job insecurity and certain variables when there were fewer than three samples in at least one of the subgroups.

RESULTS

The estimated true (corrected) correlations, the confidence intervals, the percentages of variance accounted for by artifacts, and the credibility intervals are summarised in Table 1. Results showed that job insecurity was negatively related to job satisfaction (rc = −.43), organisational commitment (rc = −.35), work performance (rc = −.21), trust (rc = −.49), and job involvement (rc = −.20), and was positively related to turnover intention (rc = .32). In addition, job insecurity was negatively related to psychological health (rc = −.28) and physical health (rc = −.23). That the confidence intervals of these relationships excluded zero suggested that these associations were significantly different from zero. The amount of variance of all these relation- ships accounted for by artifacts was less than 75 per cent. Furthermore, the credibility intervals of these relationships were large. These results suggested that these relationships were subject to certain moderating effects.

The Moderating Effect of Organisational Tenure

Organisational tenure moderated the relationship between job insecurity and turnover intention (Table 2). Subgroup analysis showed that this relationship was stronger among employees with shorter tenure (rc = .41) than employees with longer tenure (rc = .24). Organisational tenure also moder- ated the relationship between job insecurity and physical health (Table 2). Subgroup analysis revealed that the association between job insecurity and physical health was more profound among employees with longer tenure (rc = −.30) than employees with shorter tenure (rc = −.22). The moderating effect of organisational tenure on the relationships between job insecurity and job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and psychological health was non-significant.9

The Moderating Effect of Age

Subgroup analysis showed that age moderated the effects of job insecurity on turnover intention, psychological health, and physical health (Table 3).

9 The results of simple WLS regression were consistent with those of subgroup analysis for tenure, age, and gender.

TABLE 1

The Relationship between Job Insecurity and its Consequences

Criterion variable	N	k	95% CI r SE lower			95% CI upper	rc SD		80% CV lower	80% CV upper	% due to artifacts
Job Satisfaction	76260	94	−.32	.01	−.35	−.30	−.43	.18	−.66	−.21	19.90
Organisational Commitment	38650	83	−.26	.02	−.30	−.23	−.35	.24	−.65	−.05	12.01
Turnover Intention	25669	49	.22	.01	.19	.25	.32	.14	.14	.50	32.87
Psychological Health	72339	77	−.20	.01	−.22	−.18	−.28	.12	−.43	−.12	22.92
Physical Health	56934	44	−.16	.01	−.18	−.13	−.23	.13	−.40	−.06	16.50
Work Performance	3752	15	−.16	.03	−.22	−.11	−.21	.13	−.37	−.05	35.63
Trust	4152	16	−.35	.02	−.40	−.31	−.49	.18	−.72	−.26	40.16
Job Involvement	3034	6	−.15	.03	−.21	−.09	−.20	.08	−.31	−.10	33.78

Note: N = sample size; k = number of sample; r = uncorrected mean correlation; SE = standard error of r; CI = confidence interval; rc = estimated true correlation; SD

= standard deviation of r; CV = credibility interval; % due to artifacts = percentage of variance accounted for by artifacts.

TABLE 2

Subgroup Analysis of the Moderating Effect on the Relationship between Job

Insecurity and its Consequences: by Organisational Tenure

Criterion variable Tenure N k r SE rc SD t df

Job Satisfaction	Shorter	6813	14	−.24	.02	−.31	.12	.47	38
	Longer	11408	25	−.27	.03	−.34	.19
Organisational Commitment	Shorter	4982	19	−.27	.04	−.36	.16	1.47	47
	Longer	15658	28	−.23	.03	−.28	.24
Turnover Intention	Shorter	2804	9	.28	.02	.41	.00	5.69**	16
	Longer	10482	17	.18	.02	.24	.12
Psychological Health	Shorter	1337	4	−.21	.03	−.27	.04	1.70	6
	Longer	10515	17	−.25	.01	−.31	.04
Physical Health	Shorter	1604	6	−.14	.02	−.22	.03	5.17**	11
	Longer	5500	9	−.22	.02	−.30	.03

Note: Subgroup analysis was not run for the relationships between job insecurity and work performance, trust, and job involvement because in these relationships there were fewer than three samples in at least one of the subgroups. Shorter: Mean organisational tenure of the sample < 9; Longer: ≥ 9. ** p < .01 (after Bonferroni adjustment).

TABLE 3

Subgroup Analysis of the Moderating Effect on the Relationship between Job

Insecurity and its Consequences: by Age

Criterion variable	Age	N	k	r	SE	rc	SD t df
Job Satisfaction	Younger	31183	33	−.32	.02	−.42	.17	.25	60
	Older	21098	30	−.30	.02	−.41	.19
Organisational Commitment	Younger	12679	29	−.21	.02	−.28	.15	.89	44
	Older	9120	27	−.19	.04	−.23	.24
Turnover Intention	Younger	3513	14	.26	.02	.36	.07	2.59#	23
	Older	6324	16	.20	.03	.26	.15
Psychological Health	Younger	27008	21	−.16	.02	−.24	.12	2.49#	45
	Older	32943	29	−.24	.01	−.32	.12
Physical Health	Younger	24104	15	−.12	.02	−.19	.12	2.53#	32
	Older	25226	17	−.20	.02	−.30	.13
Work Performance	Younger	2847	9	−.15	.04	−.19	.11	1.50	11
	Older	722	4	−.19	.06	−.25	.03

Note: Subgroup analysis was not run for the relationships between job insecurity and trust, and job involvement because in these relationships there were fewer than three samples in at least one of the subgroups. Younger: Mean age of the sample < 40; Older: > = 40. # p < .10 (after Bonferroni adjustment).

The relationship between job insecurity and turnover was more profound among younger employees (rc = .36) than older employees (rc = .26). The effect of job insecurity on psychological health was stronger among older employees (rc = −.32) than younger employees (rc = −.24), and that on physical health was also stronger among older employees (rc = −.30) than

TABLE 4

Subgroup Analysis of the Moderating Effect on the Relationship between Job

Insecurity and its Consequences: by Gender

Criterion variable Gender N k r SE rc SD t df

Job Satisfaction	Male	9758	6	−.37	.02	−.60	.08	.12	11
	Female	6885	7	−.39	.03	−.61	.16
Psychological Health	Male	18387	10	−.25	.02	−.38	.12	.87	18
	Female	9898	8	−.22	.03	−.34	.11
Physical Health	Male	17422	5	−.22	.01	−.33	.13	.34	9
	Female	9419	4	−.20	.01	−.30	.13

Note: Male-only samples were compared with female-only samples. Subgroup analysis was not run for the relationships between job insecurity and organisational commitment, turnover intention, work performance, trust, and job involvement because in these relationships there were fewer than three samples in at least one of the subgroups. The Bonferroni adjustment was applied.

younger employees (rc = −.19). On the other hand, the associations between job insecurity and job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and work performance did not differ between younger employees and older employees.

The Moderating Effect of Gender

Subgroup analysis revealed that the relationship between job insecurity and its consequences among males was comparable to that among females (Table 4). Specifically, the difference in the relationship between job insecurity and job satisfaction across gender was non-significant. The difference in the effect of job insecurity on psychological health and physical health across gender was also non-significant.

DISCUSSION

The present meta-analytic study revealed a significant relationship between job insecurity and its consequences. Results showed that job insecurity was negatively related to job satisfaction, organisational commitment, psycho- logical health, physical health, work performance, trust, and job involve- ment, and was positively related to turnover intention. The estimates of the main effects found in our study were generally comparable to those reported in Sverke et al.’s (2002) study. One notable discrepancy between our results and Sverke et al.’s results was that the estimate of the association between job insecurity and work performance was found to be significant in our study but not in Sverke et al.’s study. Another notable discrepancy was that

the estimate of the association between job insecurity and job involvement found in our study was much lower than that reported in Sverke et al.’s study (rc = −.20 vs. rc = −.37). The discrepancy in the estimates of the main effects could be attributed to the fact that our database was more up to date than Sverke et al.’s. Furthermore, as described in the Method section, our meta-analytic procedures were different from theirs in a number of ways.

The present study also revealed that organisational tenure and age moderated the relationship between job insecurity and turnover intention. Furthermore, tenure and age moderated the relationship between job in- security and its health-related outcomes. On the other hand, gender did not moderate the relationship between job insecurity and its consequences.

The Moderating Effects of Organisational Tenure and Age on the Relationship between Job Insecurity and its Job-related Outcomes

The relationship between job insecurity and turnover intention was found to be stronger among employees with shorter tenure than employees with longer tenure. This is in line with the arguments of the theory of job adap- tation (Hulin, 1991). According to the theory of job adaptation, employees would attempt to engage in cognitions and behaviors which are most effec- tive to alleviate stressful job situations. Turnover seems to be a good choice for employees with shorter tenure to escape from job insecurity because these employees have a smaller psychological investment in their organisa- tions (see Brown, 1996; Cohen, 1991; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). On the other hand, employees with longer tenure, who value their jobs more, avoid engaging in withdrawal cognitions and behaviors because work withdrawal simply makes their employment more vulnerable (Probst, 2000).

With reference to Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt’s (1984) job dependence perspective, older employees, who have lower levels of perceived occupa- tional mobility and are more sensitive to economic insecurity, should be more dependent on their current jobs and thus should react more strongly to job insecurity (Finegold et al., 2002; Kuhnert & Vance, 1992). However, our results showed that the association between job insecurity and turnover intention was actually more profound among younger employees. Younger employees are less dependent on their current jobs (Kuhnert & Vance,

1992), and turnover may be a readily available option for them to handle the existing stressful job-insecure situation (see also the theory of job adap- tation; Hulin, 1991). Hence, when facing job insecurity, younger employees have a stronger intention to leave their organisation than older employees.

Sverke et al. (2002) showed that the influence of job insecurity on turn- over intention was stronger among manual employees than non-manual employees. They argued that under the threat of job loss, manual employees

have a stronger turnover intention because these employees have lower occupational mobility and are thus more dependent on their current jobs. Further research is called for addressing the discrepancy between Sverke et al.’s results and our results, which shows that younger job-insecure employees, who are less dependent on their jobs, have a stronger turnover inten- tion. One possibility for this discrepancy is that unlike occupational status, age not only reflects occupational mobility but also economic insecurity. Compared with older employees, younger employees have fewer family obli- gations (Finegold et al., 2002; Kuhnert & Vance, 1992). With fewer family obligations, younger employees may be less worried about the financial situation of being jobless, and are thus more inclined to leave the current job-insecure organisation.

Our results revealed that organisational tenure and age did not moderate the impact of job insecurity on job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and work performance. Compared to job satisfaction, organisational com- mitment, and work performance, turnover intention has a special implica- tion for coping with job insecurity (Davy et al., 1997). As discussed above, compared to having lower levels of job satisfaction, organisational commit- ment, and work performance, leaving the stressful job-insecure organisation (having a high level of turnover intention) seems to be a more effective way for employees to cope with job insecurity, particularly for those with shorter tenure and younger age (usually having a smaller psychological investment in their jobs and a lower level of economic insecurity). Hence, there are moderating effects of organisational tenure and age on the relationship between job insecurity and turnover intention, but not on the relationships between job insecurity and job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and work performance.

The Moderating Effects of Organisational Tenure and Age on the Relationship between Job Insecurity and its Health-related Outcomes

The negative association between job insecurity and health was found to be stronger among employees with longer tenure than employees with shorter tenure. Employees with longer tenure are generally more involved in their jobs and more committed to their organisations than those with shorter tenure (Brown, 1996; Cohen, 1991; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Hence, these employees are more vulnerable to the threat of job loss (Probst, 2000).

In a similar vein, the negative association between job insecurity and health was found to be more severe among older employees than younger employees. This is consistent with the predictions of Greenhalgh and Rosen- blatt’s (1984) job dependence perspective, which suggests that job insecurity is particularly stressful to individuals who are highly dependent on their

jobs. Older employees suffer more from job insecurity because they are less likely to perceive themselves as being able to find comparable jobs in other organisations and are thus highly dependent on their jobs (Kuhnert & Vance, 1992). Another possible reason for older employees being highly dependent on their jobs is that they generally have more family obligations and are more sensitive to economic insecurity (Finegold et al., 2002; Kuhnert

& Vance, 1992). Note that Sverke et al. (2002) found that occupational status, which reflects job dependence, did not moderate the relationship between job insecurity and its health-related outcomes. Perhaps occupa- tional status is only related to occupational mobility but not amount of family obligations and economic insecurity. Further studies may address this speculation.

The Moderating Effect of Gender

We predicted that gender might moderate the relationship between job insecurity and its consequences. Traditionally, females are expected to have lower occupational mobility than males (Rosenblatt et al., 1999), while males are more likely to regard themselves as the “breadwinner” of their families (De Witte, 1999). Our results did not show any gender difference in the effect of job insecurity. One possible reason is that more and more females are committed to their jobs (Bradley, 1997) and the difference in work orientation between males and females is becoming small (Hakim,

1996). Another possible reason is that job opportunities for females have been creeping up slowly towards those of males (Bradley, 1997). That is, the occupational mobility of females may have become comparable to that of males. And it has been increasingly common for the woman to be the pri- mary “breadwinner” of the family. According to the United States Census Bureau (2004), there are more and more females who are earning as much as, if not more than, their spouse (or partner). Taken together, job insecu- rity seems to be equally dissatisfying and stressful to both males and females.

Limitations and Further Research Directions

It is important to note that our estimates of the relationship between job insecurity and its consequences were subject to the following biases. First, we did not have any unpublished studies in our database, despite our effort to collect such papers. We did try to include as many dissertations as possible. We also carried out the funnel plots (Sterne, Becker, & Egger, 2005) and they appeared roughly symmetrical. Nevertheless, future meta-analysis of job insecurity should try to include unpublished studies to reduce publi- cation bias. Second, the reliabilities coded were Cronbach’s alpha which

fails to account for stability and transient errors (Schmidt, Le, & Ilies,

2003). As a result, the population correlations would be underestimated. Third, because the mean reliabilities used as substitutes were less variable than the actual reliability values which were missing, the population variance would be underestimated. Fourth, we could not correct for indirect range restriction (Hunter, Schmidt, & Le, 2006; Schmidt, Oh, & Le,

2006). To the extent that the measures were subject to indirect range restriction, population correlations would be underestimated and SDs would be overestimated.

We did not run multiple regression analysis to investigate the unique moderating effects of organisational tenure and age on the relationship between job insecurity and its consequences. Because organisational tenure is closely related to age, one may instead conclude from our results that when facing job insecurity, older employees who typically have longer tenure have a lower level of turnover intention and have more health problems than younger employees (who typically have shorter tenure). Further primary studies should examine the relative importance of the unique moderating effects of tenure and age. This is important for clarifying the differential effects of these two variables.

As discussed above, organisational tenure and age seem to capture differ- ent meanings and influence the association between job insecurity and its consequences through different processes. Organisational tenure reflects job involvement and organisational commitment (Brown, 1996; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990) while age captures occupational mobility and economic insecu- rity (Kuhnert & Vance, 1992). However, the present study did not address whether organisational commitment and job involvement really account for the tenure difference in the relationship between job insecurity and its consequences. It also did not reveal whether occupational mobility and economic insecurity really account for the age difference in the relationship between job insecurity and its consequences.

Future research should be conducted to examine if the moderating effect of organisational tenure on the association between job insecurity and its consequences is mediated by organisational commitment and job involve- ment. For instance, the positive association between job insecurity and turn- over intention may be more profound among employees with lower levels of organisational commitment and job involvement. And the moderating effect of organisational tenure may become negligible after organisational commitment and job involvement have been controlled for. Similarly, further studies should be conducted to examine if occupational mobility and economic insecurity mediate the moderating effect of age on the impact of job insecurity. For example, perceived occupational mobility and economic insecurity may predict the negative association between job insecurity and well-being that this association is more negative among employees with

lower occupational mobility and higher economic insecurity. The moderating effect of age may become negligible after occupational mobility and eco- nomic insecurity are held constant.

Finally, echoing Sverke et al. (2002), we call for future research focusing on the following issues concerning with the effect of job insecurity. In this study, we meta-analysed bivariate correlational data. Correlational studies can only reveal association but not direction of causality. The claims we have made on the “causal relationship” between job insecurity and its job- related correlates and health-related correlates are solely based on past dis- cussion and research on job insecurity, in which job insecurity is typically considered as a stressor (Ashford et al., 1989; Probst, 2002; Sverke et al.,

2002). More longitudinal research is called for investigating the role of job insecurity on its job-related correlates and health-related correlates (e.g. Heaney et al., 1994; Hellgren, Sverke, & Isaksson, 1999).

The scope of our study was limited to which kinds of employees suffer more from and react more strongly to job insecurity. We did not examine how the relationship between job insecurity and its consequences varies across different types of measure (see Sverke & Hellgren, 2002). Probst (2003; Borg & Elizur, 1992) argued that it is important to distinguish cognitive (e.g. perceived likelihood of job loss) and affective (e.g. worry about job loss) measures of job insecurity. Furthermore, consistent with Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt’s (1984) discussion, Hellgren et al. (1999; Ashford et al., 1989) distinguished quantitative (i.e. threat to the continuity of the job itself) from qualitative (i.e. threat to the continuity of important job features) aspects of job insecurity. Future meta-analysis of job insecurity may focus on how the type of measure, with reference to these two concep- tualisations of dimensions of job insecurity, influences the association between job insecurity and its consequences. However, perhaps more pri- mary studies reporting the effect size of the relationship between qualitative aspects of job insecurity and its outcomes are needed before the proposed meta-analysis can be conducted.

Concluding Remarks

The present study confirms the negative impact of job insecurity on employees. More importantly, it also reveals that different types of employees suffer from and react to job insecurity in different ways. Under the threat of job loss, younger employees and employees with shorter tenure tend to have a stronger intention to leave their organisations. Older employees and employees with longer tenure, on the other hand, are more affected in terms of their physical and psychological health. Organisations should take differ- ent measures to help their employees to deal with job insecurity. Otherwise, both employees and organisations will suffer.

REFERENCES

*Denotes the studies included in the meta-analysis.

*Abramis, D.J. (1994). Relationship of job stressors to job performance: Linear or an inverted-U? Psychological Reports, 75, 547–558.

*Albrecht, S., & Travaglione, A. (2003). Trust in public-sector senior management.

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 76 – 92.

*Allen, T.D., Freeman, D.M., Russell, J.E.A., Reizenstein, R.C., & Rentz, J.O. (2001). Survivor reactions to organizational downsizing: Does time erase the pain? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 145 –164.

*Alnajjar, A.A. (1996). Relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment among employees in the United Arab Emirates. Psychological Reports, 79, 315 –321.

*Anderson, B.W. (2003). Mergers and acquisitions: The impact of spirituality on reducing merger syndrome. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (3-B), 1531. (UMI No. 3083514)

*Anderson, M.B.G., & Iwanicki, E.F. (1984). Teacher motivation and its relation- ship to burnout. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20, 109 –132.

*Andolsek, D.M., & Stebe, J. (2004). Multinational perspectives on work values and commitment. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4, 181–209.

*Armstrong-Stassen, M. (1993). Production workers’ reactions to a plant closing: The role of transfer, stress, and support. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping: An Inter- national Journal, 6, 201–214.

*Armstrong-Stassen, M. (1994). Coping with transition: A study of layoff survivors.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 597– 621.

*Armstrong-Stassen, M. (2002). Designated redundant but escaping lay-off: A spe- cial group of lay-off survivors. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy- chology, 75, 1–13.

*Armstrong-Stassen, M. (2004). The influence of prior commitment on the reactions of layoff survivors to organizational downsizing. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 46 – 60.

*Arnold, H.J., & Feldman, D.C. (1982). A multivariate analysis of the determinants of job turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 350 –360.

*Ashford, S.J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes and consequences of job insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 32, 803 – 829.

*Axelrod, W.L., & Gavin, J.F. (1980). Stress and strain in blue-collar and white- collar management staff. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17, 41– 49.

*Barling, J., & Kelloway, E.K. (1996). Job insecurity and health: The moderating role of workplace control. Stress Medicine, 12, 253 –259.

*Barnett, R.C., & Brennan, R.T. (1995). The relationship between job experiences and psychological distress: A structural equation approach. Journal of Organiza- tional Behavior, 16, 259 –276.

*Batt, R. (2004). Who benefits from teams? Comparing workers, supervisors, and managers. Industrial Relations, 43, 183 –212.

Bernard, J. (1981). The good provider role: Its rise and fall. American Psychologist,

36, 1–12.

*Bernhard-Oettel, C., Sverke, M., & De Witte, H. (2005). Comparing three alterna- tive types of employment with permanent full-time work: How do employment contract and perceived job conditions relate to health complaints? Work and Stress, 19, 301–318.

*Borg, I., & Elizur, D. (1992). Job insecurity: Correlates, moderators and measure- ment. International Journal of Manpower, 13, 13 –26.

*Borg, V., & Kristensen, T.S. (1999). Psychosocial work environment and mental health among traveling salespeople. Work and Stress, 13, 132–143.

*Bowman, D.L. (1999). Survivors’ reactions to downsizing in an educational organ- ization: Implications for planning organizational change. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (3-A), 0599. (UMI No. 9921634)

Bradley, H. (1997). Gender and change in employment: Feminization and its effects.

In R.K. Brown (Ed.), The changing shape of work (pp. 87–102). Basingstoke: Macmillan; New York: St. Martin’s Press.

*Brockner, J., Grover, S., Reed, T.F., & Dewitt, R.L. (1992). Layoffs, job insecurity, and survivors’ work effort: Evidence of an inverted-U relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 413 – 425.

Brown, S.P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 235 –255.

*Bultean, C.D. (1998). Social exchange under fire: Direct and moderated effects of job insecurity on social exchange. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59 (4-B),

1894. (UMI No. 9830822)

*Bultmann, U., Kant, I.J., Schroer, C.A.P., & Kasl, S.V. (2002). The relationship between psychosocial work characteristics and fatigue and psychological dis- tress. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 75, 259 –

266.

*Burke, R.J. (1991). Job insecurity in stockbrokers: Effects on satisfaction and health. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 6, 10 –16.

*Burke, R.J. (1998). Job insecurity in recent business school graduates: Antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Stress Management, 5, 113 –119.

*Burke, R.J., & Greenglass, E.R. (2001). Hospital restructuring and nursing staff well-being: The role of perceived hospital and union support. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping: An International Journal, 14, 93 –115.

Burke, R.J., & Nelson, D. (1998). Mergers and acquisitions, downsizing, and priva- tization: A North American perspective. In M.K. Gowing, J.D. Kraft, & J.C. Quick (Eds.), The new organizational reality: Downsizing, restructuring, and revi- talization (pp. 21–54). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

*Bussing, A. (1999). Can control at work and social support moderate psychological consequences of job insecurity? Results from a quasi-experimental study in the steel industry. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 219 –

242.

*Castanon, A. (2006). Managing traumatic change: The role of leadership as a buffer against the negative impact of job insecurity on employee outcomes. Dis- sertation Abstracts International, 67 (2-B), 1189. (UMI No. 3205058)

*Champoux, J.E. (1992). A multivariate analysis of curvilinear relationships among job scope, work context satisfactions, and affective outcomes. Human Relations,

45, 87–111.

*Chan, W., Kwok, K.-F., & Au Yeung, S.-M. (2004). Facing challenging circum- stance: Optimism and job insecurity. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies,

5, 81– 95.

*Chang, E. (2002). Distributive justice and organizational commitment revisited: Moderation by layoff in the case of Korean employees. Human Resource Manage- ment, 41, 261–270.

Chapman, D.S., Uggerslev, K.L., Carroll, S.A., Piasentin, K.A., & Jones, D.A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: A meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology,

90, 928 – 944.

*Cheng, Y., Chen, C.-W., Chen, C.-J., & Chiang, T.-L. (2005). Job insecurity and its association with health among employees in the Taiwanese general popula- tion. Social Science and Medicine, 61, 41–52.

*Chirumbolo, A., & Hellgren, J. (2003). Individual and organizational consequences of job insecurity: A European study. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24,

217–240.

Cohen, A. (1991). Career stage as a moderator of the relationships between organi- zational commitment and its outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 253–268.

Cohen, A. (1993). Organizational commitment and turnover: A meta-analysis.

Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1140 –1157.

*Colarelli, S.M., Dean, R.A., & Konstans, C. (1987). Comparative effects of per- sonal and situational influences on job outcomes of new professionals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 558 –566.

Conger, R.D., Lorenz, R.O., Edler, G.J., Simons, R.L., & Xiaojia, G.E. (1993).

Husband and wife differences in response to undesirable life events. Journal of

Health and Social Behavior, 34, 71– 88.

*Cordero, R., Farris, G.F., & DiTomaso, N. (1998). Technical professionals in cross-functional teams: Their quality of work life. Journal of Production Innova- tion Management, 15, 550 –563.

Crandall, R., & Perrewe, P.L. (Eds.) (1995). Occupational stress: A handbook.

Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

*Cunningham, C.E., Woodward, C.A., Shannon, H.S., Maclntosh, J., Lendrum, B., Rosenbloom, D., & Brown, J. (2002). Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioral correlates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 377–392.

*Davy, J.A., Kinicki, A.J., & Scheck, C.L. (1991). Developing and testing a model of survivor responses to layoffs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38, 302–

317.

*Davy, J.A., Kinicki, A.J., & Scheck, C.L. (1997). A test of job insecurity’s direct and mediated effects on withdrawal cognitions. Journal of Organizational Behav- ior, 18, 323 –349.

*De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2006). The impact of job insecurity and contract type on attitudes, well-being and behavioral reports: A psychological contract perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 395 –

409.

*De Witte, H. (1999). Job insecurity and psychological well-being: Review of the

literature and exploration of some unresolved issues. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 155 –177.

*Denton, M., Zeytinoglu, I.U., Davies, S., & Lian, J. (2002). Job stress and job dissatisfaction of home care workers in the context of health care restructuring. International Journal of Health Services, 32, 327–357.

Dickersin, K. (2005). Publication bias: Recognizing the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm. In H.R. Rothstein, A.J. Sutton,

& M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 11–31). Chichester, England; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

*Dubinsky, A.J., Kotabe, M., Lim, C.U., & Wagner, W. (1997). The impact of values on salespeople’s job responses: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Business Research, 39, 195 –208.

Eagly, A.H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C., & van Engen, M.L. (2003). Transforma- tional, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis com- paring women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569 –591.

*Edwards, J.R., & Rothbard, N.P. (1999). Work and family stress and well-being: An examination of person–environment fit in the work and family domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77, 85 –129.

Egger, M., Zellweger-Zahner, T., Schneider, M., Junker, C., Lengeler, C., & Antes, G. (1997). Language bias in randomized controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet, 350, 326 –329.

Evans, M.G. (1991). The problem of analyzing multiplicative composites: Inter- actions revisited. American Psychologist, 46, 6 –15.

*Feather, N.T., & Rauter, K.A. (2004). Organizational citizenship behaviors in relation to job status, job insecurity, organizational commitment and identifica- tion, job satisfaction and work values. Journal of Occupational and Organiza- tional Psychology, 77, 81–94.

*Fields, D., Dingman, M.E., Roman, P.M., & Blum, T.C. (2005). Exploring predic- tors of alternative job changes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy- chology, 78, 63 – 82.

*Finegold, D., Mohrman, S., & Spreitzer, G.M. (2002). Age effects on the predictors of technical workers’ commitment and willingness to turnover. Journal of Organ- izational Behavior, 23, 655 – 674.

*Francis, L., & Barling, J. (2005). Organizational injustice and psychological strain.

Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 37, 250 –261.

*Fried, Y., & Tiegs, R.B. (1993). The main effect model versus buffering model of shop steward social support: A study of rank-and-file auto workers in the USA. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 481– 493.

*Gaertner, K.N., & Nollen, S.D. (1989). Career experiences, perceptions of employ- ment practices, and psychological commitment to the organization. Human Rela- tions, 42, 975–991.

*Garst, H., Frese, M., & Molenaar, P.C.M. (2000). The temporal factor of change in stressor–strain relationships: A growth curve model on a longitudinal study in East Germany. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 417– 438.

*George, E. (2003). External solutions and internal problems: The effects of employ- ment externalization on internal workers’ attitudes. Organization Science, 14,

386 – 402.

*Goeddeke, F.X., Jr. (2005). Organizational trust as a mediator of individual union voting intentions in faculty union certification elections. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65 (12-A), 4633. (UMI No. 3158806)

Gould, S. (1979). Age, job complexity, satisfaction and performance. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 14, 209 –223.

Gould, S., & Hawkins, B. (1978). Organizational career stage as a moderator of the satisfaction–performance relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 21,

434 – 450.

*Goulet, L.R., & Singh, P. (2002). Career commitment: A reexamination and an extension. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 73 – 91.

Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity.

Academy of Management Review, 9, 438 – 448.

Griffeth, R.W., Hom, P.W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463 – 488.

*Grunberg, L., Moore, S.Y., & Greenberg, E.S. (1998). Work stress and problem alcohol behavior: A test of the spillover model. Journal of Organizational Behav- ior, 19, 487–502.

*Grunberg, L., Moore, S.Y., & Greenberg, E.S. (2001). Differences in psychological and physical health among layoff survivors: The effect of layoff contact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 15 –25.

Hakim, C. (1996). Key issues in women’s work. London: Athlone.

*Hansen, M.J. (2001). Individual reactions to a large-scale organizational change in a healthcare organization. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62 (5-B), 2524. (UMI No. 3015511)

Hartley, J., Jacobson, D., Klandermans, B., & van Vuuren, T. (1991). Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk. London: Sage.

*Heaney, C.A., Israel, B.A., & House, J.S. (1994). Chronic job insecurity among automobile workers: Effects on job satisfaction and health. Social Science and Medicine, 38, 1431–1437.

Hedges, L.V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

*Hellgren, J., Sverke, M., & Isaksson, K. (1999). A two-dimensional approach to job insecurity: Consequences for employee attitudes and well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 179 –195.

*Hollenbeck, J.R., & Williams, C.R. (1986). Turnover functionality versus turnover frequency: A note on work attitudes and organizational effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 606 – 611.

*Hui, C., & Lee, C. (2000). Moderating effects of organization-based self-esteem on organizational uncertainty: Employee response relationships. Journal of Manage- ment, 26, 215 –232.

Hulin, C.L. (1991). Adaptation, persistence, and commitment in organizations. In M. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 2 (2nd edn., pp. 445 –505). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psycho- logists Press.

Hunter, J.E., & Schmidt, F.L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hunter, J.E., Schmidt, F.L., & Le, H. (2006). Implications of direct and indirect range restriction for meta-analysis methods and findings. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 91, 594 – 612.

*Israel, B.A., House, J.S., Schurman, S.J., Heaney, C.A., & Mero, R.P. (1989). The relation of personal resources, participation, influence, interpersonal relation- ships and coping strategies to occupational stress, job strains and health: A multi- variate analysis. Work and Stress, 3, 163 –194.

*Iverson, R.D. (1996). Employee acceptance of organizational change: The role of organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Manage- ment, 7, 122–149.

*Iverson, R.D., & Maguire, C. (2000). The relationship between job and life satis- faction: Evidence from a remote mining community. Human Relations, 53, 807–

839.

*Iverson, R.D., & Roy, P. (1994). A causal model of behavioral commitment: Evi- dence from a study of Australian blue-collar employees. Journal of Management,

20, 15 – 41.

*Jago, L.K., & Deery, M. (2004). An investigation of the impact of internal labor markets in the hotel industry. The Service Industries Journal, 24, 118 –129.

Judge, T.A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motiva- tion: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797 – 807.

Juni, P., Holstein, F., Sterne, J., Barlett, C., & Egger, M. (2002). Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: An empirical study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31, 115 –123.

*Kausto, J., Elo, A.-L., Lipponen, J., & Elovainio, M. (2005). Moderating effects of job insecurity in the relationships between procedural justice and employee well- being: Gender differences. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psycho- logy, 14, 431– 452.

*Keil, J.M., Armstrong-Stassen, M., Cameron, S.J., & Horsburgh, M.E. (2000).

Part-time nurses: The effect of work status congruency on job attitudes. Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 49, 227–236.

*King, J.E. (2000). White-collar reactions to job insecurity and the role of the psy- chological contract: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management, 39, 79 –92.

*Kinnunen, U., & Mauno, S. (1998). Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conflict among employed women and men in Finland. Human Relations, 51, 157–

177.

*Kinnunen, U., & Natti, J. (1994). Job insecurity in Finland: Antecedents and con- sequences. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 4, 297–321.

*Kivimaki, M., Vahtera, J., Pentti, J., Thomson, L., Griffiths, A., & Cox, T. (2001).

Downsizing, changes in work, and self-rated health of employees: A 7-year 3- wave panel study. Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal, 14, 59 –

73.

*Koustelios, A., Kouli, O., & Theodorakis, N. (2003). Job security and job satisfac- tion among Greek fitness instructors. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 97, 192–194.

*Kramer, M.W., Dougherty, D.S., & Pierce, T.A. (2004). Managing uncertainty during a corporate acquisition: A longitudinal study of communication during an airline acquisition. Human Communication Research, 30, 71–101.

Kuhnert, K.W., & Palmer, D.R. (1991). Job security, health and the intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics of work. Group and Organization Studies, 16, 178 –192.

*Kuhnert, K.W., & Vance, R.J. (1992). Job insecurity and moderators of the rela- tion between job insecurity and employee adjustment. In J.C. Quick, L.R. Murphy,

& J.J. Hurrell, Jr. (Eds.), Stress and well being at work: Assessments and inter- ventions for occupational mental health (pp. 48– 63). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

*Landsbergis, P.A. (1988). Occupational stress among health care workers: A test of the job demands-control model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 217–239.

*Lee, C., Bobko, P., & Chen, Z.X. (2006). Investigation of the multidimensional model of job insecurity in China and the USA. Applied Psychology: An Inter- national Review, 55, 512–540.

*Levanoni, E., & Sales, C.A. (1990). Differences in job attitudes between full-time and part-time Canadian employees. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 231–237. Lim, V.K.G. (1996). Job insecurity and its outcomes: Moderating effects of work-

based and nonwork-based social support. Human Relations, 49, 171–194.

*Lim, V.K.G. (1997). Moderating effects of work-based support on the relationship between job insecurity and its consequences. Work and Stress, 11, 251–266.

*Lim, V.K.G., & Teo, T.S.H. (2000). To work or not to work at home: An empirical investigation of factors affecting attitudes towards teleworking. Journal of Man- agerial Psychology, 15, 560 –582.

*Lindstrom, K., Leino, T., Seitsamo, J., & Torstila, I. (1997). A longitudinal study of work characteristics and health complaints among insurance employees in VDT work. International Journal of Human –Computer Interaction, 9, 343 –368.

*Lord, A., & Hartley, J. (1998). Organizational commitment and job insecurity in a changing public service organization. European Journal of Work and Organiza- tional Psychology, 7, 341–354.

*Lu, C.-C. (2003). Organizational downsizing, high commitment human resource practices, and the attitudes of army officers. Dissertation Abstracts International,

63 (12-A), 4384. (UMI No. 3075878)

*McAulay, B.J. (2000). Work commitment in a turbulent career environment: Job insecurity’s effect on psychological attachment to organization and profession. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (7-A), 2695. (UMI No. 9938686)

*McDonough, P. (2000). Job insecurity and health. International Journal of Health

Services, 30, 453 – 476.

*Mak, A.S., & Mueller, J. (2000). Job insecurity, coping resources and personality dispositions in occupational strain. Work and Stress, 14, 312–328.

*Makikangas, A., & Kinnunen, U. (2003). Psychosocial work stressors and well- being: Self-esteem and optimism as moderators in a one-year longitudinal sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 537–557.

Martinussen, M., & Bjornstad, J.F. (1999). Meta-analysis calculations based on independent and nonindependent cases. Educational and Psychological Measure- ment, 59, 928 –950.

Mathieu, J.E., & Zajac, D.M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulle- tin, 108, 171–194.

*Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., Makikangas, A., & Natti, J. (2005). Psychological

consequences of fixed-term employment and perceived job insecurity among health care staff. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14,

209 –237.

*Maurier, W.L., & Northcott, H.C. (2000). Job uncertainty and health status for nurses during restructuring of health care in Alberta. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 22, 623 – 641.

*Meglino, B.M., Ravlin, C., & Adkins, C.L. (1989). A work values approach to corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 424 – 432.

Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61,

20 –52.

Mezulis, A.H., Abramson, L.Y., Hyde, J.S., & Hankin, B.L. (2004). Is there a uni- versal positivity bias in attributions? A meta-analytic review of individual, developmental, and cultural differences in the self-serving attributional bias. Psy- chological Bulletin, 130, 711–747.

*Mohr, G.B. (2000). The changing significance of different stressors after the announcement of bankruptcy: A longitudinal investigation with special emphasis on job insecurity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 337–359.

Mount, M.K. (1984). Managerial career stage and facets of job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 24, 348 –354.

*Mulinge, M.M. (2001). Employer control of employees: Extending the Lincoln- Kalleberg corporatist model of satisfaction and attachment. Human Relations,

54, 285 –318.

*Murphy, L.R., & Pepper, L.D. (2003). Effects of organizational downsizing on worker stress and health in the United States. In C.L. Peterson (Ed.), Work stress: Studies of the context, content, and outcomes of stress ( pp. 55 –71). Amity- ville, NY: Baywood Publishers.

*Parker, S.K., Axtell, C.M., & Turner, N. (2001). Designing a safer workplace: Importance of job autonomy, communication quality, and supportive super- visors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 211–228.

*Parker, S.K., Griffin, M.A., Sprigg, C.A., & Wall, T.D. (2002). Effect of temporary contracts on perceived work characteristics and job strain: A longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 55, 689 –719.

*Piotrkowski, C.S., & Crits-Christoph, P. (1981). Women’s jobs and family adjust- ment. Journal of Family Issues, 2, 126 –147.

*Preuss, G.A., & Lautsch, B.A. (2002). The effect of formal versus informal job security on employee involvement programs. Industrial Relations, 57, 517–539.

*Probst, T.M. (2000). Wedded to the job: Moderating effects of job involvement on the consequences of job insecurity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5,

63 –73.

Probst, T.M. (2002). The impact of job insecurity on employee work attitudes, job adaptation, and organizational withdrawal behaviors. In J.M. Brett & F. Drasgow (Eds.), The psychology of work: Theoretically based empirical research ( pp. 141–

168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Probst, T.M. (2003). Development and validation of the Job Security Index and the

Job Security Satisfaction Scale: A classical test theory and IRT approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 451– 467.

*Probst, T.M., & Lawler, J. (2006). Cultural values as moderators of employee reactions to job insecurity: The role of individualism and collectivism. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 234 –254.

Quick, C.J., & Tetrick, L.E. (Eds.) (2003). Handbook of occupational health psycho- logy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Ramlall, S. (2003). Managing employee retention as strategy for increasing organi- zational competitiveness. Applied Human Resource Management Research, 8, 63 –

72.

*Reilly, A.H., Brett, J.M., & Stroh, L.K. (1993). The impact of corporate turbulence on managers’ attitudes. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 167–179.

*Reisel, W.D., & Banai, M. (2002). Comparison of a multidimensional and a global measure of job insecurity: Predicting job attitudes and work behaviors. Psycho- logical Reports, 90, 913 –922.

*Reitman, F., & Schneer, J.A. (2003). The promised path: A longitudinal study of managerial careers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 60 –75.

Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 257–266.

*Robblee, M.A. (1998). Confronting the threat of organizational downsizing: Cop- ing and health. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59 (6-B), 3072. (UMI No. NQ26865)

*Robinson, S.L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administra- tive Science Quarterly, 41, 574 –599.

Rosenblatt, Z., Talmud, I., & Ruvio, A. (1999). A gender-based framework of the experience of job insecurity and its effects on work attitudes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 197 –217.

*Roskies, E., Louis-Guerin, C., & Fournier, C. (1993). Coping with job insecurity: How does personality make a difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14,

617– 630.

Roznowski, M., & Hulin, C.L. (1992). The scientific merit of valid measures of general constructs with special reference to job satisfaction and job withdrawal. In C.J. Cranny, P.C. Smith, & E.F. Stone (Eds.), Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance ( pp. 123 –163). New York: Lexington Books.

Rush, J.C., Peacock, A.C., & Milkovich, G.T. (1980). Career stages: A partial test of Levinson’s model of life/ career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16,

347–359.

Sagie, A., Birati, A., & Tziner, A. (2002). Assessing the costs of behavioral and psychological withdrawal: A new model and an empirical illustration. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 67– 89.

*Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D.C., & Kemmerer, B. (1996). Does trait affect promote job attitude stability? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 191–196.

Schmidt, F.L., Le, H., & Ilies, R. (2003). Beyond alpha: An empirical examination of the effects of different sources of measurement error on reliability estimates for measures of individual differences constructs. Psychological Methods, 8, 206 –

224.

Schmidt, F.L., Oh, I.-S., & Le, H. (2006). Increasing the accuracy of corrections for range restriction: Implications for selection procedure validities and other research results. Personnel Psychology, 59, 281–305.

*Schmitt, N., Colligan, M.J., & Fitzgerald, M. (1980). Unexplained physical symp- toms in eight organizations: Individual and organizational analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 305 –317.

*Shannon, H.S., Woodward, C.A., Cunningham, C.E., McIntosh, J., Lendrum, B., Brown, J., & Rosenbloom, D. (2001). Changes in general health and musculo- skeletal outcomes in the workforce of a hospital undergoing rapid change: A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 3 –14.

Shaw, J.C., Wild, E., & Colquitt, J.A. (2003). To justify or excuse? A meta-analytic review of the effects of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 444 –

458.

*Shore, L.M., & Tetrick, L.E. (1991). A construct validity study of the survey of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 637– 643.

*Silla, I., Gracia, F.J., & Peiro, J.M. (2005). Job insecurity and health-related out- comes among different types of temporary workers. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 26, 89 –117.

*Slack, K.J. (2005). Examining job insecurity and well-being in the context of the role of employment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65 (9-B), 4884. (UMI No. 3148144)

Society for Human Resource Management (2001). Layoffs and job security survey.

Alexandria, VA: SHRM Foundation.

Sparks, K., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C.L. (2001). Well-being and occupational health in the 21st century workplace. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 489 –509.

*Stedham, Y., & Mitchell, M.C. (1996). Voluntary turnover among non-supervisory casino employees. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 269–290.

Steel, P.D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D. (2002). Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation techniques under realistic conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology,

87, 96 –111.

*Stepina, L.P., & Perrewe, P.L. (1991). The stability of comparative referent choice and feelings of inequity: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 185–200.

Sterne, J.A.C., Becker, B.J., & Egger, M. (2005). The funnel plot. In H.R. Rothstein, A.J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Preven- tion, assessment and adjustments ( pp. 75 –98). Chichester, England; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

*Stewart, W., & Barling, J. (1996). Fathers’ work experiences affect children’s behaviors via job-related affect and parenting behaviors. Journal of Organiza- tional Behavior, 17, 221–232.

*Storms, G., Casaer, S., de Wit, R., van den Bergh, O., & Moens, G. (2001). A psychometric evaluation of a Dutch version of the Job Content Questionnaire and of a short direct questioning procedure. Work and Stress, 15, 131–143.

*Sverke, M., & Hellgren, J. (2001). Exit, voice and loyalty reactions to job insecurity in Sweden: Do unionized and non-unionized employees differ? British Journal of Industrial Relations, 39, 167–182.

Sverke, M., & Hellgren, J. (2002). The nature of job insecurity: Understanding employment uncertainty on the brink of a new millennium. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 23 – 42.

Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Naswall, K. (2002). No security: A meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 242–264.

*Tang, T.L.-P., Singer, M.G., & Roberts, S. (2000). Employees’ perceived organiza- tional instrumentality: An examination of the gender differences. Journal of Man- agerial Psychology, 15, 378 – 406.

*Tiegs, R.B., Tetrick, L.E., & Fried, Y. (1992). Growth need strength and context satisfactions as moderators of the relations of the job characteristics model. Journal of Management, 18, 575 –593.

*Tivendell, J., & Bourbonnais, C. (2000). Job insecurity in a sample of Canadian civil servants as a function of personality and perceived job characteristics. Psychological Reports, 87, 55 – 60.

*Unckless, A.L. (1999). Survivor reactions to organizational downsizing: An appli- cation of threat rigidity theory. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (1-B),

0401. (UMI No. 9915970)

United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2001). Mass layoffs statistics. Washington, DC.

United States Census Bureau (2004). Historical income tables: Families. Retrieved

3 December 2005, from http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f22.html

*van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. (1999). The Leiden Quality of Work Questionnaire: Its construction, factor structure, and psychometric qualities. Psychological Reports, 85, 954 –962.

*van Vegchel, N., de Jonge, J., Bakker, A.B., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2002). Testing global and specific indicators of rewards in the Effort–Reward Imbalance Model: Does it make any difference? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 403 – 421.

*van Vuuren, C.V., & Klandermans, P.G. (1990). Individual reactions to job in- security: An integrated model. In P.J.D. Drenth & J.A. Sergeant (Eds.), European perspectives in psychology ( pp. 133 –146). Chichester, England: Wiley.

*Vinnicombe, S. (1984). Communications and job satisfaction: A case study of an airline’s cabin crew members. Leadership and Organization Development Journal,

5, 2 –7.

*Vinokur-Kaplan, D., Jayaratne, S., & Chess, W.A. (1994). Job satisfaction and retention of social workers in public agencies, non-profit agencies and private practice: The impact of workplace conditions and motivators. Administration in Social Work, 18, 93 –121.

Viswesvaran, C., & Sanchez, J.I. (1998). Moderator search in meta-analysis: A review and cautionary note on existing approaches. Educational and Psychologi- cal Measurement, 58, 77 – 87.

Whitener, E.M. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility intervals in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 315 –321.

*Wiesenfeld, B.M., Brockner, J., Petzall, B., Wolf, R., & Bailey, J. (2001). Stress and coping among layoff survivors: A self-affirmation analysis. Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal, 14, 15 –34.

Williams, M.L., McDaniel, M.A., & Nguyen, N.T. (2006). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of pay level satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 91, 392 – 413.

*Williams, S.V. (2003). An empirical investigation of turnover intentions of internal auditors. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (5-A), 1741. (UMI No. 3091837)

*Wilson, M.G., Dejoy, D.M., Vandenberg, R.J., Richardson, H.A., & McGrath, A.L. (2004). Work characteristics and employee health and well-being: Test of a model of healthy work organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 565 – 588.

*Wilson, S.M., Larson, J.H., & Stone, K.L. (1993). Stress among job insecure work- ers and their spouses. Family Relations, 42, 74 – 80.

Winer, B.J., Brown, D.R., & Michels, K.M. (1991). Statistical principles in experi- mental design (3rd edn.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

*Wong, Y.-T., Ngo, H.-Y., & Wong, C.-S. (2002). Affective organizational commit- ment of workers in Chinese joint ventures. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17,

580 –598.

*Yeung, D.Y.L., & Tang, C.S.-K. (2001). Impact of job characteristics on psycho- logical health of Chinese single working women. Women and Health, 33, 85 –100.

*Yousef, D.A. (1998). Satisfaction with job security as a predictor of organizational commitment and job performance in a multicultural environment. International Journal of Manpower, 19, 184 –194.

Zhao, H., & Seibert, S.E. (2006). The big five personality dimensions and entrepre- neurial status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 259 –

271.

*Zikiye, A.A., & Zikiye, R.A. (1992). The impact of automation on job character- istics: New horizons. Human Systems Management, 11, 157

Source psikologi

Minggu, 16 Oktober 2016

Jumat, 14 Oktober 2016