My Self: The Key to Job Insecurity Predicting My Occupational and General Well-Being

Abstract

We examine two types of job insecurity as stressors, focusing on (a) the underlying mechanism of organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) as a mediator based on stress-as-offense-to-self (SOS) theory and (b) the boundary conditions or moderators of role clarity and meaningful work based on resources theories. Data were obtained from 324 full-time U.S. employees across two surveys with a 2-week lag to examine job insecurity’s ability to predict both occupational and general well-being outcomes. We employed bootstrapping with PROCESS to test moderated mediation hypotheses. As predicted from SOS theory, OBSE mediated the relationships between the two types of job insecurity with employee well-being (job satisfaction, vigor, life satisfaction, and physical health). Additionally, the job resource of meaningful work moderated the relationships for both types of insecurity, and the resource of role clarity moderated the link only for affective insecurity. The conditional indirect effects of job insecurity on the four well-being outcomes via OBSE were stronger for those who have more meaningful work but less clear roles. Overall, the study found that one of the resources, role clarity, moderated the aversive effect of insecurity. Employees with insecure jobs can benefit from opportunities to boost their OBSE for their productive and healthy lives.

Full text

International Journal of Stress Management
My Self: The Key to Job Insecurity Predicting My Occupational and General
Well-Being
Minseo Kim and Terry A. Beehr
Online First Publication, June 12, 2023. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/str0000298
CITATION
Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2023, June 12). My Self: The Key to Job Insecurity Predicting My Occupational and General Well-
Being. International Journal of Stress Management. Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/str0000298

My Self: The Key to Job Insecurity Predicting
My Occupational and General Well-Being
Minseo Kim
1
and Terry A. Beehr
2
1
Department of Business Administration, Hankyong National University
2
Department of Psychology, Central Michigan University
We examine two types of job insecurity as stressors, focusing on (a) the underlying mechanism of
organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) as a mediator based on stress-as-offense-to-self (SOS) theory and
(b) the boundary conditions or moderators of role clarity and meaningful work based on resources theories.
Data were obtained from 324 full-time U.S. employees across two surveys with a 2-week lag to examine job
insecurity’s ability to predict both occupational and general well-being outcomes. We employed
bootstrapping with PROCESS to test moderated mediation hypotheses. As predicted from SOS theory,
OBSE mediated the relationships between the two types of job insecurity with employee well-being ( job
satisfaction, vigor, life satisfaction, and physical health). Additionally, the job resource of meaningful work
moderated the relationships for both types of insecurity, and the resource of role clarity moderated the link
only for affective insecurity. The conditional indirect effects of job insecurity on the four well-being
outcomes via OBSE were stronger for those who have more meaningful work but less clear roles. Overall,
the study found that one of the resources, role clarity, moderated the aversive effect of insecurity. Employees
with insecure jobs can benefit from opportunities to boost their OBSE for their productive and healthy lives.
Keywords: job insecurity, organization-based self-esteem, well-being, meaningful work, role clarity
Job insecurity is awareness of the likelihood of losing one’sjob
(cognitive insecurity) and emotional worries (affective insecurity)
associated with that awareness (Huang et al., 2012;Jiang & Lavaysse,
2018). Organizations’policies and past practices can be responsible
for some of the insecurity their employees feel. For example,
universities often have the opportunity for faculty employees to earn
tenure, which is not an absolute guarantee of employment but makes
it clearer that employees are considered desirable assets the
organization will try to retain. On the other hand, employers can
have a history of laying off employees as a first strategy to cut costs
during downturns in the business. Aside from the insecurity under
the organization’s control, some extreme environmental conditions
can also pressure the organization to adopt insecurity-causing actions.
Increased competition and unpredictable environments, when
extreme enough, can cause organizations to change employment
patterns and adopt cost-effective practices, including outsourcing
(Shoss, 2017). Regardless of the cause of the insecurity, it is an
important practical issue, and we need to know more about its nature
and effects.
The purpose of the present study is to identify how job insecurity
has effects on employee well-being. We propose that both cognitive
and affective job insecurity’s links to employees’organization-based
self-esteem (OBSE) may explain why they can influence employees’
well-being. We use stress-as-offense-to-self (SOS; Semmer et al.,
2019) theory to explain how, and job demand-resources (JD-R;
Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) theory to explain when this effect occurs.
That is, SOS theory guided us to examine a potential mediator
(OBSE), and JD-R guided us to examine potential moderators (role
clarity and meaningful work). These explanations would be important
because understanding the other variables involved in the insecurity-
outcomes process may help us better understand how to alleviate
some of the negative effects of insecurity.
Past studies found evidence for different outcomes of cognitive
and affective job insecurity. For example, research suggested that
affective job insecurity is more strongly associated with general
psychological strain, whereas cognitive insecurity relates more
strongly to work-related outcomes including job satisfaction (Huang
et al., 2012). Probst (2003) found that affective job insecurity was
negatively related to physical and mental health, but cognitive job
insecurity was not. In a study by Mauno and Kinnunen (2002), only
affective job insecurity was predictive of impaired self-esteem. De
Witte (2000) showed the two types of job insecurity to be negatively
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Minseo Kim https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7522-184X
MINSEO KIM is an assistant professor of Management at Hankyong
National University. She has conducted research on several employment
topics such as occupational stress, leadership, motivation, job crafting, and
work–life interface.
TERRY A. BEEHR is a Psychology Professor Emeritus at Central Michigan
University. His research interests include occupational stress, leadership,
motivation, careers, and retirement.
The authors previously presented some of these data at the 12th
International Conference on Occupational Stress and Health, “Work, Stress,
and Health 2017: Contemporary Challenges and Opportunities,”Minnea-
polis, MN, United States.
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the
content of the present study.
The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Minseo
Kim, Department of Business Administration, Hankyong National
University, 327 Jungang-ro, Anseong-si, Gyeonggi-do 17579, South
Korea. Email: minseokim0331@gmail.com
International Journal of Stress Management
© 2023 American Psychological Association
ISSN: 1072-5245 https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000298
1

related to both job satisfaction and performance, but these
relationships were stronger for cognitive job insecurity. Overall,
job insecurity is related to poor well-being and work-related
outcomes (Jiang & Lavaysse, 2018;Sverke et al., 2019), but the
studies examining cognitive and affective job insecurity separately
have shown inconsistent findings. Therefore, we examined the two
forms of insecurity as separate variables.
Total Worker Health, an initiative of the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, is defined as programs or practices
to protect the health of employees and advance their well-being by
creating healthier work (Guerin et al., 2021;National Institute for
Occupational Safety & Health, 2021). Subjective well-being is a
broad term referring especially to happiness or satisfaction with
one’s overall life (e.g., Diener, 1984). To capture the broad construct
of well-being, we added physical health to the psychological well-
being of life satisfaction, and to these general states of well-being,
we added work-related well-being in the form of job satisfaction and
work vigor. These four indicators have commonly been considered
to be types of well-being in the literature (e.g., in recent meta-
analysis by Biswas et al., 2022). Overall, well-being is therefore
both psychological and physical as well as work-related and general
wellness. By measuring multiple types of well-being, any
differences in the effects of job insecurity on them will be revealed.
A key mediator in our study’s model (Figure 1) is OBSE, defined
as employees’beliefs about their self-worth in the workplace (Pierce
& Gardner, 2004) that is also considered a personal resource
employees can draw on to cope with stress and accomplish goals
(e.g., Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). SOS theory of occupational stress
highlights self-beliefs, such as OBSE, as a central construct in stress-
mediation models (e.g., Kim & Beehr, 2018;Semmer et al., 2007).
SOS theory argues that attaining and maintaining a favorable self-
concept (as represented by OBSE in the workplace; Semmer et al.,
2019) is a human need, and employees strive to keep or increase it in
order to avoid physical or psychological problems or strains (such as
poor well-being in the present study).
Previous research examined some well-being outcomes related
to cognitive or affective job insecurity, but their findings were
inconsistent (e.g., De Witte, 2000;Huang et al., 2012;Mauno &
Kinnunen, 2002). Thus, it is important for us to (a) examine a broad
sample of the different forms of well-being and (b) examine boundary
conditions for their relationship to job insecurity. In order to identify
and propose moderators as boundary conditions for the insecurity
effects mediated by OBSE, however, JD-R theory was especially
useful, because of its basic proposal that resources moderate or
interact with stressors/demands to affect well-being (Schaufeli &
Taris, 2014). We propose two moderators—role clarity (degree to
which employees clearly understand their work responsibilities and
expectations; Rizzo et al., 1970) and meaningful work (degree to
which employees see their work as important, especially because it
affects others; Hackman & Oldham, 1980;Rosso et al., 2010). We
expect that these two types of resources buffer the negative effect of
job insecurity on OBSE.
Overall, we examined the SOS proposition about OBSE as a
mediator and the JD-R proposition about resources (role clarity and
meaningful work) as moderators of the relationship between job
insecurity as a stressor and well-being as an outcome. Figure 1 is a
moderated mediation model, whereby role clarity and meaningful
work (i.e., two moderators) lessen the strength of the indirect effect
of job insecurity on employee well-being outcomes via OBSE (i.e.,
the mediator).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Figure 1
Hypothesized Model Estimating the Effects of Cognitive and Affective Job Insecurity on Four Well-
Being Outcomes Through Organization-Based Self-Esteem, With Indirect Effects Moderated by
Role Clarity and Meaningful Work
Note. Performed using PROCESS Model 9.
2KIM AND BEEHR

OBSE as a Mediator
SOS theory argues that many workplace stressors have their
effects on employee strains such as (poor) well-being because they
threaten the employee’s sense of self (Semmer et al., 2019). OBSE is
affected by organizational factors, including fairness, job authority,
and organizational caring (McAllister & Bigley, 2002), and, in turn,
it affects important outcomes, including job performance and well-
being (Selenko et al., 2017).
Pierce and Gardner (2004) suggested three key sources for the
development of OBSE: (a) factors facilitating employees’job
success, (b) management practices helping employees exert self-
control, and (c) signals or evaluations that employees are competent
and valuable members of the organization. Job insecurity may have
a detrimental effect on these sources of self-perceived value,
although employees also may experience different amounts of job
insecurity according to their employment types such as temporary,
part-time, or full-time work (Nielsen et al., 2021;Silla et al., 2005).
First, when job-insecure employees lack success-building situa-
tions, they feel powerless and unable to gain access to benefits (e.g.,
information) facilitating their job performance (Ashford et al.,
1989). Second, job insecurity involves the “perceived powerless-
ness to maintain desired continuity in a threatened job situation”
(Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 2010, p. 9). Thus, job insecurity
threatens one’s status or social identity as an employed person
(Selenko et al., 2017). Furthermore, job insecurity makes employees
feel less control over their work-life or desired job characteristics
(Ashford et al., 1989), and this low perceived control impairs the
second source of employees’OBSE. Finally, job insecurity can be
due to implicit signals about employees’worth to the organization.
Job-insecure employees may be unavailable for advantages that a
permanent job typically offers, such as promotions, steady pay
increases, and opportunities for personal development (Greenhalgh
& Rosenblatt, 1984), making employees feel they are not considered
to be valuable and competent organizational members.
We expect OBSE to transfer the effects of the stressor job
insecurity to the four well-being indicators as proposed by SOS
theory (Semmer et al., 2019); employees experiencing low OBSE as a
result of job insecurity are unlikely to develop desirable reactions
toward their work (job satisfaction and vigor) and nonwork (life
satisfaction and physical health) lives. High self-esteem employees
believe themselves to be important and capable at work and reinforce
their positive self-concept by developing positive work-related
responses (Pierce & Gardner, 2004). Therefore, OBSE is expected to
be positively related to job satisfaction, which reflects a positive
emotional response to the job (Locke, 1976). In addition, OBSE
should be related to employees’vigor, an indicator of high levels of
positive health or energy while working (a form of engagement;
Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003). High OBSE helps employees address the
demands resulting from job or work environments (e.g., Kim &
Beehr, 2018). Because employees perceive their organization as
important for satisfying their needs, they engage more in their work
tasks (Gardner & Pierce, 2016).
OBSE levels derived from insecurity are also proposed to affect
employees’life satisfaction and physical health because work-related
experience can spill over into other life domains. Thus, positive
experience and affect regarding one’s ability and competence
obtained from work may positively influence employees’reactions
toward their lives as a whole. In addition, the personal resource,
OBSE may play a role in employees’success in overcoming physical
symptoms. For instance, individuals with high self-esteem showed
low levels of depression and physical health problems (Orth et al.,
2012). High self-esteem is related to confidence in taking positive
actions, and meta-analytic evidence found that self-esteem was
positively related to health-promoting behaviors (Judge & Hurst,
2008). Employees who consider themselves to be less important,
competent, and capable organization members (lower OBSE due to
insecurity) do not believe they have the ability to affect environmental
conditions and experience more stress leading to physical symptoms
(SOS theory; Semmer et al., 2019).
Hypothesis 1: OBSE mediates the relationships of cognitive
and affective job insecurity with employees’(a) job satisfaction,
(b) vigor, (c) life satisfaction, and (d) physical health.
Role Clarity and Meaning as Moderators
In addition to OBSE as a mediator, we propose two moderators—
role clarity and meaningful work—which are job resources in the
workplace, and the link of job insecurity with OBSE is posited to be
affected by these job resources.
Role clarity refers to the extent to which employees have a clear
understanding of their job responsibilities, expected performance
standards, and feedback mechanism s (Breaugh & Colihan, 1994). It is
a job resource that has been linked to various positive outcomes; in
the presence of clear and concise information, employees direct their
efforts toward achieving the goals set by the organization, leading to
greater job satisfaction and performance (Breaugh & Colihan, 1994;
Tisu et al., 2022). Theoretically, JD-R (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007)
proposes resources such as role clarity can serve as protective features
of work by preventing stressors in the workplace from damaging
employees’well-being, and in fact, previous research provided
evidence for the possible moderating effect of role clarity on the
relationship between job insecurity (a stressor) and OBSE. Employ-
ees with high levels of role clarity reported higher levels of OBSE,
even when they experienced job insecurity; when employees have a
clear understanding of their job responsibilities, expectations, and
tasks within the organization, they feel more valued and motivated in
their work, even when they are experiencing negative perceptions
related to job security (Kim & Beehr, 2022). That is, employees who
have sufficient and clear-enough information to understand their roles
and duties can focus on their jobs, which helps them feel more in
control of their work situation (Schreurs et al., 2010). This increased
sense of control is likely to help employees maintain their sense of
self-esteem and belief in their own competence when faced with job
insecurity. Overall, the literature suggests that role clarity can be a key
job resource that plays a moderating role in the relationship between
job insecurity and OBSE.
Hypothesis 2: Role clarity moderates the negative relationship
of (a) cognitive and (b) affective job insecurity with OBSE.
Hypothesis 2-1: Role clarity moderates the strength of the
mediated effects of OBSE on the negative relationships of (a)
cognitive and (b) affective job insecurity with four well-being
outcomes, such that the mediated relationships are weaker at
higher levels of role clarity.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
STRESSOR OF JOB INSECURITY 3

Meaningful work is also a job resource because it functions to
help employees reach their goals by increasing their commitment
and enthusiasm to the tasks, resulting in their learning and
development (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). We propose the experience
of meaningful work moderates the relationship between job
insecurity and OBSE. When employees perceive their work to be
meaningful, they are more likely to view their work as an extension
of their identity and their contribution to the organization as
significant, which enhances their sense of self-esteem (e.g., Hirschi,
2012;Pierce & Gardner, 2004), making them less vulnerable to
negative effects of job insecurity.
JD-R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) argues that resources
can interact with demands or stressors to reduce strains such as poor
well-being. Consistent with this argument, a study found that
employees who experienced high levels of job insecurity (as a
hindrance stressor) reported greater levels of burnout, but this
relationship was weaker for employees who found their work to be
meaningful (Meng et al., 2022). Meaningful work promotes positive
states such as vigor (Johnson & Jiang, 2017) as well as provides a
sense of purpose, value, and direction (Rosso et al., 2010) that can
help employees to cope with the distress caused by job insecurity.
Therefore, employees who perceive their work as meaningful will
be less likely to experience negative emotions and will be more
likely to view job insecurity as a challenge they can try to meet
satisfactorily. Overall, insecurity will not bother the employee’s
self-image as much when work is considered important and useful to
others (i.e., is meaningful), because even the possibility of future job
loss is not a strong enough negative event to seriously harm their
self-image. That is, meaning in one’s work will act as a buffer
between the stressor of insecurity and aversive employee outcomes
via employees’self-esteem.
Hypothesis 3: Meaningful work moderates the negative
relationship of (a) cognitive and (b) affective job insecurity
with OBSE.
Hypothesis 3-1: Meaningful work moderates the strength of the
mediated effects of OBSE on the negative relationships of (a)
cognitive and (b) affective job insecurity with four well-being
outcomes, such that the mediated relationships are weaker at
higher levels of meaningful work.
Method
Participants and Procedure
The sample comprised full-time U.S. employees in a wide range
of industries, including retail, manufacturing, and telecommunica-
tions. They were recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk);
MTurk data on U.S. employees are as high quality as employee data
obtained from other typical sources such as work organizations and
other online data platforms (e.g., Qualtrics) in terms of reliability
and criterion validity (Walter et al., 2019).
We collected data twice with a 2-week interval to reduce common
method effects (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Additionally, we used
several quality-control techniques, consistent with recommenda-
tions by past research (Cheung et al., 2017). After submitting the
survey, IP addresses were blocked to avoid multiple participation.
We also included attention-check items with obviously true answers
and reverse-worded items. If participants provided the same answers
across the reversed and nonreversed items or wrong answers on
attention-check questions, it meant they did not read each survey
item carefully. We, therefore, removed their responses from the
dataset.
We asked participants to create their own six-digit code with
combinations of two numbers and four letters in the first survey and to
enter the same code in the second in order to match their two surveys.
At Time 1, 588 full-time U.S. employees provided usable responses.
Of these, 352 completed the Time 2 survey. After dropping 28 cases
because of low-effort responding, we analyzed a final sample of 324.
The sample was 55.0% female, 81.5% White, and 66.6% college-
educated, 64.2% were between 18 and 39 years old, 17.0% between
40 and 49, 13.6% between 50 and 59, and 5.2% were more than
60 years old. In the sample, 39.8% had entry-level jobs, 52.8% were
middle management, 6.8% were senior management, and 0.6% did
not report their job levels. Among the 324 participants, 41.4% had
been working at their current organization for less than 3 years, 39.8%
between 4 and 10 years, and 18.8% more than 10 years.
To assess whether the final sample was representative of the Time 1
sample, we compared demographic differences between the two
samples using multiple logistic regression as in Goodman and Blum
(1996). We found no significant differences in demographic variables
(gender, race, age, and education) between Time 1 and Time 2 despite
some attrition in our sample. Additionally, we found no evidence of
serious systematic sample biases.
Measures
Job insecurity (Time 1) was measured with eleven items by
De Witte (2000) addressing both affective and cognitive job
insecurity. Example items include “I fear that I might get fired”
for affective job insecurity (five items; α=.91) and “There is only a
small chance that I will become unemployed”(reversed coded) for
cognitive job insecurity (six items; α=.83). The items were rated
from 1 =strongly disagree to 7 =strongly agree. The items of the
cognitive and affective job insecurity measures have been shown to
be reliable, with Cronbach’sαcoefficient of .90 and .85, respectively
(De Witte, 2000).
OBSE (Time 2) was measured on a 10-item scale (α=.95)
developed by Pierce et al. (1989). An example item is “I am valuable
in this organization,”rated from 1 =strongly disagree to 7 =strongly
agree. A Cronbach’sαcoefficient in Pierce et al. (1989) was .91, and
the test–retest reliability coefficient was .75.
Job satisfaction (Time 2) was measured using the three-item (α=
.92) Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann
et al., 1983). An example item is “All in all, I am satisfied with my
job,”rated from 1 (strongly disagree)to7(strongly agree). In a meta-
analysis by Bowling and Hammond (2008), the Michigan Organiza-
tional Assessment Questionnaire Job Satisfaction subscale has shown
acceptable levels of reliability. To be specific, “the mean sample-
weighted internal consistency reliability was .84 (k=79, N=
30,623)”(p. 69).
Work vigor (Time 2) was assessed using the three-item short
version (α=.85) of the Utrecht Work Engagement Survey–9
(Schaufeli et al., 2006), which was previously validated in Finland
(Seppäläet al., 2009). An example item is “At my job, I feel strong
and vigorous,”rated from 1 (never)to7(always). Cronbach’sαof
the three-item vigor scale varied across 10 different countries
between .60 and .88 (Schaufeli et al., 2006).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
4KIM AND BEEHR

Life satisfaction (Time 2) was assessed using the five-item (α=
.91) Satisfaction with Life Scale by Diener et al. (1985). An example
item is “In most ways my life is close to my ideal,”rated from 1
(strongly disagree)to7(strongly agree). The test–retest correlation
coefficient was .82, and coefficient αwas .87, showing a good level
of internal consistency for the scale (Diener et al., 1985).
Physical health (Time 2) was measured with a 12-item (α=.85)
version of the Physical Symptoms Inventory (PSI) developed by
Spector and Jex (1998). Example items include “How often have you
experienced headache, loss of appetite, fatigue, trouble sleeping,
dizziness?”rated from 1 (not at all)to5(everyday). We reverse-
scored this measure; higher scores mean better health. The PSI scale
has demonstrated good psychometric properties with a Cronbach’sα
of .93 (Kim & Beehr, 2018).
Role clarity (Time 2) was assessed with six items (α=.85) from
Rizzo et al. (1970). An example item is “I know exactly what is
expected of me,”rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree)to7
(strongly agree). Reliability estimates for it have been acceptable
(α=.78; Kim & Beehr, 2018;α=.88; Kim & Beehr, 2022).
Meaningful work (Time 2) was assessed with three items (α=
.92) developed by Spreitzer (1995). A sample item is “The work I do
is very important to me,”rated from 1 (strongly disagree)to7
(strongly agree). The original scale development study reported a
Cronbach’sαof .87 (Spreitzer, 1995).
Control variables (Time 1) included gender, age, education, and
tenure, because these variables have been shown to be related to
job insecurity and well-being (Kinnunen et al., 2010;Mauno
et al., 2005).
Results
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and
correlations of all the variables. Cronbach’sαs were good, ranging
from .83 to .95. Correlations corresponding to the paths in the
hypothesized model were all significant and in the expected
directions. The two job insecurity variables, the predictors in the
model, were significantly related to the mediator, OBSE (r=−.40 for
affective insecurity and r=−.48 for cognitive insecurity, both p<
.01), and OBSE was significantly related to the four criteria: job
satisfaction (r=.55, p<.01), vigor (r=.50, p<.01), life satisfaction
(r=.36, p<.01), and physical health (r=.27, p<.01). Pearson
correlations indicated that participants’age, gender, educational
levels, and years of tenure were not significantly related to study
variables, and therefore we did not include these control variables in
the hypotheses tests.
The Measurement Model (Confirmatory
Factor Analysis)
We first did confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) with LISREL
9.30 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2017) to test the measurement model, and
then, when the CFAs confirmedthe quality of the variables, we tested
the hypotheses. CFAs of the variables in the model in Figure 1
examined discriminant and convergent validity. We used items of
each construct as indicators except the two variables (OBSE and
physical health) with more than ten items, where the item-parceling
method was applied (Little et al., 2013); their items were randomly
parceled to create three indicators. If researchers were interested in
the relations among constructs, not the relations among specific
items, the item-parceling method is recommended (Little et al.,
2002). Parceling is also found to have negligible effects on bias in
parameter estimates and standard errors (Alhija & Wisenbaker,
2006). The fit was good, χ
2
(593) =1,743.36, p<.01; standardized
root-mean-square residual =.06; comparative fitindex=.96;
nonnormed fitindex=.96; incremental fit index =.96; root-mean-
square error of approximation =.08. We also compared the proposed
nine-factor model with a series of other alternative measurement
models (CFAs) as shown in Table 2, and the results suggested the
original nine-factor measurement model to be the most reliable one.
Hypotheses Testing
We then tested hypotheses using Models 4 and 9 of PROCESS
(Hayes, 2018b), with 10,000 bootstrapped samples.
Mediation
Hypotheses 1a–1d predicted that OBSE mediates the relation-
ships of cognitive and affective job insecurity with job satisfaction,
vigor, life satisfaction, and physical health. We entered cognitive job
insecurity as a predictor first, then OBSE as a mediator, and finally
four outcomes one by one to examine the mediation model. The
same procedure was followed for affective job insecurity. Table 3
shows that all of the predicted indirect effects were significant.
Completely standardized indirect effects (i.e., effect sizes) for
cognitive job insecurity on the four outcomes mediated by OBSE
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Correlations
Variables MSD 1 2 3456789
1. Cognitive JI (T1) 2.84 1.17 .83 —
2. Affective JI (T1) 3.02 1.53 .78** .91 —
3. OBSE (T2) 5.54 1.02 −.48** −.40** .95 —
4. Job satisfaction (T2) 5.19 1.39 −.42** −.36** .55** .92 —
5. Vigor (T2) 4.55 1.20 −.33** −.29** .50** .71** .85 —
6. Life satisfaction (T2) 4.62 1.34 −.26** −.24** .36** .49** .49** .91 —
7. Physical health (T2) 4.28 .56 −.28** −.33** .27** .37** .39** .35** .85 —
8. Role clarity (T2) 5.47 .95 −.48** −.38** .53** .36** .38** .24** .24** .85 —
9. Meaningful work (T2) 5.02 1.36 −.27** −.14*.50** .48** .44** .40** .13*.29** .92
Notes. n =324. JI =job insecurity; OBSE =organization-based self-esteem. Reliabilities are italicized on the diagonal. T1 =Time 1 and T2 =Time 2.
*p<.05. ** p<.01.
STRESSOR OF JOB INSECURITY 5

were −.22 for job satisfaction, −.21 for vigor, −.15 for life
satisfaction, and −.09 for physical health. Compared with cognitive
job insecurity, affective job insecurity showed a slightly weaker
indirect effect on the four outcomes via OBSE: −.19 for job
satisfaction, −.18 for vigor, −.13 for life satisfaction, and −.07 for
physical health. Together, OBSE significantly mediated the relation-
ships of both cognitive and affective job insecurity with the four well-
being outcomes, because their bias-corrected confidence intervals
(CIs) for the indirect effects did not include zero, supporting
Hypotheses1a–1d. In addition to the indirect effects, the results
indicated that both cognitive and affective job insecurity had direct
effects on the four outcomes, however (Table 3).
Moderation
We tested the moderating effects of role clarity and meaningful
work with two hypotheses: the moderating hypotheses (Hypotheses
2–3) and the moderated mediation hypotheses (Hypothesis 2-1 and
Hypothesis 3-1). First, to test the moderating hypotheses, we
followed the procedure of PROCESS Model 1 (Hayes, 2018a). As
shown in Table 4, the interaction term between cognitive job
insecurity and role clarity had no significant effect on OBSE (b=
.07, p>.05), failing to support Hypothesis 2a. However, role clarity
significantly moderated the link between affective job insecurity and
OBSE, as the CIs did not include zero. Thus, Hypothesis 2b was
supported. Regarding meaningful work, we found a negative
moderation effect of meaningful work on the link between the two
types of job insecurity and OBSE, which is contrary to our
prediction. Therefore, Hypotheses 3a–3b were not supported.
Moderated Mediation
Because our model had two moderators for the same paths, we
examined the moderation hypotheses using partial moderated
mediation analyses with PROCESS Model 9 (Hayes, 2018a). This
analysis provides indices of partial moderated mediation that
quantify the linear relationship between a moderator and an indirect
effect when a second moderator is controlled statistically (partial
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Table 2
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Alternative Measurement Models
Model test χ
2
(df)
Δχ
2
(Δdf )
Compared to
hypothesized model 1 RMSEA CFI NNFI IFI SRMR
1. Nine-factor model (baseline) 1743.36 (593)** —.08 .96 .96 .96 .06
2. Eight-factor model
a
1846.80 (601)** 103.44 (8)** .08 .96 .96 .96 .07
3. Eight-factor model
b
1913.28 (601)** 169.92 (8)** .08 .96 .95 .96 .06
4. Seven-factor model
c
2012.54 (608)** 269.18 (15)** .09 .96 .95 .96 .07
5. Six-factor model
d
3235.52 (614)** 1492.16 (21)** .12 .93 .92 .93 .08
6. Five-factor model
e
3472.13 (619)** 1728.77 (26)** .12 .92 .91 .92 .09
7. Four-factor model
f
4732.09 (623)** 2988.73 (30)** .14 .88 .87 .88 .12
8. One-factor model (all variables) 9254.11 (629)** 7510.75 (36)** .21 .80 .79 .80 .14
Note. n =324. RMSEA =root-mean-square error of approximation; CFI =comparative fit index; NNFI =nonnormed fit index; IFI =incremental fit
index; SRMR =standardized root-mean-square residual.
a
Items of cognitive and affective job insecurity were loaded on one factor.
b
Items of job satisfaction and vigor were loaded on one factor.
c
Items of
cognitive and affective job insecurity were loaded into one factor, and job satisfaction and vigor loaded into one factor.
d
Items of cognitive and affective
job insecurity were loaded into one factor, and job satisfaction, vigor, and life satisfaction were loaded on one factor.
e
Items of cognitive and affective
job insecurity were loaded into one factor, and job satisfaction, vigor, life satisfaction, and physical health were loaded on one factor.
f
Items of cognitive
and affective job insecurity were loaded into one factor, and organization-based self-esteem, job satisfaction, vigor, life satisfaction, and physical health
were loaded on one factor.
** p<.01.
Table 3
Mediation Effect of Organization-Based Self-Esteem (PROCESS, Model 4)
Predictor Mediator Outcome
Direct effects
β(p)
Indirect effects
ab SE 95% CI ab
cs
Cognitive job insecurity OBSE Job satisfaction −.24 (.00) −.26 .04 [−.35, −.18] −.22
Vigor −.12 (.03) −.22 .04 [−.31, −.14] −.21
Life satisfaction −.13 (.05
a
)−.17 .04 [−.26, −.10] −.15
Physical health −.09 (.00) −.04 .01 [−.07, −.01] −.09
Affective job insecurity OBSE Job satisfaction −.16 (.00) −.17 .03 [−.24, −.12] −.19
Vigor −.09 (.03) −.14 .03 [−.20, −.09] −.18
Life satisfaction −.10 (.05
b
)−.11 .03 [−.17, −.06] −.13
Physical health −.10 (.00) −.02 .01 [−.04, −.01] −.07
Note. n =324. β=c′(direct effect). ab =unstandardized indirect effect. SE =bootstrap standard error. ab
cs
=completely
standardized indirect effect. ab, SE, and 95% CI were obtained from 10,000 bootstrapped samples. CI =confidence interval;
OBSE =organization-based self-esteem.
a
=.054.
b
=.051.
6KIM AND BEEHR

moderated mediator) or at a given value of the second moderator
(conditional moderated mediation; Hayes, 2018a). In other words,
the model has two moderators, and we tested their unique
moderating effects, that is, the effect of one while controlling for
the other.
For role clarity, the indices of partial moderated mediation in
Table 5 show that role clarity did not have significant unique
moderated mediation effects for paths involving cognitive job
insecurity, because its CIs included zero. Thus, Hypothesis 2-1a
regarding role clarity moderating the effects of cognitive insecurity
was not supported.
Concerning affective job insecurity, however, the indices of
partial moderated meditation show there is a significant moderated
mediation for all four criterion variables. The partial moderated
mediation indices of role clarity for job satisfaction, .06, 95% CI
[.02, .11]; for vigor, .05, 95% CI [.02, .09]; for life satisfaction, .04,
95% CI [.01, .07]; and for physical health, .01, 95% CI [.001, .02]
were all significant. When the moderating effect of meaningful work
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Table 4
Moderating Effect of Role Clarity and Meaningful Work on the Relationship Between Job Insecurity and
Organization-Based Self-Esteem (PROCESS, Model 1)
Moderator Model
Outcome: Organization-based self-esteem
Coefficient SE t LLCI ULCI
Role clarity Cognitive job insecurity (CJI) −.25 .04 −5.65** −.34 −.16
Role clarity .40 .05 7.20** .29 .51
CJI ×Role Clarity .07 .04 1.95 −.00
a
.12
Affective job insecurity (AJI) −.14 .03 −4.40** −.21 −.08
Role clarity .47 .05 9.03** .37 .58
AJI ×Role Clarity .08 .03 2.42** .01 .13
Meaningful work Cognitive job insecurity (CJI) −.34 .04 −.8.49** −.41 −.26
Meaningful work .32 .03 9.31** .25 .39
CJI ×Meaningful Work −.06 .02 −2.58** −.11 −.02
Affective job insecurity (AJI) −.22 .03 −7.55** −.28 −.17
Meaningful work .35 .03 10.42** .28 .42
AJI ×Meaningful Work −.04 .02 −2.31** −.08 −.01
Note.n=324. SE =standard error; LLCI =lower limit confidence interval; ULCI =upper limit confidence interval;
CJI =cognitive job insecurity; AJI =affective job insecurity.
a
=−.0005.
** p<.01.
Table 5
Partial Conditional Indirect Effects of Cognitive and Affective Job Insecurity on Outcomes via
Organization-Based Self-Esteem at Higher and Lower Levels of Meaningful Work and Role Clarity
(PROCESS Model 9)
Outcome
Index of partial
moderated mediation Boot SE
Boot 95% CI
LL UL
Predictor =Cognitive job insecurity; Mediator =Organization-based self-esteem
Job satisfaction Meaningful work −.06 .03 −.11 −.00
a
Role clarity .05 .03 −.01 .11
Vigor Meaningful work −.05 .02 −.09 −.00
b
Role clarity .04 .03 −.01 .10
Life satisfaction Meaningful work −.04 .02 −.07 −.00
c
Role clarity .03 .02 −.01 .08
Physical health Meaningful work −.01 .01 −.02 −.00
d
Role clarity .01 .01 −.00
e
.02
Predictor =affective job insecurity; Mediator =organization-based self-esteem
Job satisfaction Meaningful work −.04 .02 −.08 −.01
Role clarity .06 .02 .02 .11
Vigor Meaningful work −.04 .02 −.07 −.01
Role clarity .05 .02 .02 .09
Life satisfaction Meaningful work −.03 .01 −.05 −.01
Role clarity .04 .02 .01 .07
Physical health Meaningful work −.01 .00
f
−.01 −.00
g
Role clarity .01 .00
h
.00
i
.02
Note.n=324. SE =bootstrap standard error. 95% CI were obtained from 10,000 bootstrap samples. SE =
standard error; CI =confidence interval; UL =upper limit; LL =lower limit.
a
=−.004.
b
=−.004.
c
=−.002.
d
=−.0003.
e
=−.002.
f
=.004.
g
=−.0004.
h
=.004.
i
=.001.
STRESSOR OF JOB INSECURITY 7

on the indirect effect was controlled, role clarity positively
moderated the indirect effect. Examining the moderation at the
first stage of the model, Figure 2 shows that, as hypothesized
(Hypothesis 2-1b), the negative relationship was weaker under
conditions of greater role clarity. Simple slope tests revealed that for
employees with low role clarity (−1SD below the mean), affective
job insecurity was negatively related to OBSE (b=−.21, p<.001).
However, for employees with high role clarity (+1SD above the
mean), the effects of affective job insecurity on OBSE were
nonsignificant (b=−.08, p=.10).
For meaningful work, Table 5 also shows the indices of
moderated mediation of meaningful work in regard to cognitive and
affective job insecurity. The indices of partial moderated mediation
indicate that meaningful work significantly moderated the mediation
effects of cognitive job insecurity through OBSE on all four
outcomes. The partial moderated mediation indices of meaningful
work for job satisfaction, −.06, 95% CI [−.11, −.004]; for vigor,
−.05, 95% CI [−.09, −.004]; for life satisfaction −.04, 95% CI
[−.07, −.002]; and for physical health, −.01, 95% CI [−.02, −.0003]
were all significant. They show that, independent of the moderating
effect of role clarity on the indirect effects, meaningful work
uniquely moderated the indirect effects of cognitive job insecurity
on the four well-being outcomes via OBSE. Figure 2 shows,
however, that the negative relationship between cognitive insecurity
and OBSE was stronger rather than weaker under conditions of more
meaningful work, opposite from the predictions of Hypothesis3-1a.
Simple slopes for the association between cognitive job insecurity
and OBSE were tested for low (−1SD below the mean) and high
(+1SD above the mean) levels of meaningful work. Each of the
simple slope tests showed a significant negative association between
cognitive insecurity and OBSE, but their relationships were stronger
for employees with a high level of meaningful work (b=−.42,
p<.001) than for those with a low level of meaningful work (b=
−.25, p<.001).
Table 5 shows that, regarding affective job insecurity, the indices
of partial moderated mediation for meaningful work (−.04, 95% CI
[−.08, −.01] for job satisfaction; −.04, 95% CI [−.07, −.01] for
vigor; −.03, 95% CI [−.05, −.01] for life satisfaction; −.01, 95% CI
[−.01, −.0004] for physical health) were also all statistically
significant. Figure 2 shows that the negative relationship between
affective insecurity and OBSE was stronger rather than weaker
under conditions of more meaningful work, again opposite from the
predictions of Hypothesis 3-1b. Simple slope tests indicated that for
employees with high meaningful work (+1SD above the mean),
affective job insecurity was negatively related to OBSE (b=−.29,
p<.001). However, for employees with low meaningful work
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Figure 2
A Visual Depiction of the Interaction at Stage One for Each Moderator While Controlling for the Other
Note. (A) The moderating effect of role clarity in the relationship between affective job insecurity and organization-based self-esteem. (B) The moderating
effect of meaningful work in the relationship between cognitive job insecurity and organization-based self-esteem. (C) The moderating effect of meaningful
work in the relationship between affective job insecurity and organization-based self-esteem.
8KIM AND BEEHR

(−1SD below the mean), the effect of affective insecurity on OBSE
was less negative (b=−.16, p<.001).
Overall, three of the four moderated relationships (with two
moderators) between the two types of insecurity and OBSE were
significant: meaningful work moderating the relationships between
both cognitive and affective insecurity and OBSE, and role clarity
moderating the relationship between affective job insecurity and
OBSE. Notably, these interactions were partially moderated
mediation effects, where one interaction was significant even while
controlling for the other interaction. Only one of the three significant
interactions was in the predicted direction, however.
Discussion
Following SOS theory principles, we examined OBSE as a key
process variable (mediator) and showed how two facets of job
insecurity had effects on employee well-being. Employees’beliefs
or fears about losing a job indicated that they may have thought their
organization did not care about retaining them, a direct indication
the employee was not valued. This was information that employees
processed and internalized, decreasing OBSE, a key feature in
occupational stress identified by SOS theory. Feelings of self-
respect in the organization improved employees’job-related (e.g.,
job satisfaction and vigor) reactions, but they also spilled over into
the more general life domain (life satisfaction and fewer physical
symptoms). In fact, regarding the four different outcomes, the same
paths, the same mediators, and the same moderators were significant
for all of them, indicating the effects of job insecurity on employees
were similar for both work well-being and nonwork well-being as
well as for both psychological and physical well-being. The patterns
of effects appear to be general.
OBSE as a Mediator
Hypothesis 1 posited that OBSE would mediate the relationships
between the two types of job insecurity and the four outcomes. In
SOS theory, work stressors influence employees’well-being to the
extent that they affect their sense of self, that is, their OBSE. Thus, the
theory led us to propose OBSE as a mediator of the relationship
between job insecurity as a stressor and the strains or well-being
variables in the present study. Most research on SOS theory focuses
on the nature of tasks as stressors (e.g., are they demeaning in some
way? Semmer et al., 2019). Although it had not been studied before in
relation to SOS theory, we argued that job insecurity signals to
employees that their jobs are in jeopardy. The 95% CI levels in
Table 3 indicated significance (they did not contain zero) for all
indirect effects, confirming that OBSE acts as a mediator, transmitting
the effects of insecurity on employee well-being. This confirms and
extends SOS theory by explicitly focusing on insecurity as a stressor
that is compatible with SOS principles.
The mediating effects of OBSE were present for both types of job
insecurity. The two types tend to occur together, and they were
strongly correlated with each other in the present study. However,
some past research showed they are separate variables (Huang et al.,
2012;Jiang & Lavaysse, 2018). Theoretically, people are both
cognitive and emotional beings; they can both think and feel about
job conditions such as insecurity. The types of insecurity were
strongly correlated in the present data (.78, Table 1), but we cannot
determine the reason for that. Jiang et al. (2020) posited that
cognitive job insecurity may cause affective job insecurity through
negative rumination under certain circumstances (when there is
a low level of negative gossip). We cannot test this complex
relationship in the present data. Empirically, there are multiple
reasons that they should be examined as different variables in the
present data. First, the CFA model that combined them did not fitas
well as the model that kept them separate (Table 2). Second,
cognitive insecurity and affective insecurity both tended to work as
predictors in our basic model (Table 3). Third, our most complex
model, moderated mediation, examined the interaction of each type
of insecurity with moderators while controlling the interaction of the
other type, showing their interactions also had independent effects
(Table 5). Finally, the mediation effects for cognitive insecurity
were consistently stronger than those for affective insecurity (ab
cs
in
Table 3). Thus, even in these data where the two types of job
insecurity are highly correlated, they are different enough to offer
independent information regarding our hypothesized model.
Role Clarity and Meaningful Work as Moderators
Hypotheses 2 and 3 posited that both role clarity (Hypothesis 2)
and meaningful work (Hypothesis 3) served as moderators of the
mediated negative relationships, such that the link was more
negative when role clarity was lower and/or the work was more
meaningful (see Figure 2). First, we note that overall, there was
some difference in the moderation results for the two types of job
insecurity. Although the effects of affective job insecurity were
moderated by both role clarity and meaningful work, effects of
cognitive insecurity were only moderated by meaningful work and
not by role clarity.
Consistent with Hypothesis 2, results suggested that employees
having a clear understanding of what is expected from them in their
job were less negatively influenced by affective job insecurity, in the
sense that their OBSE was not reduced as much (indicated by part a
of Figure 2). Therefore, developing and keeping role clarity through
clear communication of expectations can be a strategy for managers
and organizations to help employees manage uncertainty as part of
their jobs. This buffering effect of role clarity did not appear for
cognitive job insecurity, however.
Meaningful work accentuated, rather than buffered the negative
effect of both cognitive and affective job insecurity on OBSE. The
slope of the relationship between job insecurity and OBSE was
more negative when work was more meaningful, (parts b and c of
Figure 2) however, opposite from Hypothesis 3. Employees with
high meaningful work may invest in their careers and jobs to a greater
extent than those low in meaningful work. They may feel more
motivated and take advantage of the opportunities provided by their
work and roles in the organization. This opposite finding is contrary
to JD-R theory’s(e.g.,Bakker & Demerouti, 2007;Schaufeli &
Taris, 2014) general supposition, however, that resources help
weaken the relationship between stressors and outcomes. It may
matter exactly what the specific stressor and the specific resource is,
hinting at a matching process. In the present model, losing something
meaningful in one’s life may have negative outcomes, independent of
how much one has invested in or gotten out of it.
Past studies argued that meaningful work can be a double-edged
sword (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009;Duffy et al., 2016).
Employees with deeply meaningful work or a calling became highly
attached to their work, resulting in difficulty maintaining the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
STRESSOR OF JOB INSECURITY 9

separation of work and nonwork domains (Duffy & Dik, 2013;
Duffy et al., 2016). A study by Bunderson and Thompson (2009)
found that zookeepers with a strong sense of meaningfulness and
significance in their work tended to sacrifice pay and personal time,
feeling at risk of being exploited by their employers.
Work is a source of identity and positive self-image, and job
insecurity signals to employees that their jobs or careers are at risk.
Thus, it is more harmful and frustrating for employees with high
meaningful work. However, we do not advocate reducing the
meaning of employees’work, but we recommend cutting back on
the practice of enhancing work’s meaning under certain circum-
stances (when jobs are likely to be seen as insecure); as suggested by
correlations in Table 1, meaningful work is a positive thing overall,
indicating positive effects on all of the study’s outcomes.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
Two theoretical advances are prominent in the present study.
First, SOS theory argues that appreciation is a second route to a
better self-concept, that is, in addition to the frequently studied
illegitimate tasks as a negative route (Semmer et al., 2019). This
study showed that job insecurity, which we argued should be a
stressor related to (low) appreciation, negatively predicted OBSE as
a self-concept, confirming this proposition. Second, we integrated
SOS with JD-R theory’s principle that resources can interact with
stressors to predict their negative effect and found it to be true. This
principle fits well into SOS principles, and thus one type of
moderator in SOS theory may be certain resources.
The resource-meaningful work moderated the mediated relation-
ship between insecurity and the study’s well-being outcomes so that
employees whose jobs were more meaningful suffered worse well-
being when their jobs were insecure. This was opposite from
predictions in Hypotheses 3a and 3b, but it may have occurred
because the insecurity was a threat to lose the resource of job
meaning. In work-related resources theories such as JD-R, employees
strive to gain and retain resources, and resource loss or threat of loss
results in strains such as poorer well-being. Insecurity as the demand
or stressor in one’s work means there is a threat of losing one’sjob,
and for employees with meaningful work, according to SOS theory it
thereby also threatens the mediator OBSE. This finding illustrates the
importance for researchers to consider and theorize about the effects
of very specific forms of demands and resources rather than only
considering these as two broad categories.
Besides employee well-being, other important practical outcomes
are likely to be affected by the predictor variables in the model.
Employee turnover is one prime example. We did not examine
turnover or turnover intentions in the study, and therefore we cannot
say much about it directly based on our results. However, the
occupational well-being variables in the present study have been
often linked to employee turnover in past research. In fact, a meta-
analysis showed that both employee job satisfaction and engage-
ment (the vigor component) predicted unit-level turnover (Harter
et al., 2002). Applied work on the variables in the model may thus
have a broader impact on important outcomes in addition to
employee well-being.
Regarding human resource practices, given the mediating effect of
OBSE, employers with insecure jobs may benefit their employees by
providing opportunities to boost their self-esteem, helping to avoid
detrimental physical and psychological well-being. Organizations’
self-esteem enhancement efforts could include encouraging partici-
pation in work processes and increasing autonomy (sense of self-
control), and social support (positive feedback), consistent with
recommendations by SOS theory (Semmer et al., 2007). Managers
are also encouraged to determine what implicit (i.e., supportive
leadership and culture) and explicit (i.e., encouragement and praise)
cues can contribute to the enhancement of employees’OBSE. SOS
theory maintains that these efforts could have practical effects, by
reducing the harmful effects of stress (Semmer et al., 2007).
The number one way to improve the effects of employee
insecurity is of course to reduce the insecurity itself. The data show
that insecurity has negative effects on employees’well-being.
This is shown consistently in the study’s results. The correlations
(Table 1) between both types of insecurity and all forms of well-
being are negative; the mediating relationships (Table 3) are all
negative; and the effects are negative at both high and low levels of
the moderator variables (Figure 2). Some of the insecurity is under
control of the organization’s policies, practices, and culture, and it
makes sense for organizations to strive to reduce it when possible.
We note, however, that organizations may have little control over
the job insecurity of employees in especially difficult economic
times, but they do have some control over the leadership and
empowerment practices in their organization. Increased employee
control and participative decision-making, central features of
empowering leadership (Kim & Beehr, 2021), could help reduce
employee uncertainty and impair general health.
The moderating effects in the study mean that there are limits to
the aversive effects of insecurity on employee well-being. Although
moderation effects by role clarity were significant only for affective
insecurity (Table 5), they suggest that when employees are in
situations of job insecurity, human resources managers should focus
on clarifying the work roles for employees in order to alleviate
threats to their well-being. This could take many forms, including
communicating directly with employees and having joint interac-
tions with employees and their supervisors in order to clarify roles.
This applies to all employees.
Recommendations regarding the other moderator in the study,
meaningful work, are more complex. Meaningful work is directly
related to good outcomes such as the ones in our study’s model (e.g.,
correlations in Table 1), and so organizational practices that would
increase work meaning (e.g., job enrichment and job crafting) are
typically sound practices. The study’s moderator results (Table 5)
show, however, that under the specific conditions of job insecurity,
promoting meaning in employees’work would not be helpful and
might even be harmful to their well-being. Instead, organizational
efforts to make employees’work more meaningful should be
reserved for times when employees are experiencing more security.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
The first limitations concern causality and common method
variance. Although our moderated mediation model builds on
theoretical causal inferences based on SOS and JD-R theory, the
cross-sectional design does not allow us to strongly conclude causal
relations exist among variables. Longitudinal research designs can
deal with issues of causality somewhat more effectively, but they
have problems of indeterminant causal lags; that is, researchers do
not know how long to wait for each measurement, because they do
not know how long it takes for any specific variable to affect
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
10 KIM AND BEEHR

another. We also relied on self-reports, which may inflate the
relationship between the stressor of job insecurity, OBSE, and well-
being. However, many well-being indicators can only easily be
measured through self-reports (e.g., physical symptoms, vigor, and
satisfaction with job and life). Furthermore, our time lag survey
design helped to reduce some common method effects (Podsakoff
et al., 2012). Future research is encouraged to use repeated measures
designs to assess changes in the criteria over time.
Our sample consisted of full-time employees in the United States,
working in a wide variety of industries, which could help the
generalizability of the results, but the participants were more highly
educated than the typical U.S. employee. Because of this, we
recommend future research to replicate the results with workers who
are less educated and with those in other countries and cultures. Job
security should be just as relevant to less educated workers.
Regarding international comparisons, however, some national
cultures may focus more on others and less on the “self”(e.g.,
individualistic vs. collectivistic cultures; Hofstede, 2001), suggest-
ing that self-esteem as a key mediating variable might differ in
importance among different cultures.
In addition to OBSE, future research is encouraged to investigate
other mediators between job insecurity and employee well-being. A
resource-generating behavior such as job crafting, an employee’s
use of cognitive and behavioral strategies to seek resources and
avoid job demands or unpleasant job features (e.g., Bruning &
Campion, 2018), could be a promising mediator, offering another
theoretical lens beyond the OBSE suggested by SOS theory.
Finally, we examined moderation by job resources (role clarity
and meaningful work) on the effect of insecurity demands as
suggested by JD-R theory, but we recommend exploring plausible
moderating effects of other employee resources on the influences of
job insecurity. For example, psychological hardiness, that is feelings
of control, commitment to projects and activities, and views about
changes being opportunities (Beehr & Grebner, 2009), may act as a
protective factor for employees facing demanding and threatening
situations (Eschleman et al., 2010). Hardy individuals likely have
increased perceptions of control over their circumstances, which
will make them more optimistic in their abilities to cope with
stressful events (i.e., have higher OBSE) and commit to more
effective approach-based coping strategies. We suggest that
hardiness’relation to employees’OBSE would make it especially
relevant to SOS theory.
Conclusion
Job insecurity is a common and often inevitable organizational
phenomenon. Yet, our study provides a new perspective based on
SOS and JD-R theories for understanding how cognitive and affective
job insecurity exert effects on well-being outcomes via OBSE,
moderated by job resources. Findings suggest that in uncertain
periods, organizations that provide employees with a greater sense of
security (resulting infeelings of value and competency), and favorable
conditions (i.e., role clarity) can reduce the negative consequences of
job insecurity.
References
Alhija, N.-A. F., & Wisenbaker, J. (2006). A Monte Carlo study investigating
the impact of item parceling strategies on parameter estimates and their
standard errors in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling,13(2), 204–228.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1302_3
Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, cause, and
consequences of job insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive
test. Academy of Management Journal,32(4), 803–829. https://doi.org/10
.2307/256569
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model:
State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology,22(3), 309–328.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
Beehr, T. A., & Grebner, S. I. (2009). When stress is less (harmful). In A. G.
Antoniou, C. L. Cooper, G. P. Chrousos, C. D. Spielberger, & M. W.
Eysenck (Eds.), Handbook of managerial behavior and occupational
health (pp. 20–34). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/978184844
7219.00009
Biswas, T., Mäkelä, L., & Andresen, M. (2022). Work and non-work-related
antecedents of expatriates’well-being: A meta-analysis. Human Resource
Management Review,32(3), Article 100889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.hrmr.2021.100889
Bowling, N. A., & Hammond, G. D. (2008). A meta-analytic examination of the
construct validity of the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire
Job Satisfaction Subscale. Journal of Vocational Behavior,73(1), 63–77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.01.004
Breaugh, J. A., & Colihan, J. P. (1994). Measuring facets of job ambiguity:
Construct validity evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology,79(2), 191–
202. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.2.191
Bruning, P. F., & Campion, M. A. (2018). A role-resource approach-
avoidance model of job crafting: A multimethod integration and extension
of job crafting theory. Academy of Management Journal,61(2), 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0604
Bunderson, J.S., & Thompson, J. A. (2009). Thecall of the wild: Zookeepers,
callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work.
Administrative Science Quarterly,54(1), 32–57. https://doi.org/10.2189/
asqu.2009.54.1.32
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. R. (1983). The
Michigan Organizational Assesment Questionnaire. In S. E. Seashore
(Ed.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures
and practices (pp. 71–138). Wiley.
Cheung, J. H., Burns, D. K., Sinclair, R. R., & Sliter, M. (2017). Amazon
Mechanical Turk in organizational psychology: An evaluation and
practical recommendations. Journal of Business and Psychology,32(4),
347–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9458-5
De Witte, H. (2000). Work ethic and job insecurity: Assessment and
consequences for well-being, satisfaction and performance at work. In R.
Bouwen, K. De Witte, H. De Witte & T. Taillieu (Eds.), From group to
community (pp. 325–350). Garant.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin,95(3),
542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The
satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment,49(1),
71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Duffy, R. D., & Dik, B. J. (2013). Research on calling: What have we learned
and where are we going? Journal of Vocational Behavior,83(3), 428–436.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.06.006
Duffy, R. D., Douglass, R. P., Autin, K. L., England, J., & Dik, B. J. (2016).
Does the dark side of a calling exist? Examining potential negative effects.
The Journal of Positive Psychology,11(6), 634–646. https://doi.org/10
.1080/17439760.2015.1137626
Eschleman, K. J., Bowling, N. A., & Alarcon, G. M. (2010). A meta-analytic
examination of hardiness. International Journal of Stress Management,
17(4), 277–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020476
Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. (2016). Organization-based self-esteem:
Making a difference at work. In T. Duening (Ed.), Leading the positive
organization: Actions, tools, and processes (pp. 27–48). Business
Expert Press.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
STRESSOR OF JOB INSECURITY 11

Goodman, J. S., & Blum, T. C. (1996). Assessing the non-random sampling
effects of subject attrition in longitudinal research. Journal of Manage-
ment,22(4), 627–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639602200405
Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Towards conceptual
clarity. Academy of Management Review,9(3), 438–448. https://doi.org/
10.2307/258284
Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (2010). Evolution of research on job
insecurity. International Studies of Management & Organization,40(1),
6–19. https://doi.org/10.2753/IMO0020-8825400101
Guerin, R. J., Harden, S. M., Rabin, B. A., Rohlman, D. S., Cunningham,
T. R., TePoel, M. R., Parish, M., & Glasgow, R. E. (2021). Dissemination
and implementation science approaches for occupational safety and health
research: Implications for advancing Total Worker Health. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,18(21), Article
11050. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111050
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Addison-Wesley.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level
relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and
business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(2), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
Hayes, A. F. (2018a). Partial, conditional, and moderated mediation:
Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs,
85(1), 4–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100
Hayes, A. F. (2018b). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Hirschi, A. (2012). Callings and work engagement: Moderated mediation
model of work meaningfulness, occupational identity, and occupational
self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychology,59(3), 479–485. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0028949
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,
institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Huang, G. H., Niu, X., Lee, C., & Ashford, S. J. (2012). Differentiating
cognitive and affective job insecurity: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of
Organizational Behavior,33(6), 752–769. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1815
Jiang, L., Hu, S., Näswall, K., Lopez Bohle, S., & Wang, H. J. (2020). Why
and when cognitive job insecurity relates to affective job insecurity? A
three-study exploration of negative rumination and the tendency to negative
gossip. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,29(5),
678–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1758669
Jiang, L., & Lavaysse, L. M. (2018). Cognitive and affective job insecurity:
A meta-analysis and a primary study. Journal of Management,44(6),
2307–2342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318773853
Johnson, M. J., & Jiang, L. (2017). Reaping the benefits of meaningful work:
The mediating versus moderating role of work engagement. Stress and
Health,33(3), 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2710
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2017). LISREL 9.30 for Windows [Computer
software]. Scientific Software International.
Judge, T. A., & Hurst, C. (2008). How the rich (and happy) get richer (and
happier): Relationship of core self-evaluations to trajectories in attaining
work success. Journal of Applied Psychology,93(4), 849–863. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.849
Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2018). Challenge and hindrance demands lead to
employees’health and behaviours through intrinsic motivation. Stress and
Health,34(3), 367–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2796
Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2021). The power of empowering leadership:
Allowing and encouraging followers to take charge of their own jobs.
International Journal of Human Resource Management,32(9), 1865–
1898. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1657166
Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2022). The role of organization-based self-esteem
and job resources in promoting employees’job crafting behaviors.
International Journal of Human Resource Management,33(19), 3822–
3849. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1934711
Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S., & Siltaloppi, M. (2010). Job insecurity, recovery
and well-being at work: Recovery experiences as moderators. Economic
and Industrial Democracy,31(2), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143
831X09358366
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To
parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits.
Structural Equation Modeling,9(2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15328007SEM0902_1
Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why
the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological
Methods,18(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033266
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D.
Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology
(pp. 1297–1349). Rand McNally.
Mauno, S., & Kinnunen, U. (2002). Perceived job insecurity among dual-
earner couples in Finland: Do its antecedents vary according to gender,
economic sector, and the measure used? Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology,75(3), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1348/
096317902320369721
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., Mäkikangas, A., & Nätti, J. (2005). Psychological
consequences of fixed-term employment and perceived job insecurity
among health care staff. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology,14(3), 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320500146649
McAllister, D. J., & Bigley, G. A. (2002). Work context and the (re)definition
of self: How organizational care influences organization-based self-esteem.
Academy of Management Journal,45(5), 894–904. https://doi.org/10.2307/
3069320
Meng, L., Du, J., & Lin, X. (2022). Surviving bench stress: Meaningful work
as a personal resource in the expanded job demands-resources model.
Current Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12144-022-02956-9
Nielsen, H. B., Gregersen, L. S., Bach, E. S., Dyreborg, J., Ilsøe, A., Larsen,
T. P., Pape, K., Pedersen, J., & Garde, A. H. (2021). A comparison of work
environment, job insecurity, and health between marginal part-time
workers and full-time workers in Denmark using pooled register data.
Journal of Occupational Health,63(1), Article e12251. https://doi.org/10
.1002/1348-9585.12251
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2021, April 17).
What is total worker health? https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/twh/total
health.html
Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Widaman, K. F. (2012). Life-span development
of self-esteem and its effects on important life outcomes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,102(6), 1271–1288. https://doi.org/10
.1037/a0025558
Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self-esteem within the work and
organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem
literature. Journal of Management,30(5), 91–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.jm.2003.10.001
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989).
Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and
validation. Academy of Management Journal,32(3), 622–648. https://
doi.org/10.2307/256437
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of
method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to
control it. Annual Review of Psychology,63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/
10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Probst, T. M. (2003). Development and validation of the job security index
and the job security satisfaction scale: A classical test theory and IRT
approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
76(4), 451–467. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317903322591587
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and
ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,
15(2), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391486
Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of
work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational
Behavior,30,91–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
12 KIM AND BEEHR

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). UWES—Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale: Preliminary manual (Version 1, November 2003).
Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Utrecht University.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of
work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study.
Educational and Psychological Measurement,66(4), 701–716. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the demands-
resources model: Implications for improving work and health. In G. F.
Bauer & O. Hämmig (Eds.), Bridging occupational, organizational, and
public health: A transdisciplinary approach (pp. 43–68). Springer Science
+Business Media.
Schreurs, B., Van Emmerik, H., Notelaers, G., & De Witte, H. (2010). Job
insecurity and employee health: The buffering potential of job control and
job self-efficacy. Work and Stress,24(1), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02678371003718733
Selenko, E., Mäkikangas, A., & Stride, C. B. (2017). Does job insecurity
threaten who you are? Introducing a social identity perspective to explain
well-being and performance consequences of job insecurity. Journal of
Organizational Behavior,38(6), 856–875. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2172
Semmer, N. K., Jacobshagen, N., Meier, L. L., & Elfering, A. (2007).
Occupational stress research: The “Stress-As-Offense-to-Self”perspective.
In J. Houdmont & S. McIntyre (Eds.), Occupational health psychology:
European perspectives on research, education and practice,(Vol.2,
pp. 43–60). Instituto Universitário da Maia.
Semmer, N. K., Tschan, F., Jacobshagen, N., Beehr, T. A., Elfering, A.,
Kälin, W., & Meier, L. L. (2019). Stress as offense to self: A promising
approach comes of age. Occupational Health Science,3(3), 205–238.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-019-00041-5
Seppälä, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A.,
& Schaufeli, W. (2009). The construct validity of the Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale: Multisample and longitudinal evidence. Journal of
Happiness Studies,10(4), 459–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-008-
9100-y
Shoss, M. K. (2017). Job insecurity: An integrative review and agenda for
future research. Journal of Management,43(6), 1911–1939. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0149206317691574
Silla, I., Gracia, F. J., & Peiro´, J. M. (2005). Job insecurity and health-related
outcomes among different types of temporary workers. Economic and
Industrial Democracy,26(1), 89–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X
05049404
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report
measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale,
organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and
physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol-
ogy,3(4), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.3.4.356
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace:
Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management
Journal,38(5), 1442–1465. https://doi.org/10.2307/256865
Sverke, M., Låstad, L., Hellgren, J., Richter, A., & Näswall, K. (2019). A
meta-analysis of job insecurity and employee performance: Testing
temporal aspects, rating source, welfare regime, and union density as
moderators. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health,16(14), Article 2536. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142536
Tisu,L.,Rusu,A.,Sulea,C.,&Vîrgă, D. (2022). Job resources and strengths use
in relation to employee performance: A contextualized view. Psychological
Reports,125(3), 1494–1527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294121997783
Walter, S. L., Seibert, S. E., Goering, D., & O’Boyle, E. H., Jr. (2019). A tale
of two sample sources: Do results from online panel data and conventional
data converge? Journal of Business and Psychology,34(4), 425–452.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9552-y
Received August 4, 2021
Revision received April 2, 2023
Accepted May 7, 2023 ▪
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
STRESSOR OF JOB INSECURITY 13