Journal of Occupational Health Psychology

2012, Vol. 17, No. 3, 354 364

2012 American Psychological Association

1076-8998/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0028565

On the Link Between Job Insecurity and Turnover Intentions:

Moderated Mediation by Work Involvement and Well-Being
Barbara Stiglbauer, Eva Selenko, Bernad Batinic, and Susanne Jodlbauer
Johannes Kepler University Linz
This study investigates whether work involvement moderates the negative effect of job insecurity on
general well-being, and whether reduced general well-being partially explains why job insecurity is
associated with increased turnover intentions. The participants were 178 members (52% female) of an
online panel who provided information about job insecurity, work involvement, two measures of general
well-being (affective and cognitive), and turnover intentions on 2 occasions at an interval of 6 months.
In line with expectations, work involvement buffered the negative effect of job insecurity on well-being;
however, the buffering effect was significant only for the cross-sectional effect of job insecurity on
cognitive well-being. Furthermore, multiple mediation analysis demonstrated that well-being partially
mediated the effect of job insecurity on turnover intentions; interestingly, the cross-sectional effect of job
insecurity on turnover intentions was partially mediated by cognitive well-being, whereas the longitudinal effect was partially mediated by affective well-being only. The results suggest that the stress
process associated with job insecurity differs, depending on which aspect of general well-being and
which time frame is investigated.
Keywords: job insecurity, work involvement, well-being, life satisfaction, turnover intentions

well-being, and increased turnover intentions. Against the background of a stress theory framework (Klandermans, van Vuuren, &
Jacobson, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), the study addresses
the questions (1) whether work involvement is able to buffer the
negative effect of job insecurity on well-being and (2) whether
reduced well-being partially explains why job insecurity is associated with increased turnover intentions (cf. Figure 1).

Job insecurity has been linked to various health-related, attitudinal, and behavioral consequences. It is associated with lower
levels of physical health, general well-being, job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and performance, and it correlates
with increased employee withdrawal cognitions and behaviors,
such as turnover intentions and actual turnover (cf. De Witte, 2005,
for a review; Cheng & Chan, 2008; Sverke, Hellgren, & Nswall,
2002, for meta-analyses). In the last few years, research attention
has gone beyond studying job insecurity consequences in isolation;
rather, research has proceeded to an understanding of what factors
influence (moderate) the relationship between job insecurity and
its consequences and how job insecurity consequences develop
over time (e.g., Sverke et al., 2002). In this respect, for example,
employability (Silla, De Cuyper, Garcia, Peiro, & De Witte, 2009)
or social support (Lim, 1996) have been found to buffer the
negative effect of job insecurity on well-being. Furthermore, more
immediate outcomes of job insecurity (i.e., job satisfaction) have
been found to (partially) mediate the effect of job insecurity on
more long-term outcomes (i.e., general well-being and turnover
intentions; Chirumbolo & Hellgren, 2003).
The two-wave study reported in this article aims to contribute to
the understanding of the process underlying two long-term outcomes of job insecurity (cf. Sverke et al., 2002), reduced general

Job Insecurity and Well-Being: Moderation by Work

Involvement
The negative relationship between job insecurity and various
measures of general well-being is well documented in the literature
(De Witte, 2005, for a review). In their meta-analysis of 133
studies on job insecurity, Cheng and Chan (2008) found estimated
true correlations of r .28 between job insecurity and wellbeing. Moreover, results from longitudinal studies show that job
insecurity leads to lower well-being not only on a short-term level
but also over time (Ferrie, Shipley, Marmot, Stansfeld, & Smith,
1998; Hellgren & Sverke, 2003).
Theoretically, the negative effect of job insecurity on well-being
primarily has been explained within a stress framework (Klandermans et al., 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Sverke, De Witte,
Nswall, & Hellgren, 2010). A central element of stress theory
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) is the process of cognitive appraisal:
In primary appraisal, a person evaluates a particular encounter with
regard to the significance for his or her well-being. Then, in
secondary appraisal, he or she evaluates what to do to prevent or
overcome the harm; thus, in secondary appraisal, the person evaluates the coping options, such as altering the situation, accepting
the situation, escaping, or seeking social support. After the appraisal process, the person initiates various coping efforts that may
be adaptive or maladaptive as to his or her well-being. It is

Barbara Stiglbauer, Eva Selenko, Bernad Batinic, and Susanne Jodlbauer, Institute of Education and Psychology, Department of Work, Organizational, and Media Psychology, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Linz,
Austria.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Barbara
Stiglbauer, Department of Education and Psychology, Johannes Kepler
University Linz, Altenberger Strasse 49, 4040 Linz, Austria. E-mail:
barbara.stiglbauer@jku.at
354

JOB INSECURITY, WELL-BEING, AND TURNOVER INTENTIONS

Figure 1. Overview of the hypotheses examined in the study.

important to note that, in this process, encounter, cognitive appraisal, coping responses, emotions, and well-being are not related
in a strictly unidirectional way, but rather mutually influence each
other (Aldwin & Revenson, 1987; Edwards, 1992; Folkman &
Lazarus, 1988; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, De Longis, &
Gruen, 1986).
Job insecuritythe perceived likelihood of losing ones job
(Borg & Elizur, 1992)is a situation which is characterized by a
threat to employment, uncontrollability (the feeling of powerlessness), and unpredictability; thus, in general, job insecurity can be
appraised as inherently stressful (primary appraisal) and therefore
is supposed to have a negative impact on a persons well-being.
More importantly, several individual and situational factors that,
during secondary appraisal, influence the way a person deals with
the stressor might act as a moderator (buffer or enhancer) of the
negative effect of job insecurity on well-being. Accordingly, we
were interested in whether work involvement was such an individual factor that influences the appraisal process and therefore
moderates the negative relationship between job insecurity and
well-being (cf. Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984).
Work involvement, which has also been referred to as employment commitment (Jackson, Stafford, Banks, & Warr, 1983; Paul
& Moser, 2009) or work centrality (Paullay, Alliger, & StoneRomero, 1994), is the general importance of work to an individual
(Warr, Cook, & Wall, 1979) or a normative belief about the value
of work in ones life (Kanungo, 1982, p. 342) and thus reflecting
identification with or commitment to the work role. It is usually
viewed as a dispositional variable (Jackson et al., 1983) that arises
from socialization or past cultural conditioning (Kanungo, 1982;
Sverko, 1989).
Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) already noted that the reactions to job insecurity should be stronger among individuals to
whom the work situation or work in general is very important, thus
among employees with high job (importance of a specific job) or
work involvement (importance of work in general; cf. Jackson et
al., 1983). Indeed there is evidence showing that job involvement
enhances the negative relationship between job insecurity and
well-being (Probst, 2000). However, so far there is no support for
the moderating role of work involvement. In this study, we hypothesize that work involvement does not act so much as an
enhancer but rather as a buffer of the negative relationship between
job insecurity and wellbeing. In other words, we expect the negative relationship between job insecurity and well-being to be less
pronounced among employees with high as compared to low work
involvement.
There are two good theoretical reasons why we expect a buffering effect of work involvement: for one the mechanism of

355

perceptual defense (Cramer, 2000; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984;

Postman, Bruner, & McGinnies, 1948), and for the other the
concept of hardiness (Kobasa, 1979; Quick, Quick, Nelson, &
Hurrell, 1997). The rationale underlying the mechanism of perceptual defense is that individuals interpret stimuli in terms of their
own needs if these stimuli are ambiguous (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Postman et al., 1948). In general, job insecurity is a
situation of high ambiguity; job-insecure individuals do not yet
know whether they will lose their job or not. Thus, in the cognitive
appraisal process, individuals with high work involvement are
likely to interpret the ambiguous situation of job insecurity according to their need, which is to continue being engaged in work.
They may therefore be more likely to block out the threatening
information of job insecurity, and, as a result, they will not
experience such a negative impact on their well-being (for a
similar discussion see Chirumbolo & Areni, 2010).
Similarly, hardiness, which is a composite of the three personality characteristics commitment to life areas, internal locus of
control, and the tendency to view changes as a challenge, is
regarded a resilience factor in the stress process (Kobasa, 1979).
Hardiness is supposed to buffer the negative effects of a stressor,
because it is associated with a more favorable appraisal process
and constructive coping patterns (Allred & Smith, 1989; Quick et
al., 1997). Thus, during stress, hardy individuals report better
health than less hardy individuals (Kobasa, 1979). Work involvement reflects a persons overall commitment to the life area of
work (Hacket & Lapierre, 2001) and therefore constitutes one
aspect of the commitment dimension of hardiness. This implies
that in a condition of high job insecurity, employees with high
work involvement will experience better well-being than employees with low work involvement.

Job Insecurity and Turnover Intentions: Mediation by

Well-Being
Like reduced well-being, increased turnover intentions are a
well documented outcome of job insecurity (De Witte, 2005). In
their meta-analysis, Cheng and Chan (2008) reported a mean
correlation between job insecurity and turnover intentions of r
.32. Importantly, the relationship has also been established in a
longitudinal study by Dekker and Schaufeli (1995), suggesting that
job insecurity is associated with increased turnover intentions also
in the long-term.
Interestingly, the two consequences of job insecurity general
well-being and turnover intentionsso far have been investigated
as independent outcomes of job insecurity but have not been
related to each other. This is surprising, because empirical evidence suggests a significant relationship between well-being and
turnover intentions. For example, in a review on determinants of
turnover, Holtom, Mitchell, Lee, and Eberly (2008) reported significant relationships between several indicators of affective states,
such as well-being, and turnover (intentions). Furthermore, in their
meta-analysis, Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, and de Chermont (2003) found a mean correlation of r .17 between
positive affect and turnover intentions. George and Jones (1996)
reported a significant negative relationship between positive mood
and turnover intentions. Moreover, in a longitudinal study, burnout
was positively related to withdrawal intentions (Krausz, Koslowsky, Shalom, & Elyakim, 1995). Similarly, in the longitudinal

356

STIGLBAUER, SELENKO, BATINIC, AND JODLBAUER

study by Wright and Cropanzano (1998), emotional exhaustion

was found to predict actual turnover, which can be seen as a
consequence of turnover intentions (cf. Vandenberg & Nelson,
1999). Thus, given that reduced well-being has been found to
precede turnover intentions and that job insecurity precedes wellbeing, it might be speculated that the relationship between job
insecurity and turnover intentions (partially) can be explained by
reduced well-being.
One reason why in job insecurity research general well-being
and turnover intentions have not been related might be because
these two consequences are commonly discussed within different
theoretical frameworks. While the effect of job insecurity on
general well-being has been explained primarily within a stress
theory framework, the effect on turnover intentions predominantly
has been discussed within psychological contract theory, according
to which job insecurity is seen as a violation of the psychological
contract between employer and employee (Rousseau, 1989; Sverke
et al., 2004). However, the stress framework may serve well as an
explanation of the effect of job insecurity on turnover intentions:
Turnover intentions are a form of withdrawal (Rusbult, Farrell,
Rogers, & Mainous III, 1988), which is typical of avoidance
coping; thus, increased turnover intentions may reflect a coping
response to job insecurity (Klandermans et al., 1991).
As already noted, stressful encounter, cognitive appraisal,
coping response, and well-being are related to each other;
however, not only in a way that appraisal and coping mediate or
influence the relationship between a stressor and a persons
well-being, but also in a way that a persons well-being influences the type of coping strategy that is used (Folkman &
Moskowitz, 2000). The broaden-and-build theory by Fredrickson (2001) provides an explanation of how affective states, such
as well-being, relate to different patterns of coping: While
positive emotions, such as joy, interest, or contentment, can
broaden a persons thought-action repertoires, negative emotions, such as fear or sadness, narrow those repertoires
(Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005). Broadened thought-action repertoires facilitate broad-minded coping, whereas narrowed
thought-action repertoires give rise to avoidance strategies such
as psychological withdrawal or rather turnover intentions
(Greenhalgh, 1979, disinvolvement syndrome; Hartley, Jacobson, Klandermans, & van Vuuren, 1991; Pelled & Xin,
1999). The broaden-and-build theory focuses on the impact of
emotions, but it may be extended to also explain the impact of
well-being on a persons thought-action repertoires (cf. Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005), or more specifically, to
explain the impact of reduced well-being on turnover intentions. Well-being and emotions both are conceptualizations of
the same higher-level construct of affect (Carter, 2004); and
although well-being differs from emotions with regard to the
temporal dimension, in terms of content well-being highly
corresponds to the two emotions joy and contentment (Warr,
2007).
In conclusion, given theoretical and empirical evidence for the
relationship between well-being and turnover intentions, it can be
assumed that reduced well-being partially mediates the relationship
between job insecurity and turnover intentions. Well-being should not
be expected to fully mediate the relationship between job insecurity
and turnover intentions, as there are other factors, such as organiza-

tional commitment (Chirumbolo & Hellgren, 2003), that also have

been identified as partial mediators of this relationship.

Overview of Hypotheses and the Present Study

To summarize, with the present study we aim to answer two
questions (cf. Figure 1): First, whether work involvement is able to
buffer the negative effect of job insecurity on well-being; and
second, whether reduced well-being partially can explain why job
insecurity is associated with increased turnover intentions. The
first question leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1a: Job insecurity is negatively related to general
well-being.
Hypothesis 1b: Work involvement moderates (buffers) the
negative relationship between job insecurity and general
well-being: The negative relationship is more pronounced
among employees with low as compared with high work
involvement.
Regarding the second question, the following hypotheses were
tested:
Hypothesis 2a: Job insecurity is positively related to turnover
intentions.
Hypothesis 2b: General well-being partially mediates the
relationship between job insecurity and turnover intentions.
Furthermore, as a consequence of the proposed moderation, the
hypothesized mediation should be weaker among individuals with
high as compared with low work involvement. Thus, the last
hypothesis combines the proposed moderation and mediation.
Hypothesis 2c: The partial mediation of the relationship between job insecurity and turnover intentions by well-being is
less pronounced among employees with high as compared
with low work involvement.
The hypotheses were tested using two waves of data at a time
interval of six months. According to a review by Zapf, Dormann,
and Frese (1996), most longitudinal studies in organizational stress
research have analyzed time lags of up to one year, albeit in most
cases there are no clear theoretical recommendations regarding the
length of time intervals. For the present study, we assumed that a
time lag of six months would be long enough to detect variance in
the studied variables but not too long to miss significant changes.
However, the true effect of job insecurity on well-being and turnover intentions might as well be shorter than the time interval of six
months; in that case, cross-sectional analyses of the hypotheses will
deliver stronger support than analyses over time (Zapf et al., 1996).
Thus, we tested the hypotheses over time to analyze long-term effects
of job insecurity, but also in the cross-sectional data to account for
more short-term effects. We conducted the cross-sectional analyses
for both time points to evaluate the stability of the findings.
Furthermore, as to the construct of well-being, it is important to
mention that there are numerous measures that may capture
slightly different aspects (cf. Dolan & Peasgood, 2008; Warr,
2007). In previous job insecurity research, general well-being has

JOB INSECURITY, WELL-BEING, AND TURNOVER INTENTIONS

been measured primarily with either the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ; Goldberg & Hillier, 1979) or a scale measuring life
satisfaction (e.g., Chirumbolo & Hellgren, 2003; De Cuyper & De
Witte, 2006). This reflects the definition of well-being as an
affective-cognitive construct (Lucas, Diener, & Suh, 1996; Warr,
2007). The GHQ focuses on positive and negative affective symptoms experienced in the last weeks (e.g., reasonable happy,
constantly under strain) and therefore rather assesses the affective component of general well-being (often termed happiness;
Warr, 2007). Life satisfaction scales, on the other hand, focus on
the cognitive evaluation of ones life, thus measuring the
cognitive-evaluative component of general well-being (cf. Lucas et
al., 1996; Warr, 2007). In the present study, the GHQ-12 (Goldberg & Hillier, 1979) as well as the Satisfaction with Life Scale
(Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) were used as measures
of general well-being to cover both the affective and the cognitive
aspect of general well-being and to account for the definition of
well-being as an affective-cognitive construct (cf. Diener, 1994).

357

Table 1
Frequencies of the Sample Characteristics (n 178)
Sample characteristics
Gender
Male
Female
Educational level
Secondary school leaving certificate
High school diploma
University degree
Employment statusa
Full-time employment
Part-time employment
Freelance/self-employed
Vocational training
Occupationa
Blue-collar job
White-collar job
Not reported
a

93
85

52.25
47.75

58
33
87

32.58
18.54
48.88

126/124
31/27
13/16
8/11

70.79/70.22
17.42/15.17
7.30/8.99
4.49/5.62

84/83
69/71
25/24

47.19/46.63
38.76/39.89
14.04/13.48

Time 1 before slash, Time 2 after slash.

Method
Participants and Procedure
The study was part of a comprehensive multiwave online research project on the meaning of work and psychological health
(Batinic, Selenko, Stiglbauer, & Paul, 2010; Paul & Batinic, 2010;
Selenko, Batinic, & Paul, 2011). The data in the project were
collected with the help of a German online survey panel (www.respondi.com). The panel members were invited via email to fill in
the online questionnaire; participation was voluntary and not refunded. The data analyzed in the present study refer to the third
and fourth wave at an interval of six months (March and October
2009; in this study termed Time 1 and Time 2), when measures of
job insecurity were added to the online questionnaire.
Seven hundred thirty-five persons (56.1% female) were invited
to take part in the survey on both occasions; response rates were
62.4% (n 459) at Time 1 (T1) and 52.2% (n 384) at Time 2
(T2). From the 459 individuals who participated at T1, 162 were
excluded from the analyses, because they had not completed the
whole questionnaire (n 69), were unemployed or out of the labor
force (n 79), or had not indicated their employment status (n
14); 119 more respondents were excluded because they had not
participated at T2 (n 112), were not employed at T2 (n 3), or
had not indicated their employment status at T2 (n 4).
Altogether, 557 individuals from the original sample were excluded from the analyses, resulting in a final longitudinal sample
of 178 individuals (93 female) between the age of 17 and 60 (M
37.75, SD 10.30; see Table 1 for detailed sample characteristics). The final sample did not differ significantly from the sample
of the 557 excluded individuals with regard to gender, 2(1, n
735) 2.23, p .140, but individuals in the final sample were
significantly older, M 37.69, SD 10.30, than individuals who
had been excluded from the analyses, M 33.70, SD 10.29;
t(730) 4.49, p .001.
Furthermore, drop-out analyses revealed no significant differences between the final sample and the sample of participants who provided cleaned survey data only at T1 but not at T2
(n 119) with regard to gender, 2(1, n 297) 0.01, p
.906, but individuals in the final sample were more highly

educated, 2(2, n 297) 10.00, p .007, and significantly

older than the 119 individuals who provided cleaned data at T1
but not at T2, M 35.27, SD 9.47; t(294) 2.05, p
.040. More importantly, however, concerning the studied variables at T1 no significant differences between individuals in the
final sample and the 119 excluded individuals were found, F(5,
291) 1.70, p .134.

Measures
The means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients, and
zero-order correlations of the variables are shown in Table 2. The
reliabilities of the measures were good at both time points (Cronbachs alphas between .79 and .94, cf. Table 2).
Job insecurity. Job insecurity was measured with the four
items of the German Cognitive Job Insecurity Scale by Borg
(1992) that focus exclusively on the likelihood of losing ones job
(see also Borg & Elizur, 1992). These items are My job is
secure, In my opinion, I will keep my job in the near future, In
my opinion I will be employed for a long time in my present job,
and My workplace is secure in every respect (all reversed
coded). The response format was a seven-point scale (1 agree
completely; 7 do not agree at all).
Work involvement. Work involvement was assessed with
the six-item scale developed by Warr and colleagues (1979). These
items measure how important work is to a person. Sample items
are If I obtained a lot of money, I would still carry on working
or Employment is one of the most important things in my life..
The response format was a seven-point scale (1 not true at all;
7 very true).
Well-being. First, as a measure of affective well-being, we
used the German 12-item version (Linden et al., 1996) of the
General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12; Goldberg & Hillier, 1979).
The GHQ includes positively and negatively worded items and can be
used to measure happiness or affective well-being, psychological
distress, as well as mental health (Goldberg & Williams, 1988; Hu,
Stewart-Brown, Twigg, & Weich, 2007; Warr, 2007). A sample item
is In the last weeks have you felt unhappy or depressed? The

(.79)
.03
(.93)
.14
.44
(.91)
.60
.12
.47
(.94)
.39
.34
.02
.60
(.87)
.49
.36
.40
.00
.72
Note. n 178. (1) Time 1; (2) Time 2. WB well-being. Internal consistencies are in the diagonal.

p .05. p .01. p .001.

(.91)
.22
.48
.33
.54
.78
.09
.44
.18
.08
.19
.00
.01
.21
.12
.24
.03
.08
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

Age
Gender (female)
Education
Job insecurity (1)
Affective WB (1)
Cognitive WB (1)
Work involvement (1)
Turnover intentions (1)
Job insecurity (2)
Affective WB (2)
Cognitive WB (2)
Work involvement (2)
Turnover intentions (2)

37.75

1.16
2.96
3.05
4.38
5.38
2.41
3.07
3.10
4.36
5.34
2.47

10.30

0.89
1.56
0.49
1.34
1.05
1.12
1.67
0.48
1.35
1.08
1.22

.10
.06
.11
.10
.06
.07
.23
.18
.12
.03
.07
.20

.12
.10
.07
.07
.20
.04
.05
.03
.12
.12
.01

(.93)
.16
.35
.12
.48
.72
.37
.27
.02
.52

(.89)
.50
.01
.41
.21
.60
.49
.03
.35

(.80)
.05
.10
.19
.22
.76
.11

13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
SD
M
Variables

Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations for the Studied Variables

(.89)

STIGLBAUER, SELENKO, BATINIC, AND JODLBAUER

358

responses ranged from 1 (less than usual) to 4 (much more than

usual). We recoded negatively worded items, so that low scores
indicate distress and high scores indicate happiness. Second, as a
measure of cognitive well-being, we used the German version (Schumacher, Klaiberg, & Brhler, 2003) of the Satisfaction with Life Scale
(Diener et al., 1985), which includes five items that assess the overall
cognitive evaluation or global judgment of ones life. A sample item
is In most areas my life conforms to my perceptions of what is ideal.
The responses were scored on a seven-point scale (1 do not agree
at all; 7 agree completely).
Turnover intentions. We measured turnover intentions with
four items based on research conducted by Aryee, Wyatt, and Min
(1991); Gerhart (1990); Khatri, Budhwar, and Fern (1999), and
Tett and Meyer (1993). The items were Giving thought to my
future career, I can see myself still working for my present employer in three years (reverse coded), If at the present moment I
was offered an equivalent position at another company, I would
take it, At the present time I see no reason to look for an
alternative position (reverse coded), Lately I have been thinking
about leaving my employer. The responses ranged from 1 (do not
agree) to 5 (do agree).
Control variables. In all subsequent analyses, we considered
gender (0 male, 1 female), age, and educational level (0
secondary school leaving certificate, 1 high school diploma, 2
university degree) as control variables, because the studied variables have frequently been shown to differ on these demographics
(e.g., Cheng & Chan, 2008; Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999;
Griffeth, Horn, & Gaertner, 2000; see also Table 2).

Results
The cross-sectional and longitudinal correlations as reported in
Table 2 were in the predicted directions and of similar size to
previous studies (e.g., Cheng & Chan, 2008; Chirumbolo & Hellgren,
2003). Job insecurity was negatively related to both measures of
well-being and positively related to turnover intentions; both measures of well-being were negatively related to turnover intentions.

Hypothesis 1: Moderation by Work Involvement

Hypothesis 1 suggests that job insecurity is negatively related to
well-being (H1a) and that work involvement buffers that relationship (H1b). These hypotheses were tested by means of hierarchical
linear regression analyses with well-being as the dependent variable. Upon entering the control variables in a first step, job
insecurity was added in the second step, work involvement in
the third step, and finally the interaction term between job
insecurity and work involvement. The variables were standardized, and the interaction term was calculated on the basis of
these standardized terms (Aiken & West, 1991). The analyses
were conducted separately for the two measures of well-being
(affective and cognitive well-being), as well as for the crosssectional relationship between job insecurity and well-being at
T1 and T2, respectively, and over time (longitudinal: with the
predictor variables at T1 and the dependent variable well-being
at T2, controlling for well-being at T1).
Table 3 reports the results of the regression analyses. In line
with Hypothesis 1a, there was a negative effect of job insecurity on
well-being (Step 2). For affective well-being, the effect of job inse-

JOB INSECURITY, WELL-BEING, AND TURNOVER INTENTIONS

359

Table 3
Moderated Regression Analyses for General Well-Being in the Cross-Sectional Data and Over Time (n 178)
Cross-sectional T1
Affective
well-being
Predictor

SE

Cross-sectional T2

Cognitive
well-being
p

SE

Affective
well-being
p

SE

Longitudinal

Cognitive
well-being
p

SE

Affective
well-being
p

SE

Cognitive
well-being
p

SE

Step 1
Gender (female)
0.04 0.08 .566 0.09 0.07 .213 0.01 0.07 .881 0.15 0.07 .029 0.01 0.06 .836 0.08 0.05 .106
Age
0.09 0.08 .260 0.04 0.07 .897 0.06 0.07 .401 0.01 0.07 .873 0.05 0.06 .367 0.01 0.05 .896
Education
0.06 0.08 .414 0.16 0.07 .022 0.04 0.07 .554 0.22 0.07 .002 0.04 0.06 .537 0.12 0.05 .014
Well-being T1
0.54 0.06 .001 0.74 0.05 .001
Step 2
Job insecurity
0.15 0.08 .057 0.32 0.07 .001 0.37 0.07 .001 0.32 0.07 .001 0.26 0.06 .001 0.00 0.05 .958
Step 3
Work involvement
0.01 0.08 .855 0.14 0.07 .059 0.11 0.07 .106 0.10 0.07 .147 0.14 0.06 .023 0.04 0.05 .469
Step 4
Job insecurity
work involvement
0.12 0.07 .093 0.15 0.06 .020 0.11 0.07 .151 0.23 0.07 .001 0.07 0.06 .168 0.07 0.05 .091
.02
.324
.05
.037
.03
.206
.08
.002
.37
.001
.63
.001
R2 Step 1
.02
.070
.11
.001
.13
.001
.09
.001
.07
.001
.00
.933
R2 Step 2
R2 Step 3
.00
.915
.03
.022
.01
.089
.01
.108
.02
.011
.00
.332
2
R Step 4
.02
.093
.03
.020
.01
.151
.05
.001
.01
.168
.01
.091

curity failed to reach significance in the cross-sectional data at T1, but

was significant in the cross-sectional data at T2 as well as in the
longitudinal data; for cognitive well-being, however, the effect of job
insecurity was significant only in the cross-sectional data.
Furthermore, we hypothesized that work involvement would
buffer the negative relationship between job insecurity and wellbeing (H1b), which would be indicated by a significant positive
interaction term. As expected, Step 4 of the hierarchical regression
analyses showed positive interaction terms between job insecurity
and work involvement. The interaction was significant for the
cross-sectional relationship between job insecurity and cognitive
well-being at T1 as well as at T2, whereas it failed to reach
significance for the longitudinal relationship as well as for the
relationship between job insecurity and affective well-being. Thus,
work involvement only moderated the cross-sectional or shortterm effect of job insecurity on the cognitive aspect of well-being,
providing partial support for Hypothesis 1b. Simple slopes analyses further supported that buffering effect of work involvement:
The negative relationship between job insecurity and cognitive
well-being was stronger in the case of low work involvement (
1 SD), B 0.47, SE 0.10, p .001, 95% CI [0.66, 0.28]
for T1, B 0.56, SE 0.10, p .001, 95% CI [0.78, 0.35]
for T2, and weaker in the case of high work involvement ( 1 SD),
B 0.18, SE 0.09, p .055, 95% CI [0.36, 0.00] for T1,
B 0.09, SE 0.10, p .359, 95% CI [0.28, 0.10] for T2.
Figure 2 illustrates this pattern of moderation.

via affective and cognitive well-being) simultaneously, resulting in

more precise estimates and in a more parsimonious model. The
estimates and 95% bias-corrected and accelerated confidence intervals (Bca CI) for the indirect effects were obtained over 2,000
bootstrapped resamples, as recommended by Efron and Tibshirani
(1993). The criterion for detecting mediation was a significant
indirect effect, indicated by a 95% Bca CI excluding zero. The
analyses were conducted in the cross-sectional data and over time.
In the longitudinal analysis with turnover intentions at T2 as the
dependent variable, we included job insecurity at T1 and the
mediator variables at T2, controlling for the mediator variables at
T1 and turnover intentions at T1.
Table 4 reports the results of the cross-sectional and longitudinal
multiple mediation analyses. In line with Hypothesis 2a, there was

Hypothesis 2: Mediation by Well-Being

Hypothesis 2 proposes a positive relationship between job insecurity and turnover intentions (H2a), which is partially mediated
by well-being (H2b). To test these hypotheses, we used the SPSS
macro for multiple mediations provided by Preacher and Hayes
(2008). The macro uses a bootstrapping approach to calculate the
indirect (mediated) effect and estimates all indirect effects (that is,

Figure 2. Moderation of the effect of job insecurity on cognitive wellbeing (z-standardized) by work involvement. Low and high levels of job
insecurity and work involvement represent 1 SD below and above the
samples mean, respectively. Results were similar for both time points and
are shown for Time 1 only.

STIGLBAUER, SELENKO, BATINIC, AND JODLBAUER

360

Table 4
Multiple Mediation Analyses of Job Insecurity on Turnover Intentions via Affective and Cognitive Well-Being in the Cross-Sectional
Data and Over Time (n 178)
Cross-sectional T1
Predictor
Control variables
Gender (female)
Age
Education
Turnover intentions T1
Affective well-being T1
Cognitive well-being T1
Job insecurity c
(total effect c)
Mediator variables
Affective well-being
Cognitive well-being
Indirect effects
Affective well-being
Cognitive well-being
2
R

SE

0.01
0.02
0.20

0.13
0.01
0.08

Cross-sectional T2
p
.911
.005
.010

SE

0.03
0.01
0.13

0.14
0.01
0.08

0.05
(0.05)

.001
(.001)

0.48
0.23

0.15
0.06

.002
.001

0.38
0.19

0.18
0.07

0.02
0.07

0.02
0.03

[0.001, 0.065]
[0.025, 0.131]
.001

0.04
0.05

0.02
0.02

0.25
(0.34)

.43

0.34
(0.43)

a significant cross-sectional and longitudinal effect of job insecurity on turnover intentions (see Table 4, total effect c). The effect
decreased in size but remained significant when affective and
cognitive well-being had been added to the prediction, which
already indicates partial mediation (see Table 4, effect of job
insecurity c). Affective and cognitive well-being had negative
effects on turnover intentions, both in the cross-sectional and in the
longitudinal model; however, in the longitudinal model the negative effect of cognitive well-being failed to reach significance. The
bootstrapped indirect effect via affective well-being was significant only in the longitudinal model; the indirect effect via cognitive well-being was significant only in the cross-sectional models.
Thus, in general, well-being partially mediated the relationship
between job insecurity and turnover intentions, providing support
for Hypothesis 2b. However, the two measures of well-being acted
as mediators with different time frames: Cognitive well-being
partially mediated the cross-sectional effect of job insecurity on
turnover intentions, whereas affective well-being partially mediated the long-term effect.
Hypothesis 2c combines the assumed moderation (H1b) and
mediation (H2b) and suggests that, because of the buffering effect
of work involvement on the relationship between job insecurity
and well-being, well-being mediates the relationship between job
insecurity and turnover intentions especially in the case of low
work involvement, but not that much in the case of high work
involvement. We used the macro for moderated mediation analyses by Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007) to compute the indirect
effect of job insecurity on turnover intentions via well-being on
several values of work involvement (conditional indirect effects).
As work involvement was found to significantly moderate only the
cross-sectional relationship between job insecurity and cognitive
well-being, we tested Hypothesis 2c only in the cross-sectional
data and with cognitive well-being as the mediator variable. In line
with expectations, there was a significant indirect effect of job
insecurity on turnover intentions via cognitive well-being, if work
involvement was low ( 1 SD), B 0.18, SE 0.06, 95% Bca CI

.46

0.05
(0.05)

Longitudinal
p
.832
.107
.118

.001
(.001)
.039
.005
[0.002, 0.094]
[0.015, 0.100]
.001

SE

0.05
0.00
0.03
0.62
0.11
0.10
0.14
(0.17)

0.12
0.01
0.07
0.07
0.16
0.08
0.05
(0.05)

.662
.537
.631
.001
.485
.201
.003
(.001)

0.44
0.15

0.18
0.08

0.03
0.00

0.02
0.01
.60

.015
.063
[0.005, 0.074]
[0.031, 0.011]
.001

[0.090, 0.306] for T1, B 0.17, SE 0.06, 95% Bca CI [0.089,

0.285] for T2, but not if work involvement was high ( 1 SD), B
0.07, SE 0.04, 95% Bca CI [0.002, 0.169] for T1, B 0.03,
SE 0.03, 95% Bca CI [0.026, 0.103] for T2. In Figure 3 the
indirect effect is plotted at several values of work involvement
with a 95% bias corrected and accelerated bootstrap confidence
band. The indirect effect is significant where the confidence band
(dashed lines) does not contain zero. As can be seen in Figure 3,
the indirect effect became weaker as work involvement increased.

Discussion
The aim of the present two-wave study was to investigate
whether work involvement buffered the negative effect of job
insecurity on general well-being and whether reduced general

Figure 3. Conditional indirect effect of job insecurity on turnover intentions via cognitive well-being for observed sample values of work involvement (1 SD to 1 SD). Results were similar for both time points and are
shown for Time 1 only.

JOB INSECURITY, WELL-BEING, AND TURNOVER INTENTIONS

well-being partially mediated the effect of job insecurity on turnover intentions. The results allow for the following conclusions:
First, in line with previous studies and Hypothesis 1a, we found a
significant negative relationship between job insecurity and general well-being; however, only affective (GHQ-12), but not cognitive well-being (life satisfaction), turned out being negatively
affected by job insecurity also in the long term, that is, after six
months. Second, we can conclude that work involvement is able to
buffer the negative relationship between job insecurity and wellbeing (H1b); that is, in our study, the more people valued work, the
less likely their well-being was affected by job insecurity. However, the buffering effect of work involvement was significant only
for the cross-sectional relationship between job insecurity and
cognitive well-being, whereas it failed to reach significance for affective well-being and the long-term effects on both measures of wellbeing. Third, job insecurity was associated with increased turnover
intentions, both cross-sectionally and in the long-term, providing full
support for Hypothesis 2a. Fourth, as expected, general well-being
partially mediated the effect of job insecurity on turnover intentions in
the short- as well as in the long-term (H2b); however, it was cognitive
well-being only, which mediated the cross-sectional relationship between job insecurity and turnover intentions, while affective wellbeing mediated the longitudinal relationship. Fifth, as a consequence
of the results obtained for Hypothesis 1b and 2b, cognitive well-being
mediated the relationship between job insecurity and turnover intentions only if work involvement was low to average, but not if work
involvement was high (H2c).

The Buffering Effect of Work Involvement

In the present study, the buffering effect of work involvement
was significant only with regard to the cross-sectional relationship
between job insecurity and (cognitive) well-being but failed to
reach significance in the longitudinal analysis. Thus, it seems as if
the effect of work involvement might reflect rather a process of
perceptual defense than a hardy personality: The mechanism of
perceptual defense has been found to be similar to maladaptive
coping patterns and therefore to mitigate negative effects on wellbeing temporarily, but not in the long-term (cf. Cramer, 2000;
Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Hardiness, on the other hand, is
associated with adaptive coping patterns, constitutes a stressresilient factor in general, and should therefore also be beneficial
on a long-term level (Kobasa, 1979). Thus, if work involvement
was an aspect of a hardy personality, it should buffer the negative
relationship between job insecurity and well-being in the short- as
well as in the long-term. Still, the moderation by work involvement in the longitudinal data, albeit not significant, was in the
same direction. The nonsignificance of the moderation in the
longitudinal data might as well be attributable to the sample size or
an inappropriate time lag of data collection. Therefore, the alternative explanation that work involvement contributes to a hardy
personality should not be fully ruled out. Moreover, it is important
to note that perceptual defense or hardy personality were not
assessed directly in this study; hence all of these interpretations
must remain within the realm of speculation. The results show that
work-involvement plays a significant role in the relationship between job insecurity and well-being, which seems to suggest that
mechanisms of perceptual defense or hardiness are at play. Future
studies on job insecurity and well-being might want to consider the

361

role of work involvement as well as hardiness and perceptual

defense to clarify the conclusions.
Furthermore, the moderation by work involvement was significant for cognitive well-being (life satisfaction) only. As to affective well-being (GHQ-12), the moderation failed to reach significance, but it pointed in the same direction, suggesting that the
moderating mechanism might be similar for the two aspects of
well-being. At the same time, previous findings on the two components of well-being already have demonstrated that affective and
cognitive well-beingalthough significantly related to each
other differ in their relation to other variables (e.g., Schimmack,
Schupp, & Wagner, 2008). What is more, diverging findings for
affective and cognitive well-being have been reported previously also
in job insecurity research. For example, in the study by Silla and
colleagues (2009), employability significantly moderated the effect of
job insecurity on cognitive well-being but not on affective well-being
as measured with the GHQ. Thus, it seems as if moderator variables
are of different importance in the relationship between stressors and
well-being, depending on which aspect of well-being is investigated
or which measure of well-being is used. In future studies, it may
therefore be worthwhile assessing both components of well-being to
shed some more light upon the mechanisms.

Partial Mediation by Well-Being

Overall, well-being partially mediated the cross-sectional and
longitudinal relationship between job insecurity and turnover intentions. This is as expected from previous studies that provide
evidence for a relationship between job insecurity and general
well-being, job insecurity and turnover intentions (e.g., De Witte,
2005), and affective states and turnover intentions (e.g., Holtom et
al., 2008; Thoresen et al., 2003), as well as from the perspective of
stress theory (Klandermans et al., 1991; Lazarus & Folkman,
1984) and the broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001).
It should be noted that, as hypothesized, the mediation via wellbeing was only partial. In other words, job insecurity still had a
substantial impact on turnover intentions, if cognitive and affective
well-being were included as mediator variables. That implies that
individuals with high job insecurity are generally more likely to
consider leaving their employer. Well-being can explain part of this
process, but there might be other mediating factors as well (e.g.,
attitudes; see also De Witte, 2005; Sverke et al., 2002).
Interestingly, the two aspects of well-being operated as mediators with different timeframes. Cognitive but not affective wellbeing partially mediated the cross-sectional and affective wellbeing the longitudinal effect of job insecurity on turnover
intentions. In this regard, it might be important to consider the
findings of Hypothesis 1a: Job insecurity was significantly related
to cognitive well-being in the cross-sectional data only, whereas it
significantly affected affective well-being also in the long-term.
Thus, depending on the time frame chosen, the effect of job
insecurity seems to manifest itself differently for various aspects or
measures of well-being (see also Dolan & Peasgood, 2008, for a
discussion of the effect of the measurement instrument in research
on well-being). It might well be that other measures of affective
well-being such as the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
(Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) are capturing more immediate
or short-term effects on affective well-being than the GHQ-12.
This implies that affective well-being, if measured with other

362

STIGLBAUER, SELENKO, BATINIC, AND JODLBAUER

scales, may as well act as a short-term or cross-sectional mediator

of the relationship between job insecurity and turnover intentions.
In conclusion, the results regarding both the moderation and the
mediation point toward different mechanisms associated with affective and cognitive well-being in the stress process.

Limitations
First of all, it should be noted that the data were collected in
times of a general economic downturn. This might not necessarily
be a limitation, but the time of data collection might constitute an
important contextual factor, which was likely to have an additional
influence on the studied variables and probably also on their
relationships. In general, the relationships between the studied
variables were in line with those obtained in previous studies (e.g.,
Cheng & Chan, 2008; Chirumbolo & Hellgren, 2003), which
points to the generalizability of the results. Nevertheless the findings might be replicated in better economic times.
Possible limitations of the present study relate to the sample size
and the two-wave longitudinal design. First, the final longitudinal
sample was not overly large and the participants in the final sample
were significantly older than those in the master sample. Therefore,
selective effects attributable to sample attrition cannot fully be ruled
out and the generalizability of the findings might be limited. Second,
as the sample was not overly large, we also desisted from testing the
rather complex hypothesized moderated mediation model by means
of structural equation modeling (cf. Hoelter, 1983; Westland, 2010).
Thus, in the present analyses, measurement errors are not accounted
for, as the analyses are based on manifest variables, and bidirectional
relationships between the constructs are not modeled (cf. Aldwin &
Revenson, 1987; De Lange, Taris, Kompier, Houtman, & Bongers,
2004; Feist, Bodner, Jacobs, Miles, & Tan, 1995; Lyubomirsky et al.,
2005). And third, although data had been collected at more than one
time point, the present study cannot be termed longitudinal in the strict
sense. The data collection comprised two waves, whereas only three
or more waves would allow for a solid longitudinal mediation analysis
(Cole & Maxwell, 2003). As a consequence, the results regarding the
mediation are based on cross-sectional and semilongitudinal analyses.
Despite these possible shortcomings, it should be noted that the
cross-sectional results were stable across both measurement occasions, and that the sample size was sufficient to achieve adequate
power for the bootstrapped mediated effects (Fritz & MacKinnon,
2007). Also, the mediation analysis over the two waves was in line
with our hypothesis, which as well underlines the validity of the
results. Nevertheless, future studies involving a larger and more
representative sample and more than two waves of data collection
are needed to replicate the effects found in this study.

Implications and Future Research

The results of the present study reveal some important implications for both practice and research. As work involvement was
found to buffer the negative relationship between job insecurity
and well-being, it might be worthwhile that practitioners also focus
on employees work involvement when establishing workplace
health promotion programs. Moreover, promoting employees
well-being in job-insecure times seems to be beneficial for both the
employee him- or herself and the organization. Well-being was
found to partially mediate the relationship between job insecurity

and turnover intentions, which are a strong predictor of actual

turnover (Vandenberg & Nelson, 1999). Thus, promoting employees well-being could be a starting point for an organization to
prevent losing well-trained and capable employees to another
organization in job insecure times.
The inconsistencies in the results with regard to the two
measures of well-being both in the moderation and mediation
analysesmight as well have important implications, especially
for researchers. It is likely that these inconsistencies hint at actual
differences in the stressor-strain process, depending on which
aspect of well-being is addressed and how well-being is measured.
The results of this study therefore underline the importance of
differentiating between various aspects or measures of general
well-being (cf. Diener et al., 1999).
Furthermore, future research might investigate in more detail the
role of work involvement in the stressor-strain process. From this
study, it is not evident whether the buffering effect of work
involvement relates to perceptual defense mechanisms or rather a
hardy personality. Moreover, it remains unclear whether the buffering effect of work involvement is specific to the stress process
associated with job insecurity or whether it can be generalized to
other work-related stressors. Future research might as well extend
the proposed mediation model at least in two ways: First, by
including job-specific well-being as an additional mediator, and
second, by investigating actual turnover as the dependent variable.
Finally, multiwave studies with shorter time lags may be especially
promising, not only with regard to the temporal precedence of the
constructs, but also with regard to the length of the time lags
needed to detect specific effects (cf. Zapf et al., 1996).

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, UK: Sage.
Aldwin, C. M., & Revenson, T. A. (1987). Does coping help? A reexamination of the relation between coping and mental health. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 337348. doi:10.1037/00223514.53.2.337
Allred, K. D., & Smith, T. W. (1989). The hardy personality: Cognitive and
physiological responses to evaluative threat. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 56, 257266. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.257
Aryee, S., Wyatt, T., & Min, M. K. (1991). Antecedents of organizational
commitment and turnover intentions among professional accountants in
different employment settings in Singapore. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 545556. doi:10.1080/00224545.1991.9713884
Batinic, B., Selenko, E., Stiglbauer, B., & Paul, K. I. (2010). Are workers
in high-status jobs healthier than others? Assessing Jahodas latent
benefits of employment in two working populations. Work & Stress, 24,
73 87. doi:10.1080/02678371003703859
Borg, I., & Elizur, D. (1992). Job insecurity: Correlates, moderators and
measurement. International Journal of Manpower, 13, 1326. doi:
10.1108/01437729210010210
berlegungen und Untersuchungen zur Messung der
Borg, I. (1992). U
subjektiven Unsicherheit der Arbeitsstelle [Reflections and investigations in the measurement of subjective job uncertainty]. Zeitschrift fur
Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 36, 107116.
Carter, S. D. (2004). Reexamining the temporal aspects of affect: Relationships between repeatedly measured affective state, subjective wellbeing, and affective disposition. Personality and Individual Differences,
36, 381391. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00103-X
Cheng, G. H.-L., & Chan, D. K.-S. (2008). Who suffers more from job

JOB INSECURITY, WELL-BEING, AND TURNOVER INTENTIONS

insecurity? A meta-analytic review. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 272303. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00312.x
Chirumbolo, A., & Areni, A. (2010). Job insecurity influence on job
performance and mental health: Testing the moderating effect of the
need for closure. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31, 195214.
doi:10.1177/0143831X09358368
Chirumbolo, A., & Hellgren, J. (2003). Individual and organizational
consequences of job insecurity: A European study. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24, 217240. doi:10.1177/0143831X03024002004
Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with
longitudinal data: Myths and tips in the use of structural equation
modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 558 577. doi:
10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.558
Cramer, P. (2000). Defense mechanisms in psychology today. Further
process for adaptation. American Psychologist, 55, 637 646. doi:
10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.637
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. doi:10.1348/096317905X53660
Dekker, S. W. A., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1995). The effects of job insecurity
on psychological health and withdrawal: A longitudinal study. Australian Psychologist, 30, 57 63. doi:10.1080/00050069508259607
De Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., Houtman, I. L. D., &
Bongers, P. M. (2004). The relationships between work characteristics
and mental health: Examining normal, reversed and reciprocal relationships in a 4-wave study. Work & Stress, 18, 149 166. doi:10.1080/
02678370412331270860
De Witte, H. (2005). Job insecurity: Review of the international literature
on definitions, prevalence, antecedents and consequences. Journal of
Industrial Psychology, 31, 1 6.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The
Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49,
7175. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective
well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125,
276 302. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities.
Social Indicators Research, 31, 103157. doi:10.1007/BF01207052
Dolan, P., & Peasgood, T. (2008). Measuring well-being for public policy:
Preferences or experiences? Journal of Legal Studies, 37, S5S31.
doi:10.1086/595676
Edwards, J. R. (1992). A cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and well-being in
organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 17, 238 274.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. Boca
Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Feist, G. J., Bodner, T. E., Jacobs, J. F., Miles, M., & Tan, V. (1995).
Integrating top-down and bottom-up structural models of subjective
well-being: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 68, 138 150. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.138
Ferrie, J. E., Shipley, M. J., Marmot, M. G., Stansfeld, S. A., & Smith,
G. D. (1998). An uncertain future: The health effects of threats to
employment security in white-collar men and women. American Journal
of Public Health, 88, 1030 1036. doi:10.2105/AJPH.88.7.1030
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., De Longis, A., & Gruen,
R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal,
coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 50, 9921003. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.992
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). The relationship between coping and
emotion: Implications for theory and research. Social Science & Medicine, 26, 309 317. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(88)90395-4
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Positive affect and the other side
of coping. American Psychologist, 55, 647 654. doi:10.1037/0003066X.55.6.647

363

Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the

scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition & Emotion,
19, 313332. doi:10.1080/02699930441000238
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive
psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218 226. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect
the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18, 233239. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1996). The experience of work and turnover
intentions: Interactive effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and
positive mood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 318 325. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.318
Gerhart, B. (1990). Voluntary turnover and alternative job opportunities.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 467 476. doi:10.1037/00219010.75.5.467
Goldberg, D. P., & Hillier, V. F. (1979). A scaled version of the General
Health Questionnaire. Psychological Medicine: A Journal of Research in
Psychiatry and the Allied Sciences, 9, 139 145. doi:10.1017/
S0033291700021644
Goldberg, D. P., & Williams, P. (1988). A users guide to the General
Health Questionnaire. Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson.
Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. The Academy of Management Review, 9, 438 448.
Greenhalgh, L. (1979). Job security and the disinvolvement syndrome: An
exploration of patterns of worker behaviour under conditions of anticipatory grieving over job loss. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cornell University, NJ.
Griffeth, R. W., Horn, 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. doi:10.1177/014920630002600305
Hackett, R. D., & Lapierre, L. M. (2001). Understanding the links between
work commitment constructs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 392
413. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2000.1776
Hartley, J., Jacobson, D., Klandermans, B., & van Vuuren, T. (1991). Job
insecurity. Coping with jobs at risk. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Hellgren, J., & Sverke, M. (2003). Does job insecurity lead to impaired
well-being or vice versa? Estimation of cross-lagged effects using latent
variable modeling. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 215236.
doi:10.1002/job.184
Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-offit indices. Sociological Methods and Research, 11, 325344. doi:
10.1177/0049124183011003003
Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Eberly, M. B. (2008).
Turnover and retention research: A glance at the past, a closer review of
the present, and a venture into the future. The Academy of Management
Annals, 2, 231274. doi:10.1080/19416520802211552
Hu, Y., Stewart-Brown, S. L., Twigg, L., & Weich, S. (2007). Can the
12-item General Health Questionnaire be used to measure positive
mental health? Psychological Medicine: A Journal of Research in Psychiatry and the Allied Sciences, 37, 10051013. doi:10.1017/
S0033291707009993
Jackson, P. R., Stafford, E. M., Banks, M. H., & Warr, P. B. (1983).
Unemployment and psychological distress in young people: The moderating role of employment commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 525535. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.68.3.525
Kanungo, R. (1982). Work alienation: An integrative approach. New York,
NY: Praeger.
Khatri, N., Budhwar, P., & Fern, C. T. (1999). Employee turnover: Bad
attitude or poor management? Retrieved from http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/
nbs/sabre/working_papers/1299.pdf
Klandermans, B., van Vuuren, T., & Jacobson, D. (1991). Employees and
job insecurity. In J. Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans, & T. van

364

STIGLBAUER, SELENKO, BATINIC, AND JODLBAUER

Vuuren (Eds.), Job insecurity. Coping with jobs at risk (pp. 40 64).
London, UK: Sage Publications.
Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An
inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
37, 111. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.1
Krausz, M., Koslowsky, M., Shalom, N., & Elyakim, N. (1995). Predictors
of intentions to leave the ward, the hospital, and the nursing profession:
A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 277288.
doi:10.1002/job.4030160308
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress appraisal and coping. New
York, NY: Springer.
Lim, V. K. G. (1996). Job insecurity and its outcomes: Moderating effects
of work-based and nonwork-based social support. Human Relations, 49,
171194. doi:10.1177/001872679604900203
Linden, M., Maier, W., Achberger, M., Herr, R., Helmchen, H., & Benkert,
O. (1996). Psychische Erkrankungen und ihre Behandlung in Allgemeinpraxen in Deutschland. [Psychiatric diseases and their treatment in
general practice in Germany]. Nervenarzt, 67, 202215.
Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of
well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,
616 628. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.616
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent
positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin,
131, 803 855. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803
Paul, K. I., & Batinic, B. (2010). The need for work: Jahodas manifest and
latent functions of employment in a representative sample of the German
population. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 45 64. doi:
10.1002/job.622
Paul, K. I., & Moser, K. (2009). Unemployment impairs mental health:
Meta-analyses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 264 282. doi:
10.1016/j.jvb.2009.01.001
Paullay, I. M., Alliger, G. M., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1994). Construct
validation of two instruments designed to measure job involvement and
work centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 224 228. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.79.2.224
Pelled, L. H., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Down and out: An investigation of the
relationship between mood and employee withdrawal behavior. Journal
of Management, 25, 875 895. doi:10.1177/014920639902500605
Postman, L., Bruner, J. S., & McGinnies, E. M. (1948). Personal values as
selective factors in perception. The Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 43, 142154. doi:10.1037/h0059765
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling
strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879 891. doi:10.3758/
BRM.40.3.879
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185227. doi:10.1080/
00273170701341316
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, 6373. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.63
Quick, J. C., Quick, J. D., Nelson, D. L., & Hurrell, J. J. (1997). Preventive
stress management in organizations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10238-000
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal, 2, 121139. doi:
10.1007/BF01384942
Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous A. G., III.(1988). Impact
of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative
model of responses to declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 599 627. doi:10.2307/256461
Schimmack, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2008). The influence of

environment and personality on the affective and cognitive component

of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 89, 41 60. doi:
10.1007/s11205-007-9230-3
Schumacher, J., Klaiberg, A., & Brhler, E. (Eds.) (2003). Diagnostische Verfahren zu Lebensqualitt und Wohlbefinden [Diagnostic instruments of quality
of life and well-being] (pp. 305309). Gttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Selenko, E., Batinic, B., & Paul, K. I. (2011). Does latent deprivation lead
to psychological distress? Investigating Jahodas model in a four-wave
study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84,
723740. doi:10.1348/096317910X519360
Silla, I., De Cuyper, N., Gracia, F., Peiro, J. M., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job
Insecurity and well-being: Moderation by employability. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 10, 739 751. doi:10.1007/s10902-008-9119-0
Sverke, M., De Witte, H., Nswall, K., & Hellgren, J. (2010). European
perspectives on job insecurity: Editorial introduction. Economic and
Industrial Democracy, 31, 175178. doi:10.1177/0143831X10365601
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., Nswall, K., Chirumbolo, A., De Witte, H., & Goslinga,
S. (2004). Job insecurity and union membership: European unions in the wake
of flexible production. Brussels, Belgium: P. IE.-Peter Lang.
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Nswall, K. (2002). No security: A metaanalysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 242264. doi:10.1037/10768998.7.3.242
Sverko, B. (1989). Origin of individual differences in importance attached
to work: A model and a contribution to its evaluation. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 34, 28 39. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(89)90062-6
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analysis based on metaanalytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259 293. doi:10.1111/
j.1744-6570.1993.tb00874.x
Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & de
Chermont, K. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions
and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological
Bulletin, 129, 914 945. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.6.914
Vandenberg, J. R., & Nelson, J. B. (1999). Disaggregating the motives
underlying turnover intentions: When do intentions predict turnover
behaviour? Human Relations, 52, 13131336. doi:10.1177/
001872679905201005
Warr, P., Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1979). Scales for the measurement of some
work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 52, 129 148. doi:10.1111/j.20448325.1979.tb00448.x
Warr, P. (2007). Work, happiness, and unhappiness. London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 10631070.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Westland, J. C. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation
modelling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9, 476
487. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2010.07.003
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a
predictor of job performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 486 493. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.486
Zapf, D., Dormann, C., & Frese, M. (1996). Longitudinal studies in
organizational stress research: A review of the literature with reference
to methodological issues. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
1, 145169. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.1.2.145

Received June 7, 2011

Revision received March 28, 2012
Accepted April 9, 2012