Well-Being and Organizational Attitudes in

Alternative Employment: The Role of Contract

and Job Preferences
Claudia Bernhard-Oettel
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Stockholm University
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Nele De Cuyper
K.U. Leuven

Erik Berntson
Stockholm University

Kerstin Isaksson
Mälardalen University

This study focuses upon the heterogeneity in the contemporary workforce in

relation to well-being and organizational attitudes. This heterogeneity may
concern (a) the specific type of contract (permanent full-time vs. alternative
arrangements; e.g., permanent part-time, fixed-term, and on-call work), (b)
job and contract preferences, or (c) specific combinations of contract type
and preferences. The authors argue that working in alternative employment,
but also being in a nonpreferred contract or job may imply stress and, hence,
strain (i.e., poor well-being). This may lead to withdrawal from the organi-
zation (i.e., poor organizational attitudes). A combination of the stressors
may strengthen these effects. Analyses of questionnaire data from Sweden

Claudia Bernhard-Oettel and Erik Berntson, Department of Work and Organizational

Psychology, Stockholm University, Sweden; Nele De Cuyper, Research Group for Work,
Organizational and Personnel Psychology, K.U. Leuven, Belgium; Kerstin Isaksson, Depart-
ment of Social Science, Mälardalen University, Sweden.
This research is part of the Psycones-project (PSYchological CONtracts across Employ-
ment Situations) of the EU, 5th framework programme (HPSE-CT-2002-00121). It was fur-
thermore supported by a grant from the FWO (Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek–
Vlaanderen, G.0395.05). We want to thank Gunnar Aronsson for valuable comments on earlier
versions of this paper.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Claudia Bernhard-Oettel,
Stockholm University, Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, 106 91 Stock-
holm, Sweden. E-mail: cbl@psychology.su.se

345
International Journal of Stress Management Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association
2008, Vol. 15, No. 4, 345–363 1072-5245/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0013869
 346 Bernhard-Oettel, De Cuyper, Berntson, and Isaksson

collected in 2004 (N ⫽ 716) reveal that preferences, particularly preferences

for the job and partly also for the contract, were associated with the
outcomes. Contract heterogeneity was not informative for well-being, while
it was for differences in reported organizational attitudes. Type of employ-
ment contract interacted with job and contract preferences: for permanent
full-time workers, job preferences displayed stronger associations with well-
being and attitudes than for workers in alternative employment.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Keywords: part-time work, temporary work, preferences, well-being, organizational attitudes

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Permanent full-time employment has long been the standard for a ma-
jority of the workforce (Connelly & Gallagher, 2004). In recent years,
globalizing competition has spurred flexible personnel staffing strategies,
such as part-time, fixed-term, or on-call employment (OECD, 2002). These
forms of employment imply a reduced presence in the organization and
uncertainty about the future of the job, and they are hypothesized to relate to
poor well-being and detrimental organizational attitudes (Beard & Edwards,
1995). To date, however, results on the association between alternative
employment and psychological outcomes have been inconsistent (De Cuyper
et al., 2008; Thorsteinson, 2003).
In this paper, we focus on two explanations for this inconsistency. These
explanations underline different aspects of the heterogeneity in alternative
employment arrangements. First, unlike some earlier studies, we distinguish
among different types of alternative employment arrangements: we argue that
stress risks and, hence, strain, are conditional upon the specific type of
arrangement (Aronsson, Gustafsson, & Dallner, 2002; Bernhard-Oettel,
Sverke, & De Witte, 2005). Second, another aspect of heterogeneity concerns
employees’ job and contract preferences (Aronsson & Göransson, 1999;
Connelly & Gallagher, 2004). Some employees accept a flexible arrange-
ment because it was offered with the job they wanted or because they
prefer a flexible arrangement. Others are forced to accept any assignment
they are offered (Guest, 2004; Thorsteinson, 2003). This difference in
preferences may lead workers to appraise similar employment conditions
differently, and it may induce differences in perceived control over life
and career (Krausz, 2000); factors that are known to relate to strain (e.g.,
poor well-being). Strain, in turn, may prompt withdrawal, or it may
encourage employees to leave the current situation, implying unfavorable
consequences for the organization (e.g., affective organizational commit-
ment and turnover intention). This study investigates different types of
alternative employment forms and individual’s preferences for job and
contract in relation to employee’s well-being (health and life satisfaction),
as well as organizational attitudes (organizational commitment and in-
tentions to quit).
 Well–Being and Attitudes in Alternative Employment 347

ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT, WELL-BEING, AND

ORGANIZATIONAL ATTITUDES

Alternative employment can take many forms depending on country-

specific labor market laws and organizational needs (Connelly & Gallagher,
2004). The most typical examples in Europe and Sweden in particular are
part-time, fixed-term, and on-call employment (Bernhard-Oettel & Isaksson,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

2005; Parent-Thirion, Fernandez, Hurley, & Vermeylen, 2007). Other groups

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

are agency work and independent contracting (De Cuyper et al., 2008). We
chose not to include these last groups because these workers are not directly
hired by the organization, and definitions of the contracts differ across
countries. For example, agency workers have a permanent contract with the
agency in some countries, whereas in other countries, their contract with the
agency is temporary (OECD, 2002).

Part-Time Work

Part-time work accounts for about 17% of the European workforce and
deviates from the standard in number of working hours (Parent-Thirion et al.,
2007). This implies some specific stressors; for example, limited inclusion in
the organization (Martin & Sinclair, 2007), weaker social relationships at
work (Thorsteinsson, 2003), and fewer promotion and training opportunities
(Corral & Isusi, 2004). Nonetheless, unfavorable outcomes in part-time
compared with full-time workers have not consistently been found: research
has reported either no differences (Krausz, Sagie, & Biderman, 2000) or
more positive attitudes for part-time workers (Guest, Oakley, Clinton, &
Budjanovcanin, 2006; Martin & Sinclair, 2007). According to a recent
review, few studies have concerned well-being or the role of voluntary/
involuntary choices (Thorsteinson, 2003).

Temporary Work

About 13% of the European workforce is employed on a temporary

contract; that is, a contract that expires at a specific date or upon the return
of another employee (OECD, 2002). Temporary work is assumed to relate to
poor well-being and unfavorable attitudes owing to employment uncertainty
(De Cuyper et al., 2008), lower wages, and limited access to benefits (OECD,
2002). However, empirical research has revealed a more complex pattern
(Connelly & Gallagher, 2004). A meta-analytic review has associated tem-
porary employment, particularly in contracts with high instability, with
 348 Bernhard-Oettel, De Cuyper, Berntson, and Isaksson

increased psychological morbidity (Virtanen et al., 2005). This underlines

differences between more steady forms of temporary employment, such as
fixed-term contract work, and very precarious contracts, such as on-call
contracting. Fixed-term contract workers generally have relatively long con-
tract durations and associated tenure-related benefits. On-call workers are
hired on an as-needed, short-term basis of some hours or days. Compared
with fixed-term contract workers, stressors are exacerbated in on-call work-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ers; for example, in terms of higher uncertainty of employment and income

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

streams, and very limited inclusion at the workplace. Although some studies
have reported higher risks for ill-health (Aronsson, Dallner, Lindh, &
Göransson, 2005), no differences or even less health complaints have been
found in other research (Bernhard-Oettel et al., 2005). Still, studies about
on-call workers are scarce, particularly when organizational attitudes are
concerned. Another drawback is that few studies have accounted for the
importance of perceptions of the work situation (Isaksson, Aronsson, Bel-
laagh, & Göransson, 2001), such as preferences, for example.
To sum up, part-time employment, fixed-term contract work, and on-call
work differ in important aspects from permanent employment and from each
other. This probably affects stress appraisal, strain, and eventually organiza-
tional attitudes. Accordingly, the first aim of this study is to investigate the
relation between type of employment contract, and well-being and organi-
zational attitudes.

Preferences for Contract and Job, Well-Being, and

Organizational Attitudes

Research in the realm of part-time and temporary employment has

underlined differences in individual’s preferences in relation to well-being
and attitudes. Employment according to one’s preferences may induce con-
trol over one’s life situation (Krausz, 2000), and provide a better person-job
fit. This is likely to generate well-being and the willingness to continue
working in the chosen environment. The opposite may be true for individuals
who had to accept undesired jobs and/or employment conditions.

Contract Preferences

The proportion of involuntary part-time workers, that is, those who

would rather want to work full-time, is about 22% in the EU (Parent-Thirion
et al., 2007). Involuntary part-time workers have been found to be less
satisfied (Thorsteinson, 2003), and they reported higher levels of burnout
 Well–Being and Attitudes in Alternative Employment 349

than those who voluntarily worked part-time (Krausz et al., 2000). Many
temporary workers take on their contract involuntarily (Tan & Tan, 2002).
About 30% of the temporary workforce is employed on voluntary grounds
(Guest, 2004), mainly to improve their résumé or because of the freedom it
implies (Tan & Tan, 2002). Empirical studies have established that involun-
tary temporary work compared with voluntary temporary, and in some cases,
permanent, work was associated with higher levels of irritation (De Cuyper
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

& De Witte, 2007), tended to increase role stress (Krausz, 2000), related to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

less job and reward satisfaction (Ellingson, Gruys, & Sackett, 1998; Krausz,
2000), and higher turnover (Isaksson & Bellaagh, 2002).
Much of the empirical evidence comes from either voluntary or invol-
untary temporary agency workers, who were compared with permanent
full-time workers. Two drawbacks exist here: first, contract preferences
might be more reliably captured along a continuum from voluntary to
involuntary (see, e.g., De Cuyper & De Witte, 2007; Ellingson et al., 1998;
Tan & Tan, 2002). Second, as argued earlier, it could be important to
differentiate among types of alternative employment contracts (Guest et al.,
2006).

Job Preferences

In most industrialized countries, the available high skilled jobs do not

match the growing number of high skilled workers (Rifkin, 1995). A signif-
icant proportion of the workers are employed in jobs of low intrinsic quality
(Corral & Isusi, 2004; Loughlin & Barling, 2001), which do not match their
desire for more stimulating jobs and career opportunities. Not being in the
preferred job has been associated with psychosomatic complaints (Aronsson
& Göransson, 1999), it may lead to detrimental feelings toward the jobs, and
to reduced motivation (Loughlin & Barling, 2001). Few empirical studies
have investigated the role of job preferences and its relative importance
compared to contract preferences in relation to well-being or organizational
attitudes. Accordingly, the second aim of this study is to investigate the
association between preferences for job or contract, respectively, and well-
being and organizational attitudes.

How Do Employment Contract and Job and Contract

Preferences Interact?

Little is known about possible interactions between different heteroge-

neity indicators; that is, contract types and preferences for the contract and/or
 350 Bernhard-Oettel, De Cuyper, Berntson, and Isaksson

job. It could be argued that multiple stressors, for example, flexible employ-
ment and low preferences for job or contract, interact in a multiplicative way,
so that outcomes become particularly unfavorable for workers in alternative
employment, who do not prefer their job and/or contract. The evidence to
date is puzzling: the relationship between contract (De Cuyper & De Witte,
2007; Guest et al., 2006) or job preferences (Aronsson & Göransson, 1999),
and well-being and organizational attitudes was stronger in permanent com-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

pared with temporary workers. Because these studies mostly concerned

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

temporary versus permanent employment, and either contract or job prefer-

ences, the third aim of this study is to investigate possible interactions of
different types of contracts, and preferences for job and contract on well-
being and organizational attitudes.

METHOD

Procedure

The data were collected in 2004 through a questionnaire, which was

distributed to Swedish employees from 28 organizations in three sectors:
food manufacturing, education, and retail. The selection of organizations was
based on two criteria: first, given our specific research question, the selection
of organizations was conditional upon a minimum number of fixed-term
contract and on-call workers. Second, to increase generalizability of findings,
we aimed at seven different organizations per sector. A list of potential
organizations was made using telephone catalogues, sector organizations,
information from the unions, and search machines on the Internet. In a next
step, these organizations were contacted by telephone, and they received an
information letter. Among those unwilling to participate, frequently cited
reasons were the engagement in other projects, the preference for own
screening of workers’ well-being and attitudes regularly applied in the
company, work overload, or managers’ disagreement about the importance of
their company’s participation. However, a diverse sample was collected,
including 7 private companies in the food industry, 9 public and private
schools teaching children as well as adults, and the teaching staff from a
university department in the educational sector, and 12 food markets, cloth-
ing stores, and building material suppliers in the Stockholm area.
All questionnaires were distributed at the work place, with the exception
of one evening school that chose to mail the questionnaires to the homes of
their employees. Along with the questionnaire, a letter explained the study’s
purpose, assured that participation was voluntary, and that responses would
be kept confidential. The completed questionnaires were returned to the
 Well–Being and Attitudes in Alternative Employment 351

research group in sealed envelopes, either directly or via a coordinator in the

company. Up to three reminders were given to the employees.

Sample
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

A total of 768 participants returned their questionnaire, corresponding to

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

an overall response rate of 50%. After listwise deletion of missing data that
served as input for the analyses, the final sample comprised 716 individuals.
Of these, 468 (65%) were employed on permanent full-time contracts, 68
(10%) were permanent part-time workers, 135 (19%) worked as temporary
employees in fixed-term contracts, and 45 (6%) were temporarily employed
on-call. The average age of the sample was 36.8 years and about half of them
(55%) were women. On average, participants worked 34.1 hours per week
and half of them (50%) had an academic degree. With respect to sector, 36%
worked in the educational sector, 35% in food industry, and 29% in retail.
There were significant differences among the employment groups in
terms of background characteristics (see Table 1). Permanent full-time work-
ers were significantly older than fixed-term employees. Compared with both
permanent groups, a significantly higher proportion of workers in both
temporary groups achieved academic education. The proportion of men and
women was about equal across all groups. Almost half of the part-time and
on-call workers were found in the retail sector. Four out of 10 permanent
full-time and fixed-term workers worked in the food sector. To provide a
detailed account of differences among the groups, a descriptive overview was
added for well-being, organizational attitudes, and contract and job prefer-
ences. The differences that were found between permanent workers, both
part-time and full-time, and on-call workers are presented in Table 1.

Measures

The scales in this study were validated in earlier research in different

employment settings and in different types of contracts (Clinton et al., 2005).
They showed single factor structures (PCA) and satisfying reliabilities ex-
ceeding .70, except for organizational commitment that was slightly below
(␣ ⫽ .68). Information about means, standard deviation, estimates of Cron-
bach’s alpha reliabilities, and intercorrelations of all variables can be found
in Table 2. Unless stated otherwise, respondents were asked to indicate their
agreement on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Mean
value indexes were calculated where applicable.
 352 Bernhard-Oettel, De Cuyper, Berntson, and Isaksson

Table 1. Well-Being, Organizational Attitudes, Preferences, and Background Characteristics

Permanent Permanent Fixed-term On-call
full-time part-time workers workers
[1] [2] [3] [4]
N 468 68 135 45
Well-being
Health 3.94 3.85 4.02 3.92
Life satisfaction 4.99 5.05 4.76 4.39
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Organizational attitudes
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Commitment 3.49 3.54 3.27 3.03

Intention to quit 2.12 1.87 1.89 2.08
Preferences
Job preferences 3.24 3.26 3.11 2.73
Contract preferences 3.79 3.64 2.15 2.67
Background characteristics
Age (years) 37.9 37.5 33.3 33.9
Gender (% female) 54 71 52 58
Educational level (% academic) 44 56 60 73
Sector – food % 38 15 40 13
Sector – retail % 29 44 10 49
ⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
p ⱕ .05. p ⱕ .01. p ⱕ .001.

Type of Employment Contract

For the alternative employment forms, we constructed three categorical

dummy variables following recommended procedures (Aiken & West, 1991);
namely, permanent part-time (1 ⫽ part-time workers, 0 ⫽ other), fixed-term
(1 ⫽ fixed-term, 0 ⫽ other), and on-call (1 ⫽ on-call, 0 ⫽ other). Permanent
full-time work served as the comparison group, as it represented the standard
employment form.

Preferences

Job preference was measured with one item (‘My current job is my
preferred job’) adapted from Aronsson and Göransson (1999) and Aronsson,
Dallner, and Gustafsson (2000). Contract preferences were measured using
a four-item scale (Clinton et al., 2005). An example item was ‘My current
employment contract is the one that I prefer’.

Well-Being

General health was assessed with five items (e.g., ‘I am as healthy as

anybody I know’) from the SF36 health survey, which has been adapted and
validated in the Swedish population (Sullivan, Karlsson, & Ware, 1995). Life
 Well–Being and Attitudes in Alternative Employment 353

in Permanent Full-Time Versus Alternative Employment Forms

Total Univariate F ␹2 Group comparisons

716

3.94 0.97 — —
4.92 5.71ⴱⴱⴱ 1–4; 2–4
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

7.44ⴱⴱⴱ
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

3.42 1–3; 1–4; 2–4

2.04 2.83ⴱ — ?

3.19 2.95ⴱ — 2–4

3.40 112.33ⴱⴱⴱ — 1–3; 1–4; 2–3; 2–4; 3–4

36.8 5.27ⴱⴱⴱ — 1–3

55 — 7.59 —
50 — 22.84ⴱⴱⴱ —
35 — 24.80ⴱⴱⴱ —
29 — 41.27ⴱⴱⴱ —

satisfaction was measured with five items from Guest and Conway (1998)
(e.g., ‘How satisfied are you with your life in general?’). Respondents rated
their level of satisfaction on a scale ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 7
(very satisfied).

Organizational Attitudes

Organizational commitment was measured with three items from Cook

and Wall (1980); for example, ‘I feel myself to be part of the organization’.
Intentions to quit were assessed with a three-item scale, modified from Price
(1997) to fit both permanent and temporary employment. For example, one
item read ‘Despite the obligations I have made to this organization, I want to
quit my job as soon as possible’.

Background Characteristics

Individual and work related background characteristics that were inter-

twined with employment form and with the outcomes were controlled for.
Age was measured as a natural scale. Gender (0 ⫽ male, 1 ⫽ female) and
education (1 ⫽ academic university or college education, 0 ⫽ high school
education or below) were dummy variables. In terms of sector, dummy
variables were constructed (Aiken & West, 1991), representing the food
 354 Bernhard-Oettel, De Cuyper, Berntson, and Isaksson

Table 2. Correlations, Means and Standard Deviations for All variables, and ␣ Reliabilities
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Background variables
1. Age 1.00
2. Gender (female) .13ⴱ 1.00
3. Educational level (academic) .27ⴱ .14ⴱ 1.00
4. Sector – food .20 ⫺.29ⴱ ⫺.36ⴱ 1.00
ⴱ

5. Sector – retail .28ⴱ .06 ⫺.29ⴱ ⫺.46ⴱ 1.00

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Employment contract
⫺.02 .11ⴱ .05 ⫺.13ⴱ .12ⴱ 1.00
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

6. Part-time
ⴱ
7. Fixed-term .13 ⫺.03 .10ⴱ .06 ⫺.20ⴱ ⫺.15ⴱ 1.00
8. On-call .06 .01 .12ⴱ ⫺.12ⴱ .12ⴱ ⫺.08ⴱ ⫺.13ⴱ 1.00
Preferences
9. Job preference ⫺.42ⴱ .14ⴱ .23ⴱ ⫺.28ⴱ ⫺.12ⴱ .03 ⫺.03 ⫺.10ⴱ
10. Contract preference ⫺.23ⴱ .09ⴱ ⫺.01 .00 .01 .08 ⫺.52ⴱ ⫺.17ⴱ
Well-being
11. General health ⫺.07 ⫺.08ⴱ .05 .06 ⫺.13ⴱ ⫺.04 .05 ⫺.01
12. Life satisfaction ⫺.14ⴱ .05 ⫺.09ⴱ .06 ⫺.04 .04 ⫺.07 ⫺.13ⴱ
Organizational attitudes
13. Commitment ⫺.21ⴱ .05 .13ⴱ ⫺.16ⴱ .05 .05 ⫺.10ⴱ ⫺.13ⴱ
14. Intentions to quit .18ⴱ ⫺.07ⴱ ⫺.11ⴱ .15ⴱ .00 ⫺.06 ⫺.08ⴱ .01
Note. Scale range: 0 –1 (variables 2– 8 [for these variables the mean value symbolizes the
ⴱ
p ⱕ .05.

industry (1 ⫽ food industry, 0 ⫽ other) and retail (1 ⫽ retail, 0 ⫽ other),

with the educational sector as the comparison group.

Statistical Analysis

We used hierarchical regression analyses. We screened the data in terms

of multicollinearity, skewness, curtosis, and two outlier cases were removed.
Analyses were done for each outcome variable separately, as follows: the
background variables (age, gender, education, and sector) were entered in the
first step. In the second step, we entered type of employment, and, in the third
step, preferences for the contract and preferences for job were entered. In a
fourth step, the following interaction terms were entered: two-way interaction
terms between employment forms (permanent part-time, fixed-term, and
on-call contract) and each of the two types of preferences (contract prefer-
ences, job preferences), the two-way interaction term between the two types
of preferences (contract preferences ⴱ job preferences), and three-way inter-
action term between employment forms (permanent part-time, fixed-term, and
on-call contract) and the two types of preferences (contract preferences ⴱ job
preferences). The interactions were created with the cross-product of the
variables. Following recommendations by Aiken and West (1991), continu-
ous predictors were centered before the cross product was calculated to avoid
 Well–Being and Attitudes in Alternative Employment 355

for Scales (N ⫽ 716)

9 10 11 12 13 14 M SD ␣

36.76 12.91 —
.55 .50 —
.50 .50 —
.35 .48 —
.28 .45 —
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

.09 .28 —
.19 .39 —
.06 .24 —

1.00 3.19 1.16 —

.31ⴱ 1.00 3.40 1.17 .90

.13ⴱ .03 1.00 3.94 .74 .76

.25ⴱ .24ⴱ .32ⴱ 1.00 4.92 1.07 .78

.47ⴱ .26ⴱ .14ⴱ .24ⴱ 1.00 3.42 .77 .68

⫺.51ⴱ ⫺.19ⴱ ⫺.23ⴱ ⫺.30ⴱ ⫺.46ⴱ 1.00 2.05 .96 .84
proportion scoring 1]), 1–5 (variables 9 –11, 13–14), 1–7 (variable 12), years (variable 1).

artificial multicollinearity. In significant interactions, slopes were tested for

significance with t tests, and significant three-way interactions were plotted.

RESULTS

The results of the regression analyses for general health, life satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and intentions to quit are presented in Table 3.
Type of employment was significantly related to organizational attitudes,
but not to general health and life satisfaction. The pattern of results was as
follows: on-call workers reported significantly less commitment compared
with permanent full-time workers, and workers in all three forms of alterna-
tive employment expressed lower intentions to quit than permanent workers.
Job preferences displayed robust positive associations with all four
outcomes: job preferences associated with better general health, higher levels
of life satisfaction, higher levels of organizational commitment, and lower
levels of intentions to quit. Contract preferences were associated positively
with life satisfaction and negatively with intentions to quit. No such relations
were found for general health and organizational commitment.
In the final model, we found significant two-way interactions for life
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intentions to quit, but not for
health. More specifically, life satisfaction was significantly higher for indi-
viduals with high contract preferences and high job preferences, t ⫽ 3.97,
 356 Bernhard-Oettel, De Cuyper, Berntson, and Isaksson

Table 3. Predicting Well-Being and Organizational Attitudes: Standardized Regression

Coefficients (N ⫽ 716)
Well-being Organizational attitudes
General Life Intention
health satisfaction Commitment to quit
␤ last step ␤ last step ␤ last step ␤ last step
Step 1 Background characteristics
Age .02 .07 .05 ⫺.01
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Gender (female) ⫺.08ⴱ .04 ⫺.03 .01

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Education (academic) .03 ⫺.10ⴱ .13ⴱⴱ ⫺.01

Sector-food .06 .15ⴱⴱ .10ⴱ ⫺.05
Sector-retail ⫺.06 .05 .21ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.10ⴱ
R2change .02ⴱⴱ .04ⴱⴱⴱ .07ⴱⴱⴱ .05ⴱⴱⴱ
Step 2 Contract
Permanent part-time contract ⫺.01 .05 .00 ⫺.09ⴱⴱ
Fixed-term contract .07 .04 ⫺.01 ⫺.21ⴱⴱⴱ
On-call contract .05 ⫺.03 ⫺.13ⴱⴱ ⫺.09ⴱ
R2change .00 n.s. .01ⴱ .03ⴱⴱⴱ .02ⴱ
Step 3 Preference variables
Preference for job .14ⴱ .23ⴱⴱⴱ .46ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.52ⴱⴱⴱ
Preference for contract .02 .15ⴱ .08 ⫺.14ⴱⴱⴱ
R2change .02ⴱⴱ .07ⴱⴱⴱ .17ⴱⴱⴱ .23ⴱⴱⴱ
Step 4 Interaction terms
Contract ⴱ job preferences ns ns ⴱ ⴱ

Contract ⴱ contract preferences ns ns ns ns

Job preferences ⴱ contract
ⴱ
preferences ns ns ns
Contract ⴱ job preferences ⴱ
ⴱⴱ ⴱ
contract preferences ns ns
R2change .03ⴱ .02 .01 .02
Total R2 .07 .14 .28 .31
ⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
p ⱕ .05. p ⱕ .01. p ⱕ .001.

p ⬍ .001 than for those with only high contract preferences, t ⫽ 2.37, p ⬍
.001. Furthermore, we found that organizational commitment was higher in
permanent full-time workers with high as compared with low job preference,
t ⫽ 9.27, p ⬍ .001, whereas organizational commitment was unrelated to job
preferences for on-call temporary workers, t ⫽ 0.53, p ⬎ .05. Intentions to
quit were lower for permanent full-timers with high as compared with low
job preference, t ⫽ ⫺13.76, p ⬍ .001, and, although pointing in the same
direction, this relationship was weaker for fixed-term workers, t ⫽ ⫺7.14,
p ⬍ .001.
In addition, we found significant three-way interactions for general
health and intentions to quit. In terms of health, the interaction of job and
contract preferences had different implications for fixed-term compared with
permanent full-time workers. As shown in Figure 1, for fixed-term workers
with low job preferences, high compared with low contract preferences
tended to relate to better health. The effect was weak, and a significance test
of the slope, the t-value, t ⫽ 1.86, p ⬎ .05 was slightly below the 5%
 Well–Being and Attitudes in Alternative Employment 357
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Figure 1. Interactions of job preferences and contract preferences on general health (scale 1–5).

significance level (requiring t ⱖ 1.96). No such tendency of an interaction

effect was found for permanent full-time workers.
The significant three-way interactions between employment types and
job and contract preferences for intentions to quit are plotted in Figure 2. For
permanent full-time workers, those with low job preferences tended to
express higher intentions to quit, and no interaction with contract preferences
was found (t ⫽ ⫺1.22, p ⬎ .05 for high job preferences, and t ⫽ ⫺1.74, p ⬎
.05 for low job preferences). For permanent part-time workers, however, respon-
dents with low job preferences reported lower intentions to quit when their
contract preferences were high as compared with low, t ⫽ ⫺3.21, p ⬍ .001.
The control variables related significantly to the outcomes, and thus
helped to explain some variance in organizational attitudes and well-being.

DISCUSSION

Earlier studies on the psychological consequences of alternative work

arrangements have resulted in contradictory findings; a fact that many schol-

Figure 2. Interactions of job preferences and contract preferences on intentions to quit

(scale 1–5).
 358 Bernhard-Oettel, De Cuyper, Berntson, and Isaksson

ars ascribe to the heterogeneity of alternative employment forms, and to

differences in individual preferences for job and contract. The overall aim of
this paper was to further clarify how differences in objective contractual
agreements and subjective preferences for job and contract, alone or in their
combination, related to workers’ well-being (general health and life satisfac-
tion) and organizational attitudes (organizational commitment and intentions
to quit). In doing so, we controlled for individual and work background
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

characteristics.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Unlike earlier studies (Aronsson et al., 2002; Virtanen et al., 2005), but
in line with the study by Bernhard-Oettel et al. (2005), we found only weak
and overall nonsignificant associations between employment contract and
well-being. Thus, our findings did not support the suggestion that different
alternative employment contracts imply different stressors, which associate
with poor well-being. Contract type was associated with organizational
attitudes: on-call workers reported lower organizational commitment than the
other groups, and all three “alternative” groups reported lower intentions to
quit than permanent workers. Perhaps the relevance of existing employment
theories may be questioned for alternative employment forms (Connelly &
Gallagher, 2004). Except for on-call workers, workers in alternative employ-
ment did not differ significantly from permanent full-time workers with
respect to organizational commitment, but they all expressed lower turnover
intentions. This finding challenges common Human Resource assumptions
that building organizational commitment prevents turnover. Apparently, quit-
ting is an option less often considered by individuals in alternative employ-
ment contracts, and in the light of this study’s finding on well-being, there
may not be a need to withdraw from a contract that is not perceived as a threat
to one’s well-being. In addition, the lower commitment levels may actually
signal a strategy to manage uncertainty and stress that otherwise may be
induced by building relations before knowing whether this pays off.
In a next step, we argued that important aspects of heterogeneity may
also stem from the workers’ contract and job preferences. As the results
show, subjective indicators of job and contract preferences displayed a
stronger and more consistent relationship with the outcomes than the differ-
ent types of contracts. This parallels earlier research that underlines the
importance of subjective interpretations over objective characteristics of the
work situation (Bernhard-Oettel et al., 2005; De Cuyper & De Witte, 2007).
In a relative comparison, the results seemed to indicate a particular impor-
tance of job compared with contract preferences: job preferences were
positively related to general health, life satisfaction, and affective organiza-
tional commitment, and negatively to turnover intentions. Contract prefer-
ences were positively related to life satisfaction, and negatively to turnover
intention, however not to health and organizational commitment. These
findings highlighted the importance of job preferences in particular. This
 Well–Being and Attitudes in Alternative Employment 359

urges a thorough investigation when exploring the impact of different kinds

of choices across different employment groups (see also Aronsson & Görans-
son, 1999). Working in the preferred job most likely is congruent with an
individual’s skills and knowledge, which may induce feelings of mastery that
can be seen as a resource to manage strain. It may furthermore strengthen
workers’ attachment to the organization, as it is conceivable that working in
a preferred job is in accordance with one’s goals and interests, and may
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

therefore easier align with the organization’s goals and interests.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

We continued by investigating interactions to see whether contract

preferences, job preferences, and contract types interact in a multiplicative
way. The analyses revealed that being in a preferred job and a preferred
contract significantly increased life satisfaction, but had no such effect for
general health or organizational attitudes. This finding may indicate that
being in a preferred job and contract is a situation most congruent to one’s
goals, which is known to relate to subjective well-being, for which life
satisfaction may be a general proxy (Diener, Suh, Lukas, & Smith, 1999).
No significant interactions between contract type and contract prefer-
ences were found. This result aligned with our earlier speculation that other
types of preferences, job preferences in particular, are more important, or that
preferences of job and contract should be investigated simultaneously. In-
deed, we found that being in a preferred job was more strongly related to
commitment and reduced turnover intention in permanent workers as com-
pared with fixed-term workers and on-call contractors, respectively. This
result may add to the debate on how being locked-in in a nonpreferred job
may have different implications for different contract holders (Aronsson et
al., 2000; Aronsson & Göransson, 1999). Unlike earlier studies that focused
upon well-being, we demonstrated that the locked-in phenomenon may have
organizational costs, as well. Being locked-in in a nonpreferred job is perhaps
managed easier by temporary workers, who may see their employment as
transitory. It may be particularly stressful for permanent workers, since they
may fear disadvantages when giving up seniority and other safe-guards
against employment insecurity.
With respect to interactions including both types of preferences and
contract, we found some indications that workers in alternative employment
allocate contract preference a more important role than permanent full-
timers. For example, permanent part-time workers, but not permanent full-
time workers, reported the intention to remain in a nonpreferred job, if it was
in the preferred contract. Similarly, our results suggested that health may be
better for fixed-term workers in nonpreferred jobs, if they preferred their
employment contract. This did not seem to be the case for permanent
full-time workers. These findings may reflect an idea of “first employment
status, then job career”: individuals in alternative employment forms strive to
enhance their contract status, no matter what job they, for the time being,
 360 Bernhard-Oettel, De Cuyper, Berntson, and Isaksson

perform. Core workers may try to improve the fit to the (aspired) job in
accordance with their current career status or ambitions.

LIMITATIONS
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

As with all research, there may be limitations to this study. First, the use
of cross-sectional data may limit causal interpretation (Tarris & Kompier,
2003), and it may enhance common-method variance (Podsakoff, McKenzie,
Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Even though our results were in line with theoret-
ical propositions, and partly replicated and extented earlier findings, it
appears important to test the assumptions in a longitudinal design. However,
the difficulties inherent in the follow-up of the temporary employees in the
same organizational and job-related context should be acknowledged.
A second limitation of this study related to sample characteristics and
generalizability, for example in terms of sector and employment types.
However, we sampled different organizations in each sector, which should
enhance heterogeneity and generalizability, and we chose contract types that
were most representative in Sweden and in other parts of the Western world.
In addition, the composition of the alternative workforce in this sample was
in line with trends in the Swedish labor market: for example, the larger share
of part-time employment in the retail sector reflects the unions’ striving to
shape flexibility with part-time work instead of temporary employment
whenever possible. The fact that both types of temporary arrangements
expressed lower contract preferences, and that on-call arrangements were
related to lower job preferences, aligned with results reported in representa-
tive samples from the Labor Survey (see Bernhard-Oettel & Isaksson, 2005).
However, further research is needed in other national contexts, other sectors,
and other types of alternative employment contracts (e.g., self-employment,
subcontracting), to estimate the generalizability of our findings.
Third, the interaction effects reported here were small; an observation
that is common in field as compared with laboratory studies (for a more
profound discussion on little R2 changes despite significant interaction terms,
see McClelland & Judd, 1993). An explanation close at hand in this study is
that many terms had to be added to account for the different employment
forms, and when testing three-way interactions. In addition, because different
alternative employment forms are more or less widespread, sample sizes in
the groups differed, which is known to have unfavorable effects for param-
eter estimation. It has to be noted, however, that significant interaction effects
carry important meaning in that they alter the interpretation of main effects,
even though they just slightly reduce unexplained variance.
 Well–Being and Attitudes in Alternative Employment 361

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Despite these limitations, we believe that the present study contributed to

research in the realm of alternative employment in at least three ways. First,
we demonstrated that a further distinction among types of alternative con-
tracts versus permanent contracts advances the understanding of employees’
organizational attitudes. However, it did not explain earlier inconsistent
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

findings concerning well-being. Second, we concluded that psychological

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

mechanisms related to preferences, job preferences in particular, add to the

understanding of workers’ well-being and organizational attitudes. Third, and
perhaps most innovative, was our finding that preferences for job and
contract, alone or in their interaction, displayed different associations with
well-being and attitudes, depending on which type of contract an individual
held. More specifically, we found that job preferences tended to be particu-
larly important for permanent workers, whereas for the alternative workforce,
contract preferences may be more relevant.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Aronsson, G., Dallner, M., & Gustafsson, K. (2000). Yrkes- och Arbetsplatsinlåsning. [Being
Locked-In in Occupation and Workplace.] Arbete och Hälsa, 5.
Aronsson, G., Dallner, M., Lindh, T., & Göransson, S. (2005). Flexible pay but fixed expenses:
Personal financial strain among on-call employees. International Journal of Health
Services, 35, 499 –528.
Aronsson, G., & Göransson, S. (1999). Permanent employment but not in a preferred occupa-
tion: Psychological and medical aspects, research implications. Journal of Organisational
Health Psychology, 4, 152–163.
Aronsson, G., Gustafsson, K., & Dallner, M. (2002). Work environment and health in different
types of temporary jobs. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11,
151–175.
Beard, K., M., & Edwards, J. R. (1995). Employees at risk: Contingent work and the
psychological experiences of contingent workers. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson
(Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 109 –126). New York: Wiley.
Bernhard-Oettel, C., & Isaksson, K. (2005). Work-related well-being and job characteristics
among “Temps” in Sweden. In N. De Cuyper, K. Isaksson, & H. De Witte (Eds.),
Employment contracts and well-being among European workers (pp. 177—200). Alder-
shot: Ashgate.
Bernhard-Oettel, C., Sverke, M., & De Witte, H. (2005). Comparing three alternative types of
employment with permanent full-time work: How do employment contract and perceived
job conditions relate to health complaints? Work & Stress, 19, 301–318.
Clinton, M., Guest, D., Budjanovcanin, A., Staynvarts, N., Krausz, M., Bernhard-Oettel, C., et
al. (2005). Investigating individual and organizational determinants of the psychological
contract: Data collection and analysis. London: King’s College.
 362 Bernhard-Oettel, De Cuyper, Berntson, and Isaksson

Connelly, C. E., & Gallagher, D. G. (2004). Emerging trends in contingent work research.
Journal of Management, 30, 959 –983.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment
and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39 –52.
Corral, A., & Isusi, I. (2004). Part-time work in Europe. Dublin: European Foundation.
De Cuyper, N., De Jong, J., De Witte, H., Isaksson, K., Rigotti, T., & Schalk, R. (2008).
Literature review of theory and research on the psychological impact of temporary
employment: Towards a conceptual model. International Journal of Management Re-
views, 10, 25–52.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2007). Associations between contract preference and attitudes,
well-being and behavioural intentions. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 28, 292–312.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three
decades of process. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276 –302.
Ellingson, J. E., Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (1998). Factors related to the satisfaction and
performance of temporary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 913–921.
Guest, D. (2004). Flexible employment contracts, the psychological contract and employee
outcomes: An analysis and review of the evidence. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 5, 1–19.
Guest, D., & Conway, N. (1998). Fairness at work and the psychological contract. London:
Chartered Institute of Personnel Development.
Guest, D. E., Oakley, P., Clinton, M., & Budjanovcanin, A. (2006). Free or precarious? A
comparison of the attitudes of workers in flexible and traditional employment contracts.
Human Resource Management Review, 16, 107–124.
Isaksson, K., Aronsson, G., Bellaagh, K., & Göransson, S. (2001). Att ofta byta arbetsplats: En
jämförelse mellan uthyrda och korttidsanställda. [To change workplace often. A compar-
ison between agency workers and short-term employees.] Arbete och Hälsa, 7.
Isaksson, K., & Bellaagh, K. (2002). Health problems and quitting among female “temps”.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 27– 45.
Krausz, M. (2000). Effects of short- and long-term preference for temporary work upon
psychological outcomes. International Journal of Manpower, 21, 635– 647.
Krausz, M., Sagie, A., & Bidermann, Y. (2000). Actual and preferred work schedules and
scheduling control as determinants of job-related attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior, 56, 1–11.
Loughlin, C., & Barling, J. (2001). Young workers’ work values, attitudes, and behaviours.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 543–558.
Martin, J., & Sinclair, R. (2007). A typology of the part-time workforce: Differences on job
attitudes and turnover. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80,
301–319.
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and
moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376 –390.
OECD. (2002). Employment outlook. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
Parent-Thirion, A., Fernández Macı́as, E., Hurley, J., & Vermeylen, G. (2007). Fourth Euro-
pean Working Conditions Survey. Dublin: European Foundation.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879 –903.
Price, J. L. (1997). Handbook of organizational measurement. International Journal of Man-
power, 18, 305–558.
Rifkin, J. (1995). The end of work. New York: Tarcher/Putnam.
Sullivan, M., Karlsson, J., & Ware, J. E. (1995). The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey: I.
 Well–Being and Attitudes in Alternative Employment 363

Evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and construct validity across
general populations in Sweden. Social Science & Medicine, 41, 1349 –1358.
Tan, H., & Tan, C. (2002). Temporary employees in Singapore: What drives them? Journal of
Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 136, 83–102.
Taris, T. W., & Kompier, M. (2003). Challenges in longitudinal designs in occupational health
psychology. Scandinavian Journal Of Work, Environment & Health, 29, 1– 4.
Thorsteinson, T. J. (2003). Job attitudes of part-time vs. full-time workers: A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 151–177.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Virtanen, M., Kivimäki, M., Joenssu, M., Virtanen, P., Elovainio, M., & Vahtera, J. (2005).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Temporary employment and health: A review. International Journal of Epidemiology, 34,

610 – 622.

E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!

Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal
will be available online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at
http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be notified by e-mail when issues of interest
to you become available!