Report No 1:2006

Job insecurity
A literature review

Magnus Sverke
Johnny Hellgren
Katharina Näswall
SALTSA is a collaboration programme for occupational research in Europe. The Natio-
nal Institute for Working Life in Sweden and the Swedish confederations of trade unions
SACO (the Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations), LO (the Swedish Trade
Union Confederation) and TCO (the Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees)
take part in the programme. Many problems and issues relating to working life are com-
mon to most European countries, and the purpose of the programme is to pave the way
for joint research on these matters from a European perspective.
  It is becoming increasingly obvious that long-term solutions must be based on expe-
rience in and research on matters relating to working life. SALTSA conducts problem-
oriented research in the areas labour market, employment, organisation of work and work
environment and health.
  SALTSA collaborates with international research institutes and has close contacts with
industry, institutions and organisations in Europe, thus linking its research to practical
working conditions.

Contact SALTSA
Lars Magnusson, National Institute for Working Life, Tel: +46 8 619 67 18,
e-mail: lars.magnusson@arbetslivsinstitutet.se
Torbjörn Strandberg, LO, Tel: +46 8 796 25 63, e-mail: torbjorn.strandberg@lo.se
Mats Essemyr, TCO, Tel: +46 8 782 92 72, e-mail: mats.essemyr@tco.se
Charlotta Krafft, SACO, Tel: +46 8 613 48 62, e-mail: charlotta.krafft@saco.se

© National Institute for Working Life and authors 2006

SE-113 91 Stockholm, Sweden
Tel: (+46) 8-619 67 00, fax: (+46) 8-656 30 25
Web: www.arbetslivsinstitutet.se/saltsa
Printed at Elanders Gotab
ISSN: 1404-790X
Contents

The authors 2
The changing nature of work 3
The nature and measurement of job insecurity 4
Antecedents of job insecurity experiences 9
Consequences of job insecurity 11
Can the negative consequences of insecurity be reduced? 17
Conclusions 21
References 23
The authors
Magnus Sverke is Professor of Work and Organizational Psychology at the
Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Sweden. A large portion of
his research focuses on how employee work motivation and wellbeing are
affected by organizational change and uncertain employment relations. He has a
special interest in labor unions, including issues such as union structural change,
membership attitudes and participation, and the role of unions in the flexible
labor market. E-mail: mse@psychology.su.se.

Johnny Hellgren, PhD, is researcher and lecturer at the Department of Psycho-

logy, Stockholm University. His main research interests concern organizational
change, job insecurity, health, psychological climate, organizational climate and
its relationship to work motivation and performance, and the role of the union in
contemporary working life. E-mail: jhn@psychology.su.se.

Katharina Näswall, PhD, works as a researcher and lecturer at the Department

of Psychology, Stockholm University. Her main research interests concern job
insecurity and other work related stressors, coping, and health outcomes as well
as consequences of organizational change for employee well-being. E-mail:
knl@psychology.su.se.

2
The changing nature of work
As noted by several commentators (e.g., Gowing, Kraft, & Campbell Quick,
1998; Howard, 1995; Pfeffer, 1998; Rifkin, 1995; Sverke, Hellgren, Näswall,
Chirumbolo, De Witte & Goslinga, 2004), working life has been subject to
dramatic change over the past decades. These changes concern issues such as
increased economic dependency between countries, rapidly changing consumer
markets, and escalated demands for flexibility within as well as between organi-
zations. As a consequence, organizations have been forced to engage in various
adaptive strategies in order to tackle new demands and remain vigorous in this
unpredictable environment. Organizations have, as noted by among others
Cascio (1998), two options to become more profitable: they can either increase
their gains or decrease their costs, often by reducing the number of employees.
These organizational options are often realized in actions like outsourcings,
privatizations, mergers and acquisitions, often in combination with personnel
reductions through layoffs, offers of early retirement, and increased utilization of
subcontracted workers (Burke & Cooper, 2000; Burke & Nelson, 1998; Tetrick
& Quick, 2003). Although these reorganization strategies differ in many ways,
they usually have at least one thing in common – they lead to the workforce
being permeated with worries regarding the future. Such feelings may concern
the survival of the organization as a whole, as well as the future existence of the
employee’s present job or valuable features of the job.
One of the most commonly used tactics in reorganization is the practice of
downsizing. Downsizing strategies may incorporate many different facets and
angles but they all, by definition, contain methods of personnel reduction. Kets
de Vries and Balazs (1997) defined downsizing as “the planned elimination of
positions or jobs” (p.11). Another definition emphasizes downsizing as an
organizational decision aimed at reducing the workforce and improving organi-
zational performance, and that these decisions are intentional and deliberate
(Cameron, Freeman, & Mishra 1991). During recent decades, the industrialized
world has witnessed an increase in the occurrence of organizational downsizing
and the laying-off of millions of people (Cascio, 1995). During the 1980s and
1990s more than 3 million white-collar jobs were eliminated in the United States
alone, and the situation in Asia and Europe is not much different (Rifkin, 1995).
The transformation of working life has brought the issue of insecure working
conditions to the forefront, and a growing number of scholars and practitioners
are addressing the issue of job insecurity. During the 1980s and 1990s there was
a large increase in the number of individuals who perceived their employment as
insecure (OECD, 1997). The OECD (1997) reported data from workers in 21

3
OECD countries during 1996.1 The results ranged from 31% reporting unsatis-
factory levels of job security in Norway to 50% or more in France, Japan, the
United Kingdom, and the United States (see also Burchell et al., 1999, for details
about UK conditions, and Borg, Kristensen, & Burr, 2000, for data on Denmark).
There is also substantial evidence to suggest that the nature of work has changed
dramatically for those who remain employed. Employers in virtually every
industrialized nation are, in varying degrees, moving toward increased flexibility
in how they staff their organizations (Klein Hesselink & van Vuuren, 1999;
Sparrow, 1998). Organizational strivings for functional and numerical flexibility
have resulted in demands for new types of skills as well as in changes in employ-
ment contracts. Most notably, organizations have shown increased interest in
employing workers on the basis of short or fixed term contracts rather than on the
basis of implicit long-term contracts (McLean Parks, Kidder, & Gallagher, 1998;
Sverke, Gallagher, & Hellgren, 2000). In addition, downsizing survivors have to
do more with fewer resources, their work load increases, and uncertainty regar-
ding task performance is likely to be prevalent (Burke & Nelson, 1998; Hartley,
Jacobson, Klandermans, & van Vuuren, 1991).
As a result of the changes described above, job insecurity has emerged as one
of the most important issues in contemporary work life and the phenomenon of
job insecurity has consequently become more frequently studied among scholars
and researchers (Sverke, Hellgren & Näswall, 2002). The overall purpose of this
chapter is to address theoretical and methodological issues regarding the concep-
tualization of job insecurity and its antecedents and consequences, as well as
highlight areas where future research is warranted.

The nature and measurement of job insecurity

Given the changes taking place in working life, the construct of job insecurity
itself has undergone a change of meaning. During the 1960s and 70s, the con-
struct was often to be found in larger inventories of work climate, and was
regarded as a motivator (job security) rather than as a stressor (e.g., Hackman &
Oldham, 1975; Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). In these studies, self-reported
job security was treated as one variable among many which, when taken
together, reflected an individual’s overall sense of satisfaction in the work
situation. One exception to this is Caplan, Cobb, French, Van Harrison, and
Pinneau (1975) who developed a stress inventory that also contained a multi-item

1 The percentages are based on the norm level of employment security and are calculated as
the average of the percentage reporting favorable answers to four questions concerning the
level of job security perceived. For details, see OECD Employment Outlook (1997 Chapter
5).

4
scale for taking job insecurity into account. In the mid-1980s, research in this
area began to more systematically focus on job insecurity and along with this
came a change in the construct’s meaning; it went from being seen as a motivator
to being defined as a stressor (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984). In connection
with this, a more systematic approach to this research began to take shape, regar-
ding, primarily, empirical results and, to a certain degree, theory development
(see Sverke et al., 2002, for a review).
Among the first to place job insecurity in a larger theoretical context was
Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) who, with their theoretical model, summed up
the definitions of job insecurity and elaborated on the potential causes, effects,
and organizational consequences of the phenomenon. Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt
defined job insecurity as a “perceived powerlessness to maintain desired conti-
nuity in a threatened job situation” (1984, p. 438). They further maintained that
job insecurity is based on the individual’s perceptions and interpretations of the
immediate work environment. This implies that subjectively experienced threats
are derived from objective threats by means of the individual’s perceptual and
cognitive processes (cf. theories of psychological climate; e.g., James, Hater,
Gent, & Bruni, 1978; James & Sells, 1981). With this conception of job inse-
curity as a theoretical starting point, a number of somewhat similar definitions
have been presented in the literature. Job insecurity has, for example, been
described as:
• “one’s expectations about continuity in a job situation” (Davy, Kinicki,
& Scheck, 1997, p. 323);
• ”an overall concern about the future existence of the job” (Rosenblatt &
Ruvio, 1996, p. 587);
• “an employee’s perception of a potential threat to continuity in his or
her current job” (Heaney, Israel, & House, 1994, p. 1431);
• “a discrepancy between the level of security a person experiences and
the level she or he might prefer” (Hartley et al., 1991, p. 7);
• “the subjectively experienced anticipation of a fundamental and in-
voluntary event” (Sverke et al., 2002, p. 243).

It should, in this context, be pointed out that certain researchers in the behavioral
sciences, although perhaps more commonly in other scientific disciplines, use
definitions of job insecurity that are largely “objective”. These definitions are
based on the assumption that job insecurity occurs as a contextual phenomenon
independent of the individual’s experiences and interpretation of the situation.
An example of this is Pearce (1998), who defined temporary employment as an
objective type of job insecurity that is characterized by ”an independently deter-
mined probability that workers will have the same job in the foreseeable future”
(p. 34). Others have classified entire organizations or workplaces as being more

5
or less marked by job insecurity (e.g, Büssing, 1999; Ferrie, Shipley, Marmot,
Stansfeld, & Smith, 1998). The basic assumption in these objective definitions is
that individuals who find themselves in types of employment and/or organiza-
tions that are classified as insecure experience more job insecurity than is the
case with individuals who hold a “safer” type of employment or work for an
organization deemed as safe. There are also researchers who base their defini-
tions of job insecurity on the level of unemployment in society, which means that
a rise in unemployment can be interpreted as a rise in general job insecurity (e.g.,
Gallie, White, Cheng, & Tomlingson, 1998).
Other researchers use combinations of various definitions and operationaliza-
tions in their research. For example, Mohr (2000, p. 339) discussed four different
types of job insecurity: (1) ”job insecurity as a state of public awareness” which
involves a high degree of unemployment in society; (2) ”job insecurity at the
company level” which refers to unstable and insecure conditions in the organiza-
tion; (3) ”acute job insecurity” involving the concrete subjective experiencing of
a threat to employment, and; (4) ”anticipation of job loss” which applies to a
situation where layoffs have already begun to be carried out in the organization
in which the individual is employed. Job insecurity can therefore either be
experienced at a personal level or attributed externally, such as in those situations
where the researcher defines the population under investigation as being uncer-
tain of how their future employment will progress (Ferrie, 2001). In a study com-
paring the consequences of objective and subjective types job insecurity, De
Witte and Näswall (2003) found that, amongst those experiencing a high degree
of job insecurity, it was the permanent rather then the temporary employees who
reported lower levels of both job satisfaction and organizational commitment in
comparison with the temporary employees. These authors went on to argue that
job insecurity cannot only be defined from characteristics of the situation but
should contain an element of subjectivity.
Several different measures are used to assess job insecurity in current re-
search. The main differences center around whether an objective or a subjective
theoretical approach is employed. Within the subjective approach, distinctions
can be made between those who use single items as opposed to scales, global
measures instead of multidimensional measures, and fear or worry questions
rather than probability questions (Sverke et al., 2002). In the latter case, some
researchers have been known to formulate their items so as to include wordings
such as ”I worry about”, ”I fear I will”, or ”I feel uneasy about”, to give a few
examples (e.g., Armstrong-Stassen, 1994; Barling & Kelloway, 1996; Burke,
1991; Mauno, Leskinen, & Kinnunen, 2001). Such items focus on job insecurity
as something negative and undesired, and the questions themselves hint at the
fact that job insecurity is a stressor, which is considered unpleasant for the
individual and creates some sort of negative emotion.

6
 In contrast to this, other researchers instead utilize items that focus on how
secure individuals think they are in their present employment (e.g., Davy et al.,
1997; Lim, 1997). These questions contain wordings such as ”How certain are
you about your future employment in this organization?”, and thus focus on the
individual’s perception of continuity in the present employment. Other related
operationalizations focus on the likelihood of the individual being able to keep
his/her job in the future (e.g., De Witte, 1999; Mohr, 2000; Roskies, Louis-
Guerin, & Fournier, 1993). A typical question of this type is, for example, ”What
is the likelihood that you will have the same job in the foreseeable future?” (e.g.,
De Witte, 1999). Such questions focus on the individual’s perceptions and evalu-
ation of the likelihood of keeping his/her employment in the future.
The operationalizations using certainty and likelihood are quite closely related
and are similar in the respect that they do not contain expressions that necessarily
characterize the experience of job insecurity as a direct stressor. Nor do these
measurements illustrate the involuntary nature of the experience. With this in
mind, it is entirely possible for an individual to consider the likelihood that he/
she will lose the job to be high, at the same time as he/she welcomes this change,
or has chosen it voluntarily. Because of this, there are researchers who argue that
operationalizations containing intensifying words like ”fear” or ”worry” better
reflect the definition of job insecurity as a subjective and involuntary stressor
(Sverke et al., 2002).
In the behavioral sciences and psychological research, however, the subjec-
tive definitions of the construct are predominant. These definitions are based on
two fundamental assumptions: (1) that the experience of job insecurity is indi-
vidual and subjective, and (2) that it is based on an involuntary change from a
secure to a non-secure situation.
While most definitions of the construct also share the view that job insecurity
is a subjectively experienced stressor, it appears that the definition of the con-
struct is broad enough to encompass different aspects of such uncertainty per-
ceptions. Other aspects than threats of imminent job loss – such as loss of valued
job features, demotion, and career insecurity – may also constitute central aspects
of employees’ uncertainty perceptions. Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984), who
were the first to introduce a multidimensional definition, noted: “Loss of valued
job features is an important but often overlooked aspect of job insecurity” (p.
441). Thus, a significant distinction in this line of inquiry is that between “inse-
curity about the continuity of one’s job or aspects of one’s job” (Hartley et al.,
1991, p. 32).
Indeed, a number of commentators (e.g., Ashford, Lee, & Bobko, 1989;
Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Hartley & Klandermans, 1986; Roskies &
Louis-Guerin, 1990) have argued that the definition and measurement of job
insecurity would benefit from including concerns about deteriorated employment

7
conditions and career opportunities in addition to threats of imminent job loss.
Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) maintained that insecurity could best be
described in terms of threats to the job itself, importance of total job, threats to
valued job features, importance of valued job features, and a feeling of power-
lessness to counteract these threats. Ashford et al. (1989) developed measures
based on this definition of the different aspects, and combined the dimensions
into a multiplicative job insecurity scale. Other researchers (e.g., Kinnunen,
Mauno, Nätti, & Happonen, 1999) have used a similar approach, although not
distinguishing between threats to the job itself and threats to job features.
Borg and Elizur (1992) differentiated between cognitive job insecurity (likeli-
hood of job loss) and affective job insecurity (fear of job loss). Roskies and
Louis-Guerin (1990) developed single-item measures of five different aspects of
job insecurity: the likelihood of termination, early retirement, demotion, impaired
working conditions, and long-term job insecurity. Hellgren, Sverke, and Isaksson
(1999) made a distinction between quantitative job insecurity (worries about
losing the job itself) and qualitative job insecurity (worries about losing impor-
tant job features).
Following Hellgren et al. (1999), we argue that it would be meaningful to
make a distinction between at least two different aspects of job insecurity:
quantitative and qualitative insecurity. Quantitative job insecurity is similar to
the global conceptualizations of the construct. Qualitative job insecurity pertains
to perceptions of potential loss of quality in the employment relationship, such as
deterioration of working conditions, demotion, lack of career opportunities,
decreasing salary development, and concerns about person-organization fit in the
future. It is likely that the latter aspect may also be divided into separate dimen-
sions, but this is a question for future theoretical and empirical research. Even if
measures of different aspects are available (e.g., Ashford et al., 1989; Hellgren et
al., 1999; Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990), the measurement properties of the
scales are far from clear. Assessment of measurement properties in a variety of
settings and potential refinements of the instruments with the aid of confirmatory
factor analysis are important issues for the research agenda. It is also obvious that
such empirical work cannot be done without simultaneous conceptual advance-
ments on what may be the most important and relevant aspects of job insecurity.
It may also be noted that results from a meta-analysis (Sverke et al., 2002)
indicate that job insecurity measures based on multiple-item scales may have a
stronger relationship with the outcomes compared with single-item measures.
Generally, scales consisting of multiple indicators exhibit a higher degree of
reliability than is to be found with single items (Gorsuch, 1997; Spector, 1992). It
has also been argued that measures consisting of multiple indicators encompass
more of the job insecurity experience and generate a higher degree of content
validity in comparison to single item measures (Sverke et al., 2002).

8
Antecedents of job insecurity experiences
In order to further understand the phenomenon of job insecurity, it is fruitful to
take into consideration studies investigating potential antecedents of job inse-
curity. Job insecurity experiences, regardless of whether they are qualitative or
quantitative, arise from an interaction between situational characteristics and
characteristics of the individual that influence the interpretation the individual
makes of environmental factors.
Age is one demographic factor that may affect the interpretation of cues in the
environment as posing a threat of job loss. People in their 30s and 40s, for ex-
ample, are in an age-bracket whose members are likely to be responsible for
raising children and may, in connection with such circumstances, tend to experi-
ence the possibility of job loss more negatively than persons who are only
responsible for their own sustenance (De Witte, 1999). As the responsibility for
others diminishes, the vulnerability to job loss may also decrease, and result in
lower levels of job insecurity, particularly, amongst older employees. However,
studies have also reported evidence that older employees may experience higher
levels of job insecurity (e.g., Mohr, 2000; Näswall & De Witte, 2003; Hartley et
al., 1991). This has been attributed to the fact that it may be more difficult for
older employees to find new employment, which would leave them more vulne-
rable to job loss (Hartley et al., 1991).
Gender may play a role in how a person prepares for different occurrences
throughout life. Some of the few studies focusing on how gender influences
perceptions of job insecurity have found that men tend report higher levels of job
insecurity than women (e.g., Kinnunen et al., 1999; Rosenblatt, Talmud, &
Ruvio, 1999). This has been explained by the suggestion that traditional values
may prompt men to experience higher levels of job insecurity than women, since
this role traditionally requires the man to be the breadwinner of the family. Men
would then tend to be more vulnerable to the threat of job loss, as it would not
only threaten their source of income, but also their identity, to a higher degree
than it would for women. However, what complicates overgeneralizing about the
influence of gender is that, according to this argument, a woman who was the
main breadwinner for her family could similarly be expected to experience
greater job insecurity than a man would who did not have this responsibility to
the same extent (De Witte, 1999). Some studies also provide empirical evidence
that women report higher levels of job insecurity than men (Näswall & De Witte,
2003). The issue of how gender influences job insecurity perceptions is,
however, not yet settled.
A small number of studies have investigated whether certain personality dis-
positions are related to experiences of job insecurity. The results from a few of
these studies suggest that persons with a predominantly external locus of control

9
are more likely to report higher levels of job insecurity (Ashford et al., 1989;
Kinnunen et al., 1999; Sverke et al., 2004). In contrast, higher levels of self-
esteem have been related to lower levels of job insecurity (Hartley et al., 1991).
There is also some evidence that negative affectivity increases the likelihood of
job insecurity perceptions (Sverke et al., 2004).
Socioeconomic status may influence an individual’s experiencing of a situa-
tion and result in the interpretation that the job is being threatened. Status may
also affect how important a job is considered to be, in that it affects an indivi-
dual’s dependence on the present employment. Related to socioeconomic status
are type of work (manual vs. non-manual) and the level of education the indi-
vidual has. Persons who have low-status (often manual) jobs and low income are
often more dependent on their income and are therefore generally thought to be
more vulnerable to the threat of job loss (Frese, 1985; Kinnunen et al., 1999). An
individual with low income is usually not able to save money, which would make
a loss of income more severe. Low-status jobs are often also associated with
lower levels of education, resulting in fewer coping resources and strategies.
Studies have also shown that blue-collar workers report higher levels of job
insecurity than other worker categories (Näswall & DeWitte, 2003). Lower
education and skill level also contribute to employees having fewer options of
alternative employment in the labor market, or the individual’s sense of employ-
ability (cf. Fugate, Kinicki, & Ashforth, 2004), which may increase their degree
of dependence on the present job, and make the threat of unemployment more
severe (Gallie et al., 1998; Schaufeli, 1992; Sverke et al, 2004).
Holding a certain type of employment contract can also influence perceptions
of job insecurity. Employees who are hired on full-time or permanent contracts
may experience less job insecurity. These employees may have a greater sense of
being an integral part of the organization than part-time or temporary employees
would (Barling & Gallagher, 1996; Sverke et al., 2000). Should the organization
have to reduce their staff, those employees who are not considered core workers
may be the first to have to leave the organization. However, the nature of the
formal contracts of the temporary workers can actually prepare them for instabi-
lity, in that any uncertainty that might arise over the future of their employment
may not be something unexpected. Moreover, employees with temporary con-
tracts are generally aware that there is a time limit to their employment since this
is something known upon entering into the employment relationship (Gallagher
& McLean Parks, 2001). Employees who are less formally attached to the
organization may be less committed to keeping their job and less likely to
experience job insecurity than permanent workers. Studies investigating job
insecurity experiences among temporary workers typically find that employees
holding contracts with a time limit experience more job insecurity than
permanent or full-time employees (Näswall & De Witte, 2003; Sverke et al.,

10
2000). However, the relation between part-time work and job insecurity is less
clear, as some studies (e.g., Still, 1983) show that part-time workers report more
job insecurity than full-time. Others find mixed results, such that some groups of
part-time workers are more insecure than full-time, but other groups of part-time
workers are less insecure than full-time workers (Näswall & De Witte, 2003).
Social support has been named as a possible coping resource for reducing the
perceptions of stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Those who are able to utilize
support from others have been found to reported lower levels of job insecurity
(Armstrong-Stassen, 1993). Social support may originate from a variety of
sources. Family-based support, such as having the presence of a partner, has been
found to act as a buffer against some of the negative consequences of job insecu-
rity (Lim, 1996). It is possible that living with a partner may remove some of the
pressure of having to bring in an income, but very few studies have investigated
how family status affects the level of job insecurity experienced (e.g., Sverke et
al., 2004), and the results are inconclusive, indicating that more research with
more adequate measures is needed.
Another source of social support is union membership (Armstrong-Stassen,
1993; Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995). Being a member of a union may serve to
protect against actions by management that would harm the employee. The sense
of powerlessness often associated with job insecurity may decrease since unions
often have a strong collective voice and may be able to affect management
policies in favor of the employees (Barling, Fullagar, & Kelloway, 1992;
Hellgren & Chirumbolo, 2003; Johnson, Bobko, & Hartenian, 1992; Sverke &
Hellgren, 2001). Results from research on union membership and job insecurity
indicate that union members report lower levels of job insecurity than non-
members (Sverke et al., 2004). However, since only a few studies support this
result, it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding the role of the union. There are
even suggestions that union members might report higher levels of job insecurity,
since workers are more likely to join a union when their employment is less
secure (e.g., Bender & Sloane, 1999; Näswall & De Witte, 2003). At present, the
impact of support from the family as well as the union on experiences of job
insecurity needs to be further researched.

Consequences of job insecurity

Intuitively, one would expect feelings of job insecurity to have a strong psycho-
logical impact on those affected. Experiences of uncertainty concerning one’s
future employment are likely to have severe consequences for an employee’s
overall life situation in that economic and other highly valued aspects of life will
be perceived as threatened (Ashford et al., 1989; Hartley et al., 1991). Employ-

11
ment provides individuals with income, social contacts, and opportunities for
personal development, as well as a more structured life (Jahoda, 1982). If
individuals feel their needs threatened by a perceived insecure employment
situation, they are also experiencing a threat to the vital economic, social, and
personal aspects of their lives (De Witte, 1999). The individual’s evaluation of
work is also shaped by a strong desire for stability (Schabracq & Cooper, 2000),
and losing the job would mean losing this structure and stability as well. Indi-
viduals who feel that these important features of life are threatened, and are
uncertain as to how to protect them, will be frustrated and experience stress.
Indeed, one of the most prominent features of job insecurity is the aspect of
uncertainty and ambiguity. According to stress theories, not knowing how to
counteract a threat to something valued will lead to stress experiences (Lazarus
& Folkman, 1984). The experience of uncertainty concerning the future of
employment prohibits the individual to cope with the threat adequately and
diminishes the opportunities for reducing the level of stress experienced. In line
with this reasoning, research suggests that perceived threats concerning the
nature and continued existence of a job may have as detrimental consequences as
job loss itself (Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Latack & Dozier, 1986). This is
consistent with the central proposition of stress research, that anticipation of a
stressful event represents an equally important, or perhaps even greater, source of
anxiety than the actual event (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Stress experiences are accompanied by stress reactions, which may be de-
scribed as somatic, psychological, and behavioral (Jex & Beehr, 1991; Spector,
2000). Consistent with this, job insecurity has been associated with several
different health-related, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes (see De Witte
[1999] and Hartley et al. [1991] for reviews, and Sverke et al. [2002] for meta-
analysis results).
In terms of health-related consequences, many studies have documented that
job insecurity is negatively related to employee well-being. Physical health
complaints, mental distress, and work-to-leisure carry-over tend to increase with
the level of job insecurity experienced (e.g., Ashford et al., 1989; Barling &
Kelloway, 1996; Hartley et al., 1991; Jick, 1985). The majority of studies that
have investigated the relationship between job insecurity and well-being are
based on self-reported health data, but there is also evidence indicating that job
insecurity is related to health indicators that are more physiological or biological
in nature (e.g., Arnetz et al., 1991; Catalano, Rook, & Dooley, 1986; Lindström,
Leino, Seitsamo, & Torstila, 1997; Siegrist, Peter, Junge, Cremer, & Seidel,
1990). In addition, it has been shown that subjective job insecurity is both more
strongly and more often related to mental health complaints as compared to the
more physical and biological markers of health (Iversen & Sabroe, 1988;
Mattiasson, Lindgärde, Nilsson, & Theorell, 1990; Mohr, 2000).

12
 However, the radical change from a traditionally secure working environment
to a rapidly changing and insecure one could be expected to have an impact not
only on the well-being of the individuals, but also on their work attitudes and
behavior, and, in the long run, for the vitality of the organization. As phrased by
Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984), “workers react to job insecurity, and their
reactions have consequences for organizational effectiveness” (p. 438). Job
insecurity has consistently been found to associate with a number of attitudinal
reactions. The most commonly researched outcome in this context is job satis-
faction. For instance, Ashford et al. (1989) showed that employees who felt
insecure about their future employment were more dissatisfied with their jobs as
compared to those who perceived their future job situation as more secure.
Similar results have been obtained in a number of studies (e.g., Davy et al., 1997;
Hartley et al., 1991; Heaney et al., 1994; Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996). Job inse-
curity has also been linked to impaired commitment to the organization (e.g.,
Armstrong-Stassen, 1993; Davy et al., 1997), reduced trust in management (e.g.,
Ashford et al., 1989; Borg & Elizur, 1992), and lower levels of job involvement
(e.g., Kuhnert & Palmer, 1991; Leavoni & Sales, 1990).
A perceived insecurity concerning one’s future role in the organization may
also result in a variety of behavioral reactions. One of the most frequently exa-
mined observations in this respect is that job insecurity may make the employee
less inclined to remain with the organization. Job insecurity, like any stressor,
could lead to a withdrawal response as manifested in, for example, higher levels
of turnover intention (Arnold & Feldman, 1982; Brockner, 1988; Burke &
Nelson, 1998; Davy et al., 1997; Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Hartley et al., 1991).
This is especially important also for managers given that qualified workers will
more easily find a new job and thus are more likely to in fact quit if they experi-
ence job insecurity (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Hartley et al., 1991).
Employees’ performance may also be affected by the degree to which they feel
that their employment is secure. There are some inconsistencies in the empirical
evidence for how job insecurity and performance are related. Some studies have
empirically confirmed the expectation that higher levels of job insecurity would
be associated with decreases in self-rated performance (e.g., Armstrong-Stassen,
1993; Rosenblatt et al., 1999). There is, however, another view on performance
in relation to job insecurity, which suggests that employees who perceive a risk
of layoffs may increase their work effort in order to be more valuable to the
organization, and therefore not be made redundant (Brockner, Tyler, & Cooper-
Schneider, 1992; Sverke & Hellgren, 2001).
However, the relationships between job insecurity and employee reactions
may not be as clear-cut as implied by this brief review. Several issues need
further research attention before any valid conclusions as to the consequences of
job insecurity can be drawn. First of all, although meta-analysis results suggest

13
that job insecurity is negatively related to employee well-being, attitudes, and
work-related behavior (Sverke et al., 2002), some of the relations investigated
were based on a large number of empirical studies (e.g., job satisfaction, organi-
zational commitment), while other summarized a smaller number of samples
(e.g., job involvement, trust). Moreover, there is also a need to investigate other
factors that may be consequences of job insecurity, but have received less
research attention. Further research is warranted to establish how perceptions of
employment uncertainty are related to factors such as work intensity (Brown &
Leigh, 1996), compliance with safety procedures (Probst & Brubaker, 2001),
depression (Orpen, 1993), burnout (Westman, Etzion, & Danon, 2001), neck-
and-shoulder problems (Lindström et al., 1997), and ischemic heart disease
occurrence (Siegrist et al., 1990).
Secondly, there is also a need to further investigate not only how job insecu-
rity may impact the individuals or the organizations they work for, but also how
other actors may be affected. Like other stressors, it is most likely that the conse-
quences of job insecurity may be categorized not only according to whether they
primarily affect the individual or the organization, but also according to how they
affect other parts of life. For example, employees may take out the frustration
associated with job insecurity on the union if they feel the union has not done
enough to protect them (Sverke & Hellgren, 2001). There is some evidence that
job insecurity is associated with negative outcomes for the union, such as dis-
satisfaction with the union and union turnover (Mellor, 1992; Sverke &
Goslinga, 2003, Sverke et al., 2004). Research has also suggested that the
demands the individual perceives he/she has to live up to when experiencing job
insecurity may influence relations outside work, in that it may be difficult to
perform well in several demanding roles simultaneously (Netemeyer, Bolens, &
McMurrian, 1996). There is research evidence indicating that the stress of job
insecurity may spill over to affect the spouse of the individual negatively
(Westman et al., 2001). There is also evidence that reactions to job insecurity
may have consequences for the individual’s family, and even influence children’s
attitudes toward work, as they see their parents experiencing and reacting to work
stressors (Barling, Dupre, & Hepburn, 1998; Lim & Leng Loo, 2003). These
indications still need to undergo further empirical scrutiny.
Thirdly, different aspects of job insecurity may relate in different ways to
these types of outcomes. Because a perceived loss of continuity in a job situation
can span the range from threats of imminent job loss to loss of important job
features (Davy et al., 1997; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984), these different
aspects may evoke divergent reactions (Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990). To date,
only a few studies report relationships of different job insecurity dimensions and
outcomes. Ashford et al. (1989) studied the specific effects of different facets of
insecurity in addition to the multiplicative measure, and reported approximately

14
similar correlations of both likelihood of job features continuation and likelihood
of total job continuation with various work attitudes, but non-significant rela-
tionships with somatic complaints. Roskies and Louis-Guerin (1990) examined
the relative importance of various aspects of job insecurity on mental health and
work commitment, and found that insecurity about future working conditions
was more strongly related to the outcomes than insecurity about demotion and
termination. Hellgren et al. (1999) found that qualitative job insecurity was more
strongly related to work attitudes while quantitative insecurity evidenced
stronger relationships with different aspects of health complaints. In contrast,
Riesel and Banai (2002), who also investigated effects of different aspects of job
insecurity, found that the job loss component of job insecurity explained more
variance in organizational commitment, trust, and job search behavior than the
job features loss component. However, Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) noted
that the aspect reflecting concerns about continued employment might be the
most important of the two. Although a loss of valued job features certainly
represents an aspect of job insecurity “inasmuch as it involves losing the job as
the affected employee currently knows it”, it is likely that this threat is “less
severe because organizational membership – and all that such membership means
to the individual – is not lost” (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, p. 441). Clearly,
further research is needed to understand the potentially differential effects of
various dimensions of job insecurity.
A fourth problem concerning the relationship between job insecurity and its
postulated outcomes is that the relative impact of insecurity above the effects of
other factors is far from clear. For instance, research has not clarified the effects
of job insecurity beyond what can be explained by mood dispositions (Hellgren
et al., 1999; Roskies et al., 1993). A great body of literature suggests that self
reports of job stress, well-being, and health are under influence of personality
traits like positive and negative affectivity, and that such personality dispositions
hence should be controlled for (Brief, Burke, George, Robinson, & Webster,
1988; Costa & McCrae, 1980; Roskies et al., 1993; Schaubroeck, Ganster & Fox,
1992; Watson & Pennebaker, 1989). It has also been suggested that the degree to
which an individual reacts to job insecurity is influenced by demographic
characteristics like gender, age, and civil status (e.g., De Witte, 1999). In
addition, it would be valuable to further assess the unique criterion effects of job
insecurity beyond those of other stressors. Previous research indicates that the
negative effects of insecurity tend to remain, albeit of a lower magnitude, after
controlling for demographics, personality, and other stressors (e.g., Hellgren &
Sverke, 2001; Näswall, Sverke, & Hellgren, 2005), but there are of course
several variables that may affect the potential outcomes of job insecurity.
Fifth, most studies that have examined the consequences of job insecurity
have been cross-sectional, relating job insecurity to its potential outcomes within

15
a single data collection wave. This means that the knowledge is limited regarding
the long-term effects of job insecurity, but also in terms of how the consequences
develop over time. For instance, it is likely that those who experience job inse-
curity over a long time will be more negatively affected as compared to those
whose uncertainty perceptions are less enduring (Heaney et al., 1994). The issue
of the timeframe between points of measurement may also be crucial in this
respect, since some stress reactions develop soon after the initial exposure to the
stressor, and may or may not diminish over time, while others are manifested
after a longer period of time (Beehr & Newman, 1978; Zapf, Dormann, & Frese,
1996). A careful theoretical consideration must be made of how various stress
reactions may develop when designing longitudinal research, and an effort needs
to be put into determining the appropriate times for measurement when research-
ing job insecurity and its outcomes.
We know even less, however, when it comes to the relative effects of job
insecurity on employee attitudes and well-being after prior levels of such
outcomes have been taken into account. A sixth consideration thus concerns
causality. A review of the research on stress reactions (Depue & Monroe, 1986)
indicates that prior levels of distress almost exclusively have been found to far
better predict subsequent disorders than the life event stressors under study.
Although uncertainties about the future of one’s job have been found to relate to
lowered work attitudes and well-being, even after controlling for prior levels of
the outcomes (e.g., Hellgren et al., 1999), the direction of these relationship is
merely assumed. A few studies have, however, addressed the issue of causality
more explicitly. In a study measuring job insecurity and potential outcomes over
several measurement occasions, Garst, Frese, and Molenaar (2000) found that
initial levels of job insecurity were related to negative outcomes at later time
points. It has also been shown to be plausible that initial levels of job insecurity
are related to subsequent mental health complaints, rather than the opposite – that
initial levels of mental health complaints influence subsequent levels of job
insecurity (Hellgren & Sverke, 2003). Clearly, however, additional longitudinal
research – in which the same employees are followed over time, and both
insecurity and its postulated consequences are measured at multiple occasions –
is needed to detect the strength, direction, and duration of the effects of job
insecurity on its potential outcomes (Ashford et al., 1989). Naturally, in order to
effectively study if, or how, job insecurity contributes to impairments in em-
ployee well-being, attitudes, and behavior, the assessment of initial levels of the
outcome variables in focus should preferably take place before rumors about
organizational change start to circulate, even if this is almost impossible in field
settings.

16
Can the negative consequences of insecurity be reduced?
Theoretical and empirical evidence thus indicate that perceptions of job insecu-
rity have detrimental consequences for employee attitudes and well-being, which
raises the high-priority question of how to reduce these such consequences.
Organizations can take measures to prevent the most negative impact of job
insecurity from occurring by, for instance, providing accurate information,
enhancing communication, supplying retraining for alternative employment, and
training their employees in how to cope with the stress created by job insecurity
(Hartley et al., 1991; Heaney et al., 1994; Kets de Vries & Balazs, 1997). Several
studies have investigated the buffering, or moderating, effects of a variety of
factors, ranging from personality dispositions to different types of social support.
In their model of job insecurity, its antecedents and consequences, Greenhalgh
and Rosenblatt (1984) suggested that individual differences could be expected to
moderate the relationship between the experience of job insecurity and the em-
ployee’s reactions to it. There are, for example, indications that men react more
negatively to job insecurity than women (Näswall, Sverke, & Hellgren, 2001). It
is also conceivable that some personality dispositions may affect the relationship
between job insecurity and its outcomes.
One of the studies that specifically investigated the relationship between
personality traits, job insecurity, and employee well-being was made by Roskies
et al. (1993). They found that individuals expressing high levels of negative
affectivity do not inevitably perceive the outcomes of job insecurity as more
severe than those low in this attribute, but they may report lower well-being
because of their elevated initial values. Similarly, they suggested that positive
affectivity would have an opposite but equally strong influence on perceived
stress and attitudes. Similar moderating effects were found in the study by Mak
and Mueller (2000), where those reporting higher levels of negative affectivity
also reported more negative reactions to job insecurity in terms of physical strain.
Roskies and her associates (1993) also found that personality was the most
important predictor of distress, even more important than the perception of job
insecurity. This was also found in a study by Näswall et al. (2005); when nega-
tive affectivity was controlled for, the relationship between job insecurity and
mental distress was significantly weaker. However, the Näswall et al. (2005)
study failed to identify any moderating effect of negative or positive affectivity.
Few studies have investigated the moderating effects of personality
characteristics other than affectivity. One of the few studies including other
personality characteristics found that locus of control moderated the relation
between job insecurity and mental health complaints (Näswall et al., 2005).
Individuals with a more internal locus of control (the feeling that one has a
certain degree of control over events; Rotter, 1966) reported less negative

17
reactions to job insecurity than those with an external locus of control (the
feeling that control over events lies outside the individual; Rotter, 1966). These
results indicate that personality characteristics may affect the relation between
job insecurity and well-being to some extent, but also that the results are
inconclusive and that care must be taken when drawing conclusions on the
moderating effect of personality disposition on the reactions to job insecurity. In
addition, other dispositions than affectivity or locus of control (e.g., self-efficacy,
core self-evaluations, need for security) may moderate the effects of job
insecurity on outcomes (Ashford et al, 1989; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984).
There is also research focusing on whether and how the negative effects of
downsizing can be reduced through fair treatment of the employees. Perceptions
of fair treatment in the context of layoffs and downsizing refer to an individual’s
appraisal of the procedures used to enact organizational change (Thibaut &
Walker, 1975). Although this perspective has primarily been applied to down-
sizing in general, it may prove useful to the more specific field of job insecurity
as well. Concepts such as participation in the change process (Lind & Tyler,
1988; Parker, Chmiel, & Wall, 1997), global process control (Davy, Kinicki, &
Scheck, 1991), and organizational justice (Brockner, 1990; Novelli, Kirkman, &
Shapiro, 1995) have emerged as important factors influencing survivors’ work
attitudes, performance, and well-being. The reasoning behind this is that em-
ployee perceptions of fair treatment during the change process and participation
in decision-making will have beneficial consequences for their work attitudes
and well-being, and may even moderate the negative effects of downsizing-
induced stress on such outcomes.
Research studies have found empirical support for the positive role of the
various fairness factors. For example, individuals tend to report higher job
satisfaction when they have an opportunity to provide input into how decisions
are made (Konovsky & Folger, 1987; Lind & Tyler, 1988). Having an influence
on decision-making and perceptions of a just and fair process have been shown
to be associated with less severe reactions to job insecurity (Brockner, 1990;
Hellgren & Sverke, 2001). A study by Parker et al. (1997) showed that partici-
pation (i.e., being kept informed and involved over the course of downsizing)
was associated with higher job satisfaction and better well-being. Participation
has also been shown to moderate the effects of role stress among hospital
employees (Pozner & Randolph, 1980). It is likely that employees feel a sense of
control over the situation when they have an opportunity to influence the
decisions being made. Barling and Kelloway (1996) found that control percep-
tions had positive direct effects on various health indicators and work attitudes,
and in addition, that control perceptions moderated the effects of job insecurity
on physical health. Tetrick and LaRocco (1987) reported that control predicted
lower levels of perceived stress and higher job satisfaction, and moderated the

18
relationship between these variables. Brockner and associates have demonstrated
the importance of justice in the downsizing process in several publications (e.g.,
Brockner, 1990; Brockner & Grover, 1988; Brockner et al., 1992).
A factor that has received very little attention as a potential moderator of job
insecurity perceptions is employability (cf. Fugate et al., 2004; Turnley &
Feldman, 1999). It is nevertheless reasonable that an individual who feels that
she could easily obtain a new job does not react as negatively to job insecurity
perceptions as someone who feels she is unable to acquire new employment. The
moderating effect of employment on the job insecurity–outcome relationship has
yet to be extensively investigated.
Research has also examined the moderating effects of social support on the
relationship between job insecurity and employee reactions. The underlying
logic, based on stress research, is that these sources of support can mitigate the
resulting negative reactions by helping the individual cope with the stressor (i.e.,
job insecurity) more adequately (cf. Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Support from
co-workers and supervisors have been cited as important buffers against stress
(Viswesvaran, Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999). There exists some empirical evidence
for this as well. For instance, Lim (1996) found that nonwork-based support (i.e.,
support provided by family and friends) buffered against the negative effects of
job insecurity on life satisfaction, while work-based social support buffered
against the negative effects on job satisfaction, proactive job search, and non-
compliant job behaviors. Armstrong-Stassen (1993) has also shown that super-
visor support during organizational restructuring decreased the negative effect of
job insecurity on attitudes toward the organization.
Unfortunately, even though job insecurity is an increasingly important factor
in unionized as well as non-unionized workplaces, very little research has exa-
mined if and how union membership relates to job insecurity and its outcomes. It
has been suggested that union membership may help alleviating perceptions of
job insecurity in that unions decrease feelings of powerlessness among employ-
ees (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984). It may also be argued that without the
collective support provided by union membership the more difficulty an em-
ployee will have in coping with job insecurity (Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995); on
the other hand, those who stay outside the unions may trust their own capacity to
cope with insecurity perceptions.
Over a decade ago, Mellor (1992) observed that “one surprising aspect of prior
studies on layoff reactions is that none have been conducted in unionized work
settings, despite the fact that most layoffs have occurred in these settings, as
opposed to nonunionized settings” (p. 581). Since then, our understanding of the
role of unionization has improved somewhat. For instance, a study that included
the mere presence of union membership as an external coping resource (Shaw,
Fields, Thacker, & Fisher, 1993) found positive relationships between union

19
membership and both organizational commitment and positive attitudes towards
the organizational change, but no interaction effects of job insecurity and union
membership on these reactions. Similar results are reported by Sverke and
Hellgren (2001). Dekker and Schaufeli (1995) reported that social support
derived from union membership, co-workers, and colleagues did not buffer the
moderate effects of job insecurity on employee well-being.
A study conducted by Sverke et al. (2004) tested whether perceptions of union
support, which can be considered a form of collective social support, moderated
the relation between job insecurity and various outcomes in four European
countries. Union support moderated the relation between job insecurity and
physical health complaints in that those reporting low support in combination
with high job insecurity also reported the most physical health complaints. The
pattern was similar for organizational commitment, where those experiencing
high job insecurity in combination with fewer perceptions of union support also
reported weaker organizational commitment. The study by Sverke et al. (2004)
also demonstrated strong main effects of perceptions of union support, such that
those reporting more union support generally also were better off in terms of
well-being, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment; these individuals
also were less interested in leaving the organization and were more positively
disposed toward the union in general.
The area of factors that may moderate the negative effects of job insecurity
certainly represents a fruitful direction for further research. Even if individual
differences, fair treatment of employees in layoffs, and social support do nothing
about the stressor itself – that is, they may not change the insecure employment
situation into a more favorable one – they all may have beneficial effects for the
individual if they prevent the most negative reactions from occurring. Given that
employees’ reactions to uncertainties in a given organizational context are of
fundamental importance from both the occupational health and managerial per-
spectives (Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987), moderators of job insecurity take on
double importance. From the occupational health perspective, it becomes crucial
to understand how the negative consequences of job insecurity for employee
well-being and work attitudes can be buffered by various moderating variables.
From the managerial perspective, it is obvious that a workforce plagued with
stress reactions and impaired well-being can not reverse decline and make the
organization more effective (Hartley et al., 1991). This clearly illustrates that the
moderation of the effects of job insecurity deserves additional attention in the
future.

20
Conclusions
Downsizing and other forms of organizational change involving layoffs (e.g.,
mergers, acquisitions, outsourcing, organizational restructuring) will continue as
production and overhead costs remain noncompetitive (Burke & Nelson, 1998)
and thus render job insecurity a lasting characteristic of working life. Its negative
reactions, combined with the facts that uncertain job situations tend to increase
change resistance (Noer, 1993), that the most valuable individuals are more in-
clined to seek other job alternatives (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984), and that
the survivors have to do more with fewer resources (Burke & Nelson, 1998),
suggest that job insecurity is of vital concern for both employees and their
organizations.

Individual characteristics

e.g., personality, employability, age, Reactions:

Job
gender
Situational Attitudinal
insecurity
cues Behavioral
perceptions
Health-related

Organizational/union and social

factors
Figure 1: A conceptual model of job insecurity, its antecedents, consequences,
and moderators
e.g., social support, information,
Our goal with the present review has been to contribute to the understanding of
turbulence
job insecurity by addressing theoretical as well as methodological issues and
highlighting areas where further research is warranted. We summarize our
conclusions from this literature review in an integrated model of job insecurity
(see Figure 1). The model describes job insecurity as a subjectively experienced,
multi-dimensional phenomenon which may arise as a function of the interaction
between the objective situation and subjective characteristics, a phenomenon
which may have detrimental consequences for employee attitudes and well-
being, where such consequences may be mitigated by a number of potential
moderators.

21
 Our review has focused on job insecurity as a consequence that may follow
upon the changing nature of work. However, as we have briefly sketched, job
insecurity may not be an inherent and inevitable consequence of downsizing,
structural change, and organizational strivings for flexibility (Burke & Nelson,
1998; Klein Hesselink & van Vuuren, 1998). Rather, job insecurity can be
described as a function of both the objective situation (e.g., labor market
characteristics, organizational change) and the individual’s subjective
characteristics (e.g., family responsibility, employability). More research is
warranted in order to investigate what groups are particularly vulnerable to
experiencing job insecurity and how such experiences can be decreased.
In our view, more systematic research is needed also as to the consequences of
job insecurity. We call for more longitudinal research to address issues of
causality, long-term effects of insecurity, and its relative effects after controlling
for other important factors, such as initial levels of the outcomes under study. In
order to address these issues in a proper way, additional theory development is
necessary. Conceptual refinement appears justified to broadening the definition
of job insecurity to encompass more than threats of job loss. Although work has
been done in this direction, concerns about valued job features represents an area
where several different aspects are plausible, for instance, threats of impaired job
content, demotion, pay development, and relations with coworkers. Such theo-
retical work should be carried out in close cooperation with development, and
validation, of measures to reflect these different dimensions.
We also believe that further research is needed to examine how the negative
effects of job insecurity can be reduced. Three areas of moderators seem especi-
ally important – individual differences, fairness perceptions, and social support –
but we have noted that more research is needed in each of these areas, especially
research highlighting strategies that organizations and unions can utilize to help
employees in their coping with job insecurity and its consequences.
The accelerating rate of organizational change indicates that job insecurity is a
phenomenon that will continue to characterize modern working life also in the
years to come. As the flexibility of the labor market is likely to increase even
more rapidly in the future, it is also of vital importance that research on job inse-
curity is sensitive to changes in working life and addresses more modern forms
of employment relationships. While flexibility certainly meets the demands of
many employers, it could well be that work on a project basis and temporary
employment are also in line with the expectations and wishes of certain groups of
individuals, presumably young workers, professionals, and employees in emer-
ging industry sectors. If such a value shift is taking place, then the construct of
job insecurity takes on still other connotations, such as threats to continuous on-
the-job training, professional development, and future employability.

22
References
Armstrong-Stassen, M. (1993). Production workers' reactions to a plant closing: The
role of transfer, stress and support. Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International
Journal, 6, 201-214.
Armstrong-Stassen, M. (1994). Coping with transition: A study of layoff survivors.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 597-621.
Arnetz, B. B., Brenner, S.-O., Levi, L., Hjelm, R., Petterson, I.-L., Wasserman, J.,
Petrini, B., Eneroth, P., Kallner, A., Kvetnansky, R., & Vigas, M. (1991).
Neuroendocrine and immunologic effects of unemployment and job insecurity.
Psychotherapy & Psychosomatics Research, 55, 76-80.
Arnold, H. J., & Feldman, D. C. (1982). A multivariate analysis of the determinants of
job turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 350-360.
Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes, and consequences of job
insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management
Journal, 4, 803-829.
Barling, J., Dupre, K. E., & Hepburn, C. G. (1998). Effects of parents job insecurity on
children´s work beliefs and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 112-118.
Barling, J., Fullagar, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (1992). The union and its members: A
psychological approach. New York: Wiley.
Barling, J., & Gallagher, D. G. (1996). Part-time employment. In C. L. Cooper & I. T.
Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology
(pp. 243-277). New York: Wiley.
Barling, J., & Kelloway, K. E. (1996). Job insecurity and health: The moderating role of
workplace control. Stress medicine, 12, 253-259.
Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational
effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personnel psychology,
31, 665-699.
Bender, K. A., & Sloane, P. J. (1999). Trade union membership, tenure and the level of
job insecurity. Applied Economics, 31, 123-135.
Borg, I., & Elizur, D. (1992). Job insecurity: Correlates, moderators and measurement.
International Journal of Manpower, 13, 13-26.
Borg, V., Kristensen, T. S., & Burr, H. (2000). Work environment and changes in self-
rated health: A Five year follow-up study. Stress Medicine, 16, 37-47.
Brief, A. P., Burke, M. J., George, J. M., Robinson, B. S., & Webster, J. (1988). Should
negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 2, 193-198.
Brockner, J. (1988). The effects of work layoffs on survivors: Research, theory, and
practice. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior, Vol. 10. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Brockner, J. (1990). Scope of justice in the workplace: How survivors react to co-
worker layoffs. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 95-106.

23
Brockner, J., & Grover, S. L. (1988). Predictors of survivors job involvement following
layoffs: A field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 3, 436-442.
Brockner, J., Tyler, T., R. & Cooper-Schneider, R. (1992). The influence of prior
commitment to an institution on reactions to perceived unfairness: The higher they
are, the harder the fall. Administrative Science Quartely, 37, 241-261.
Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its
relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 358-368.
Burchell, B. J., Day, D., Hudson, M., Ladipo, D., Mankelow, R., Nolan, J. P., Reed, H.,
Wichert, I. C., & Wilkinson, F. (1999). Job insecurity and work intensification.
York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Burke, R. J. (1991). Job insecurity in stockbrokers. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
5, 10-16.
Burke, R. J., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2000). The organization in crisis: Downsizing,
restructuring, and privatization. Oxford: Blackwell.
Burke, R. J., & Nelson, D. (1998). Mergers and acquisitions, downsizing, and privati-
zation: A North American perspective. In M. K. Gowing, J. D. Kraft, & J. C. Quick
(Eds.), The new organizational reality: Downsizing, restructuring, and revitalization
(pp. 21-54). Washington, DC. American Psychological Association.
Büssing, A. (1999). Can control at work and social support moderate psychological
consequences of job insecurity? Results from a quasi-experimental study in the steel
industry. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 219-242.
Cameron, K., Freeman, S., & Mishra, A. (1991). Best practices in white-collar
downsizing: Managing contradictions. Academy of Management Executive, 5, 57-
73.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., van Harrison, R., & Pinneau, S. R. (1975). Job
demands and worker health. Washington, D. C.: National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health.
Cascio, W. F. (1998). Learning from outcomes: Financial experiences of 311 firms that
have downsized. In M. K. Gowing, J. D. Kraft, & J. C. Quick (Eds.), The new
organizational reality: Downsizing, restructuring, and revitalization (pp. 21-54).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Catalano, R., Rook, K., & Dooley, D. (1986). Labor markets and help-seeking: A test of
the employment security hypothesis. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 27,
277-2287.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on
subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 4, 668-678.
Davy, J. A., Kinicki, A. J., & Scheck, C. L. (1997). A test of job security’s direct and
mediated effects on withdrawal cognitions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18,
323-349.
Davy, J. A., Kinicki, A. J., & Scheck, C. L. (1991). Developing and testing a model of
survivor responses to layoffs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38, 302-317.

24
Dekker, S. W. A., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1995). The effects of job insecurity on psycho-
logical health and withdrawal: A longitudinal study. Australian Psychologist, 30,
57-63.
Depue, R. A., & Monroe, S. M. (1986). Conceptualization and measurement of human
disorder in life stress research. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 36-51.
De Witte, H. (1999). Job insecurity and psychological well-being: Review of the litera-
ture and exploration of some unresolved issues. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 8, 155-177.
De Witte, H., & Näswall, K. (2003). "Objective" vs. "Subjective" job insecurity: Conse-
quences of temporary work for job satisfaction and organizational commitment in
four European countries. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24, 209-312.
Ferrie, J. (2001). Is job insecurity harmful to health? Journal of the Royal Society of
Medicine, 94, 71-76.
Ferrie, J. E., Shipley, M. J., Marmot, M. G., Stansfeld, S. A., & Smith, G. D. (1998). An
uncertain future: The health effects of threats to employment security in white-collar
men and women. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1030-1036.
Frese, M. (1985). Stress at work and psychosomatic complaints: A causal interpretation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(2), 314-328.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A.J., & Asforth, B.E. (2004). Employability: A psycho-social
construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 14-
38.
Gallagher, D. G., & McLean Parks, J. (2001). I pledge thee my troth ... contingently:
Commitment and the contingent work relationship. Human Resource Management
Review, 11, 181-208.
Gallie, D., White, M., Cheng, Y., & Tomlinson, M. (1998). Restructuring the employ-
ment relationship. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Garst, H., Frese, M., & Molenaar, P. C. M. (2000). The temporal factor of change in
stressor-strain relationships: A growth curve model on a longitudinal study in East
Germany. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 417-438.
Greenhalgh, L., and Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity.
Academy of Management Review, 3, 438-448.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1997). Exploratory factor analysis: Its role in item analysis. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 68, 532-560.
Gowing, M. K., Kraft, J. D., & Campbell Quick, J. (Eds.) (1998). The new organiza-
tional reality: Downsizing, restructuring, and revitalization. Washington, DC.
American Psychological Association.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.
Hartley, J., Jacobson, D., Klandermans, B., & van Vuuren, T. (1991). Job insecurity:
Coping with jobs at risk. London: Sage.
Hartley, J., & Klandermans, P. G. (1986). Individual and collective responses to job
insecurity. In G. Debus & H.-W. Schroiff (Eds.), The psychology of work and
organization (pp. 129-136). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

25
Heaney, C. A., Israel, B. A., & House, J. S. (1994). Chronic job insecurity among auto-
mobile workers: Effects on job satisfaction and health. Social Science & Medicine,
38, 1431-37.
Hellgren, J., & Chirumbolo, A. (2003). Can union support reduce the negative effects of
job insecurity on well-being? Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24, 271-289.
Hellgren, J., & Sverke, M. (2001). Unionized employees' perceptions of role stress and
fairness during organizational downsizing: Consequences for job satisfaction, union
satisfaction and well-being. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 22, 543-567.
Hellgren, J., & Sverke, M. (2003). Does job insecurity lead to impaired well-being or
vice versa? Estimation of cross-lagged effects using latent variable modeling.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 215-236.
Hellgren, J., Sverke, M., & Isaksson, K. (1999). A two-dimensional approach to job
insecurity: Consequences for employee attitudes and well-being. European Journal
of Work and Organization Psychology, 8, 179-195.
Howard, A. (1995). The changing nature of work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Iversen, L., & Sabroe, S. (1988). Psychological well-being among unemployed and
employed people after a company closedown: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Social Issues, 44, 141-152.
Jahoda, M. (1982). Employment and unemployment: A social-psychological analysis.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
James, L. R., Hater, J. J., Gent, M. J., & Bruni, J. R. (1978). Psychological climate:
Implications from cognitive social learning theory and interactional psychology.
Personnel Psychology , 31, 783-813.
James, L. R., & Sells, S. B. (1981). Psychological climate: Theoretical perspectives and
empirical research. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An
interactional perspective (pp. 275-295). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jex, S. M., & Beehr, T. A. (1991). Emerging theoretical and methodological issues in
the study of work-related stress. In K. Rowland & G. Ferries (Eds.), Research in
personnel and human resources management (Vol. 9, pp. 311-365). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Jick, T. D. (1985). As the axe fails: Budget cuts and the experience of stress in organi-
zations. In T. A. Beehr & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Human stress and cognition in orga-
nizations: An integrated perspective (pp. 83-114). New York: Wiley.
Johnson, N. B., Bobko, P., & Hartenian, L. S. (1992). Union influence and local union
leaders' perceptions of job insecurity: An empirical test. British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 30, 45-60.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Balazs, K. (1997). The downside of downsizing. Human
Relations, 50, 11-50.
Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S., Nätti, J., & Happonen, M. (1999). Perceived job insecurity: A
longitudinal study among Finish employees. European Journal of Work and Organi-
zational Psychology, 8, 243-260.
Klein Hesselink, D. J., & van Vuuren, T. (1999). Job flexibility and job insecurity: The
Dutch case. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 273-293.

26
Konovsky, M. & Folger, R. (1987). Relative effects of procedural and distributive
justice on employee attitudes. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 17,
15-24.
Kuhnert, K. W., & Palmer, D. R. (1991). Job security, health and the intrinsic and
extrinsic characteristics of work. Group & Organization Studies, 16, 178-192.
Latack, J. C., & Dozier, J. B. (1986). After the axe falls: Job loss on a career transition.
Academy of Management Review, 11, 375-392.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress appraisal and coping. New York:
Springer.
Levanoni, E., & Sales, C. A. (1990). Differences in job attitudes between full-time and
part-time Canadian employees. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 231-237.
Lim, V. K. G. (1996). Job insecurity and its outcomes: Moderating effects of work-
based and nonwork-based social support. Human Relations, 2, 171-194.
Lim, V. K. G. (1997). Moderating effects of work-based support on the ralationship
between job insecurity and its consequences. Work and Stress, 11, 251-266.
Lim, V. K. G., & Leng Loo, G. (2003). Effects of parental job insecurity and parenting
behaviors on youth's self-efficacy and work attitutes. Journal of Vocational Beha-
vior, 63, 86-98.
Lind, E., & Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York:
Plenum.
Lindström, K., Leino, T., Seitsamo, J., & Torstila, I. (1997). A longitudinal study of
work characteristics and health complaints among insurance employees in VDT
work. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 9, 343-368.
Mak, A. S., & Mueller, J. (2000). Job insecurity, coping resources and personality
dispositions in occupational strain. Work & Stress, 14, 312-328.
Matteson, M. T., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1987). Controlling work stress: Effective human
resource and management strategies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mattiasson, I., Lindgarde, F., Nilsson, J. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Threat of unemploy-
ment and cardiovascular risk factors: Longitudinal study of quality of sleep and
serum cholesterol concentration in men threatened with redundancy. British Journal
of Medicine, 301, 461-466.
Mauno, S., Leskinen, E., & Kinnunen, U. (2001). Multi-wave, multi-variable models of
job insecurity: Applying different scales in studying the stability of job insecurity.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 919-937.
McLean Parks, J., Kidder, D. L., & Gallagher, D. G. (1998). Fitting square pegs into
round holes: Mapping the domain of contingent work arrangements onto the psycho-
logical contract. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 697-730.
Mellor, S. (1992). The influence of layoff severity on post-layoff union commitment
among survivors-The moderating effect of the perceived legitimacy of a layoff
account. Personnel Psychology, 45, 579-600.
Mohr, G. B. (2000). The changing significance of different stressors after the announce-
ment of bankruptcy: A longitudinal investigation with special emphasis on job
insecurity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 337-359.

27
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of
work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psycho-
logy, 81, 400-410.
Noer, D. (1993). Healing the wounds: Overcoming the trauma of layoffs and revitali-
zing downsized organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Novelli, Jr., L., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (1995). Effective implementation of
organizational change: An organizational justice perspective. In C. L. Cooper & D.
M Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior, Vol. 2 (pp. 15-36).
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Näswall, K., & De Witte, H. (2003). Who feels insecure in Europe? Predicting job
insecurity from background variables. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24,
187-213.
Näswall, K., Sverke, M., & Hellgren, J. (2005). The moderating role of personality
characteristics on the relation between job insecurity and strain. Work & Stress, 19,
37-49.
Näswall, K., Sverke, M., & Hellgren, J. (2001). Tryggare kan ingen vara? Metaanalys
av relationen mellan anställningsotrygghet och välbefinnande [No one can be safer?
Meta-analysis of the relationship between job insecurity and well-being]. Arbets-
marknad & Arbetsliv, 7, 179-195.
OECD. (1997). Is job insecurity on the increase in OECD countries?, OECD Employ-
ment Outlook July (pp. 129-153). Paris: Office for Economic Cooperation and
Development.
Orpen, C. (1993). Job dependence as a moderator of effects of job threat on employees'
job insecurity and performance. Psychological Reports, 72, 449-450.
Parker, S. K., Chmiel, N., & Wall, T. D. (1997). Work characteristics and employee
well-being within a context of strategic downsizing. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 4, 289-303.
Pearce, J. L. (1998). Job insecurity is important but not for the reasons you might think:
The example of contingent workers. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.),
Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 31-46). New York, NY: Wiley.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Boston,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Pozner, B. Z., Randolph, W. A. (1980). Moderators of role stress among hospital per-
sonnel. The Journal of Psychology, 105, 215-224.
Probst, T. M., & Brubaker, T. L. (2001). The effects of job insecurity on employee
safety outcomes: Cross-sectional and longitudinal explorations. Journal of Occu-
pational Health Psychology, 6, 139-159.
Reisel, W. D., & Banai, M. (2002). Comparison of a multidimensional and a global
measure of job insecurity: Predicting job attitudes and work behaviors. Psycho-
logical Reports, 90, 913-922.
Rifkin, J. (1995). The end of work: The decline of the global labor force and the dawn
of the post-market era. New York: Putnam.

28
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in
complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163.
Rosenblatt, Z., & Ruvio, A. (1996). A test of a multidimensional model of job
insecurity: The case of Israeli teachers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17,
587-605.
Rosenblatt, Z., Talmud, I., & Ruvio, A. (1999). A gender-based framework of the
experience of job insecurity and its effects on work attitudes. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 197-217.
Roskies, E., & Louis-Guerin, C. (1990). Job insecurity in managers: Antecedents and
consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 345-359.
Roskies, E., Louis-Guerin, C., & Fournier, C. (1993). Coping with job insecurity: How
does personality make a difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 617-
630.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (Whole No 609).
Schabracq, M. J., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). The changing nature of work and stress.
Journal of Mangerial Psychology, 15, 227-241.
Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D. C., & Fox, M. L. (1992). Dispositional affect and work-
related stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 3, 322-335.
Schaufeli, W. (1992). Unemployment and mental health in well and poorly educated
school-leavers. In C. Verhaar & L. Jansma (Eds.), On the mysteries of
unemployment: Causes, consequences and policies. (pp. 253-271). Dordecht, the
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Shaw, J. B., Fields, W. M., Thacker, J. W., & Fisher, C. D. (1993). The availability of
personal and external coping resources: Their impact on job stress and employee
attitudes during organizational restructuring. Work & Stress, 7, 229-246.
Siegrist, J., Peter, R., Junge, A., Cremer, P., & Siegel, D. (1990). Low status control,
high effort at work and ischemic heart disease: Prospective evidence from blue-
collar men. Social Science and Medicine, 31, 1127-1134.
Sparrow, P. (1998). The pursuit of multiple and parallel organizational flexibilities:
Reconstituting jobs. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 7,
79-95.
Spector, P. E. (1992). A consideration of the validity and meaning of self-report
measures of job conditions. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International
review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 123-151). New
York: Wiley.
Spector, P. E. (2000). A control theory of the job stress process. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.),
Theories of organizational stress (pp. 153-169). Oxford: University Press.
Still, L. W. (1983). Part-time versus full-time salespeople: Individual attributes,
organizational commitment, and work attitudes. Journal of Retailing, 59, 55-79.
Sverke, M., Gallagher, D. G., & Hellgren, J. (2000). Alternative work arrangements:
Job stress, well-being and pro-organizational attitudes among employees with
different employment contracts. In K. Isaksson, C. Hogstedt, C. Eriksson, & T.

29
 Theorell (Eds.), Health effects of the new labour market (pp. 145-167). New York:
Plenum.
Sverke, M., & Goslinga, S. (2003). The consequences of job insecurity for employers
and unions: Exit, voice, and loyalty. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24, 241-
270.
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., Näswall, K., Chirumbolo, A., De Witte, H., & Goslinga, S.
(2004). Job insecurity and union membership: European unions in the wake of
flexible production. Brussels: P.I.E.-Peter Lang.
Sverke, M., & Hellgren, J. (2001). Exit, voice, and loyalty reactions to job insecurity:
Do unionized and non-unionized employees differ? British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 39, 167-182.
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Näswall, K. (2002). No security: A meta-analysis and
review of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 7, 242-264.
Tetrick, L. E., & Quick, J. C. (2003). Prevention at work: Public health in occupational
settings. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health
psychology (pp. 3-17). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Tetrick, L. E., & LaRocco, J. M. (1987). Understanding, prediction, and control as
moderators of the relationships between perceived stress, satisfaction, and psycho-
logical well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 538-543.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hills-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1999). The impact of psychological contract
violations on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Human Relations, 52, 895-922.
Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social support in the
process of work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 314-
334.
Watson, D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Health complaints, stress and distress: Explo-
ring the central role of negative affectivity. Psychological Review, 2, 234-254.
Westman, M., Etzion, D., & Danon, E. (2001). Job insecurity and crossover of burnout
in married couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 467-481.
Zapf, D., Dormann, C., & Frese, M. (1996). Longitudinal studies in organizational
stress research: A review of the literature with reference to methodological issues.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 145-169.

30