European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

ISSN: 1359-432X (Print) 1464-0643 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

Job Insecurity and Psychological Well-being:

Review of the Literature and Exploration of Some
Unresolved Issues

Hans De Witte

To cite this article: Hans De Witte (1999) Job Insecurity and Psychological Well-being: Review
of the Literature and Exploration of Some Unresolved Issues, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 8:2, 155-177, DOI: 10.1080/135943299398302

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398302

Published online: 10 Sep 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7638

View related articles

Citing articles: 195 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pewo20
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1999,
REVIEW AND UNRESOLVED 8 (2), 155–177
ISSUES 155

Job Insecurity and Psychological Well-being:

Review of the Literature and Exploration of
Some Unresolved Issues
Hans De Witte
Hoger Instituut voor de Arbeid , KU-Leuven, Belgium

Research on the psychological consequences of job insecurity is reviewed,

showing that job insecurity reduces psychological well-being and job satisfaction,
and increases psychosomatic complaints and physical strains. Next, three
additional research questions are addressed, since these questions did not receive
much attention in previous research. First, does the impact of job insecurity on
workers differ according to their professional position, gender, and age? Second,
how important is job insecurity compared to other stressors on the workfloor?
Third, how important is job insecurity compared to the impact of unemployment?
To analyse these issues, data were used from a Belgian plant, part of a European
multinational company in the metalworking industry (N = 336). The results of this
exploratory study showed that job insecurity was associated with lower well-being
(score on the GHQ-12), after controlling for background variables, such as gender
and age. A significant interaction with gender occurred, indicating that gender
moderated the association between job insecurity and well-being. Job insecurity
was not related to psychological well-being among women. Among men, a
significant increase in distress was noted among those who felt insecure, but not
among the secure. Interaction terms for occupational position and age were not
statistically significant. Job insecurity turned out to be one of the most distressful
aspects of the work situation. The GHQ-scores of the insecure respondents were
not different from those of a representative sample of short-term unemployed,
suggesting both experiences to be equally harmful. The consequences of these
findings for future research are discussed.

INTRODUCTION
A growing amount of research has been devoted to the analysis of the
psychological (un)well-being of workers, covering phenomena such as stress
(see e.g. Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and burnout (see e.g. Schaufeli, Maslach, &
Marek, 1993). Over the last decades, a great deal of research has also focused on

Requests for reprints should be addressed to H. De Witte, Hoger Instituut voor de Arbeid
(HIVA; “Higher Institute of Labour Studies”), KU-Leuven, E. Van Evenstr. 2E, B-3000 Leuven,
Belgium. Email: [email protected]

© 1999 Psychology Press Ltd

156 DE WITTE

its complement: the psychological consequences of unemployment (see e.g.

Feather, 1990; Jahoda, 1982). The subject of “job insecurity” lies in between
these two topics. It relates to people at work who fear they might lose their jobs
and become unemployed. This topic received less attention from researchers,
which is in contrast to the relevance of this issue to society (see e.g. Burchell,
1992). Plant closures with mass redundancies are now the order of the day, while
mergers and restructuring plans threaten the jobs of many thousands more (for an
overview of these developments, see e.g. Jacobson & Hartley, 1991). The current
debate regarding more flexible employment contracts (Bridges, 1994) might also
generate feelings of job insecurity.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Job insecurity: A definition
The concept of job insecurity has been defined in different ways. Many studies
have adopted a global view, in which job insecurity is conceived as an overall
concern about the continued existence of the job in the future (see e.g. Van
Vuuren, 1990, pp. 16–19; Hartley, Jacobson, Klandermans, & Van Vuuren,
1991). These authors have developed measures sharing a unitary content domain,
related to the continuation of the “job as such”. Others consider job insecurity as
a multifaceted concept, encompassing aspects such as the perceived threat to
various job features and the individual’s ability to counteract these threats (see
e.g. Ashford, Lee, & Bobko, 1989; Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996). In this article,
Van Vuuren’s definition of job insecurity as an overall concern is adopted (Van
Vuuren, 1990). She emphasizes that job insecurity has three components. First of
all, it is a subjective experience or perception. The same situation might be
perceived differently by different employees: Some will feel insecure when there
is no objective reason to, while others may feel secure when their job is in fact
threatened. Job insecurity also implies uncertainty about the future: For the
person concerned it is uncertain whether he/she will be able to continue to work,
or whether he/she will be made redundant. This situation is different from the
certainty of being made redundant. In the latter case the future is clear and the
person can start preparing for redundancy and future (un)employment. Finally,
doubts about the continuation of the job as such are central to job insecurity in
Van Vuuren’s definition. Uncertainty about the continued existence of the
content or specific aspects of the job (such as a change of income or position
within the company) are not part of the concept of “job insecurity” in this study.

Job insecurity causes stress reactions

Van Vuuren considers job insecurity to be a stressor (Van Vuuren, 1990,
pp. 27–28). In analysing its consequences, she distinguishes stress reactions and
coping behaviour (see also Klandermans, Van Vuuren, & Jacobson, 1991).
 REVIEW AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES 157

Stress reactions (or strains) refer to the consequences of the stressor for the
psychological well-being, whereas coping refers to the way the person deals with
stress (e.g. avoidance versus active response). In this article, we limit ourselves
to the individual stress reactions to insecurity. In general, the literature shows
that job insecurity generates stress reactions. The impact of job insecurity on
three such aspects will be discussed: psychological well-being, job satisfaction,
and physical strains.
Job insecurity first of all reduces the well-being of the individual. In a study
conducted among 600 employees in the UK, Burchell (1994, p. 198) found a
lower level of psychological well-being among those who felt insecure about
their jobs. Using the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), a self-administered
screening test designed for detecting non-psychiatric disorders (Goldberg, 1972),
and related measures, Roskies and her colleagues (Roskies & Louis-Guerin,
1990; Roskies, Louis-Guerin, & Fournier, 1993) found that job insecurity was
associated with psychological distress, anxiety and depression. Also Orpen
(1993) reports that job insecurity is related to anxiety and depression in his study
in South Africa. In an international comparative study of The Netherlands and
Israel, insecure employees felt more depressed, and reported more negative
emotional feelings (Van Vuuren, Klandermans, Jacobson, & Hartley, 1991,
pp. 80–81). Other studies add to this list an increased level of mental, emotional,
and physical exhaustion (“burnout”), suggesting that the prolonged exposure to
job insecurity can lead to a wearing out of the resources of the individual worker
(Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Landsbergis, 1988).
Job insecurity is also consistently associated with a reduced level of job
satisfaction . Ashford et al. (1989), in research concerning a heterogeneous
sample of employees, found a significantly lower level of job satisfaction among
those who felt insecure about their jobs. Ashford et al. used the 5-item general job
satisfaction scale of the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1975).
Landsbergis (1988) reports a correlation of .22 between job insecurity and job
dissatisfaction. Both scales were derived from Karasek’s Job Content Survey
(Karasek & Theorell, 1990). Using different job satisfaction scales, similar
findings were made by Heany, Israel, and House (1994), Van Vuuren et al.
(1991, pp. 81–82), and O’Quin and Lotempio (1998). The association between
job insecurity and job (dis)satisfaction is a robust one. After performing a
hierarchical regression analysis, Lim (1997) found that the relationship between
job insecurity and job dissatisfaction remained significant after controlling for
several demographic variables such as age, tenure, and gender. In another study,
Lim (1996) even found empirical support for the “spill-over” hypothesis,
suggesting that the quality of a person’s work experiences also affects the quality
of their non-work experiences. In that study, job insecurity was not only
associated with job (dis)satisfaction, but with life (dis)satisfaction as well.
The impact of job insecurity is not limited to psychological variables, such as
well-being and job satisfaction. Research shows that job insecurity not only
158 DE WITTE

influences psychosomatic complaints (Landsbergis, 1988; Van Vuuren et al.,

1991, pp. 80–81), but also influences physiological variables such as physical
symptomatology (Heaney et al., 1994), and various physical strains
(Landsbergis, 1988). Others add to this list heart complaints and high blood
pressure (for an overview, see Burchell, 1994, pp. 191-197; Van Vuuren, 1990,
pp. 33–34). Roskies and Louis-Guerin (1990) report an increase in the use of
medical services among those who feel insecure about their jobs. Job insecurity
has also been identified as a predictor of increased medical consultations for
psychological distress in the study of Catalano, Rook, and Dooley (1986). Based
on data from a 6.5 years prospective study in a cohort of about 400 middle-aged
blue-collar workers, Siegrist, Peter, Junge, Cremer, and Siedel (1990) even found
that job insecurity independently predicts ischaemic heart disease occurrence
after adjusting for major confounding somatic and behavioural coronary risk
factors.
These above relationships can be interpreted in a causal way. Longitudinal
research, in which the same employees were interviewed (at least) twice,
confirms that the impact of job insecurity on well-being, job satisfaction, and
various physical and psychosomatic strains, is more important than the opposite
influence, so that causal conclusions can be drawn (Burchell, 1994; Iversen &
Sabroe, 1988; Van Vuuren, 1990, pp. 100–107). This impact remains after con-
trol for various other stress-increasing variables, and after control for the
psychological well-being at the first interview (Iversen & Sabroe, 1988,
pp. 147–149). Two recent studies in the UK clearly illustrate the harmful impact
of job insecurity (Ferrie, Shipley, Marmot, Stansfield, & Smith, 1995; Nelson,
Cooper, & Jackson, 1995). Both studies focused on the transition of public
organizations to private companies. In both studies, no changes in the status of
the public organizations were expected at T1, the first measurement moment
(“phase of certainty”). In the study of Nelson et al. (1995), all respondents were
facing privatization and subsequent (possible) job changes or job loss. The job
satisfaction, mental and physical health of the respondents significantly
decreased at the post-privatization period T2, about one year later, and their
perceptions of uncertainty partially explained this decline. In the study of Ferrie
et al. (1995) white-collar civil servants were surveyed two times: at T1 and four
years later. In this study, respondents facing the privatization of their
organization were compared to respondents of other departments, where no such
threat existed (“control group”). The inclusion of a control group in the design
enables more firm causal conclusions regarding the impact of job insecurity. The
psychological well-being (e.g. self-reported health and a score on the GHQ-30)
of employees anticipating privatization deteriorated, compared to the “control
group”.
In the longitudinal study of Ferrie et al. (1995), no organizational restructuring
was announced at T1. The situation is thus “secure” for most respondents, even
though some may have felt insecure (see earlier). The research of Dekker and
 REVIEW AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES 159

Schaufeli (1995) is complementary to that situation. About 100 employees from

the public sector filled in a questionnaire at a time when there was uncertainty
about whether or not they would be made redundant (T1). Two months later, the
same employees filled in a similar questionnaire. For some of them, however, it
had since become clear that they would be made redundant. The others were still
uncertain about what was going to happen. The comparison of the two groups at
both points in time shows that the psychological well-being had improved among
those who knew that they would become redundant. The group that was still
uncertain at the second stage felt just as bad as at the first stage. This clearly
illustrates the harmful impact of job insecurity: The certainty of being made
redundant seems less of a psychological burden than continued uncertainty about
the future of the job.
Van Vuuren’s research finally shows that job insecurity is a chronic stressor
(Van Vuuren, 1990, pp. 103–107). Job insecurity appears to decrease well-being
in both the long and short term. The insecurity experienced at T1 and T2 of her
research both influenced future well-being, independently of each other. Those
who felt insecure at both points in time exhibited the lowest level of well-being.
A similar conclusion can be drawn from the study of Heaney et al. (1994). They
too concluded that extended periods of job insecurity decrease job satisfaction
and increase physical symptomatology over and above the effects of job
insecurity at a previous point in time, suggesting that the effects of job insecurity
become more potent as the time of exposure increases.

How to explain the consequences of job insecurity?

Job insecurity implies the perception that the current job might be lost. It is
hardly surprising that this perception reduces well-being. In our society, work
constitutes the key to social participation and recognition. This is central to the
model of “latent deprivation” developed by Jahoda (1982). In this model she
maps out the needs that are satisfied by working, such as acquiring an income and
social contacts outside the family circle, the structuring of time, and being able to
develop individually and socially. The threat of unemployment means the
frustration of these needs, and the loss of important (financial, social, and
societal) resources. Consequently, it appears to be an unattractive prospect for
the future.
The finding that job insecurity reduces psychological well-being and job
satisfaction can also be understood in a different way. In their qualitative
longitudinal study, Joelson and Wahlquist (1987) suggested that job insecurity is
burdening because of prolonged uncertainty. In a contribution on the variables
involved in dealing with stress factors, Furda and Meijman (1992, p. 133) made a
distinction between two factors that could be relevant in explaining the harmful
impact of “uncertainty”: predictability and controllability. First of all, job
insecurity means unpredictability: what will happen in the future is unclear for
160 DE WITTE

those concerned. This makes it difficult to react appropriately, as it is not clear

what has to be done. In his “vitamin” model, Warr (1987) distinguishes between
nine components in the work situation that influence psychological well-being.
The extent to which it is clear how to respond (environmental clarity) refers to the
aspect of predictability. This includes lack of clarity about the future and lack of
clarity about the expectations and behaviours that the employee should adopt.
Warr shows that lack of clarity (and thus unpredictability) reduces psychological
well-being (pp. 145–161).
Besides unpredictability, uncontrollability also plays a crucial role. The lack
of control, or the feeling of powerlessness towards the threat, is considered by
some authors to be the core of the phenomenon of job insecurity (Dekker &
Schaufeli, 1995; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984, pp. 442–443; see also
Jacobson, 1991, pp. 36–37). This aspect also is a central component in Warr’s
“vitamin” model, with an important impact on psychological well-being (Warr,
1987, pp. 78–90, 101–109). Research into stress shows that frequently en-
countering small but uncontrollable problems at work (such as friction between
colleagues or machine breakdowns) can have more serious consequences on
psychological well-being than more radical, one-off events (Furda & Meijman,
1992, p. 133). In her research, Van Vuuren found the lowest level of well-being
among employees who attributed their job insecurity to uncontrollable individual
factors, such as age and health (Van Vuuren, 1990, pp. 104–106). By attributing
their job insecurity to these factors, an appropriate response to insecurity is less
obvious.

Some unresolved issues: Hypotheses of this study

In this article, three research questions will be addressed, which have not
received much attention in previous research. First, we will analyse whether the
impact of job insecurity is different for different groups within the working
population. Second, we will analyse the relative importance of job insecurity
compared to the importance of other work stressors. Third, the impact of job
insecurity on the psychological well-being of workers will be compared to the
impact of unemployment.

Is the impact of job insecurity similar for different groups?

The previous review of the literature suggests a parallel between the ex-
perience of job insecurity and the experience of unemployment: Longitudinal
research shows that both phenomena decrease the psychological well-being of an
individual (for an overview of research on the consequences of unemployment,
see e.g. Feather, 1990; Fryer & Payne, 1986). Several authors, however, docu-
mented that the experience of unemployment is moderated by various back-
ground variables, such as social class, gender, and age (see e.g. Fryer & Payne,
1986; Warr, 1984). One could hypothesize the experience of job insecurity to be
 REVIEW AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES 161

moderated by the same background characteristics as well. We will discuss the

(possible) moderating effect of three such variables: occupational status (“social
class”), gender, and age.

Occupational status. Orpen (1993) found similar correlations between job

insecurity and both anxiety and depression for managers and for production
workers, even though, in general, the jobs of the managers were more “secure”
than those of the blue-collar workers. Since the author did not expect these
results, he argues that others should test the robustness of his findings (for a
similar plea, see e.g. Burchell, 1994, pp. 195–196). Roskies and Louis-Guerin
(1990) argue that managers might react more strongly to the threat of job loss,
because they believe in “meritocratic individualism”: “people get what they
deserve”. Any career setback would therefore lead to guilt, self-doubt, and
despair, and thus to a decrease in well-being. Schaufeli (1992, p. 256) calls this
the “status inconsistency” hypothesis, suggesting that the more highly educated
are likely to experience more status inconsistency because of unemployment,
which in turn results in poorer mental health. Others, however, argue that
unemployment is less problematic to those with a higher level of education (and
thus for white-collar workers and managers), since these occupational groups
possess more resources to counteract the adverse consequences of unemploy-
ment (Schaufeli, 1992, p. 257; Schaufeli & Van Yperen, 1993). Research in
Flanders (Belgium) indeed quite consistently shows that the experience of
unemployment is more negative among blue-collar workers than among white-
collar workers (De Witte, 1994). The availability of a larger amount of resources
for those with a higher professional status might also enable them to reduce the
consequences of job insecurity.

Gender. Reviewing the literature, Warr (1984) concludes that unemploy-

ment is as distressing for women as for men, when the woman is single, or when
she is the sole wage-earner in the family. Married women with children,
however, in general experience their unemployment in a less negative way than
men, a finding that has been replicated in Flanders (Belgium) as well (see e.g. De
Witte & Wets, 1996). This difference between men and women can partly be
explained by role theory (De Goede & Maassen, 1988). For (married) men, work
(and thus earning money for their family) is still the core of their role in society,
whereas the availability of an alternative role (such as taking care of the
household and the children) can make unemployment less distressing for (young
married) women. Research on the consequences of job insecurity in which
gender effects are analysed is scarce. Yet, the longitudinal study of Ferrie et al.
(1995) revealed less deterioration in self-reported health among insecure women
than among insecure men. This could suggest that the experience of job
insecurity is less distressing for (most) women compared to men.
162 DE WITTE

Age. Research on the consequences of unemployment shows that un-

employment is more distressing for respondents between approximately 30 and
50 years old (Warr & Jackson, 1984). It seems less problematic for younger and
older respondents. Various reasons might explain why younger workers
experience less problems with unemployment, e.g. they have less financial
responsibilities, and better prospects of finding a job in the future. Un-
employment forces them to maintain their “youth role”, with less responsibilities,
for a while longer. This role is well known to them. Older workers can prepare
themselves for a new role: that of retirement. The ever increasing number of
workers over 50 who are already retired makes it more easy to adapt to this new
role. But for workers between 30 and 50 years old, the consequences of
unemployment are more severe. Their family responsibilities and their reduced
financial resources are more burdening and their position of “unemployed” is
socially less legitimated. It is unclear, however, whether these age differences
also apply to the experience of job insecurity.

How important is job insecurity compared to the

impact of other work stressors?
In recent literature on, for example, stress and burnout, various work aspects
have been discovered that influence the well-being of workers. O’Brien (1986,
pp. 53–59), for instance, documents the importance of skill utilisation: Under-
employment leads to lower job satisfaction and to poorer mental health, as
measured by manifest anxiety, self-esteem, hostility, and life satisfaction. Skill
utilization even proved to be the strongest predictor of job satisfaction in his own
research. Karasek and Theorell (1990) propose their “job demands-control
model” and document that well-being is dependent upon two core work aspects:
workload demands and decision latitude. Especially the combination of high
workload demands with low decision latitude creates stress and reduces physical
and psychological well-being. Kohn and Schooler (1983) emphasize the
importance of “occupational self-direction” and demonstrate that it causes well-
being. Occupational self-direction refers to the complexity of the work, the
amount of autonomy on the workfloor (in contrast to supervision) and to the
amount of variation of the work.
This limited review of authors is only a selection of possible (though
influential) accounts concerning this topic. Interestingly, research thus far has
given little attention to the relative impact of job insecurity, compared to the
impact of other stressors, such as (for instance) skill utilization, workload
demands and decision latitude. In a study of hospital and nursing home
employees, Landsbergis (1988) found that four job characteristics other than
workload demands and decision latitude were associated with job satisfaction,
physical strain, and burnout. Job insecurity was one of these. The author,
 REVIEW AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES 163

however, only reported globally on the combination of the four additional job
features, without specifying a separate coefficient for job insecurity. In their
longitudinal study of shipyard employees, Iversen and Sabroe (1988) found that
the fear of job loss at T1 made a significant contribution to the GHQ-scores in the
subsequent years, after adjustment for other variables, such as occupation.
Unfortunately, other job features were not included in their design. In their
international study, Klandermans et al. (1991, p. 44) state that “job insecurity can
be one of the more important stressors in employment situations”. Research thus
far, however, does not enable us to conclude how important job insecurity exactly
is, compared to other job characteristics.

How does the impact of job insecurity compare to

the impact of unemployment?
Roskies et al. (1993, p. 619) quote Lazarus (1996), who stated that “the
anticipation of harm can have effects as potent as experiencing the harm itself”.
Consequently, they hypothesize that the concern about future job loss may be as
traumatic as unemployment itself. Unfortunately, the authors did not test this
hypothesis. In another study among managers, the same authors mention that the
insecure respondents “had anxiety scores as high as those commonly found
among those actually unemployed” (p. 356). However, no scores for unemployed
managers were reported, and the reported differences were not tested statistically
either. Something similar can be observed in other studies. Iversen and Sabroe
(1988), in a longitudinal study among about 1000 employees at a shipyard, found
that the job insecure workers had a slightly lower score on the GHQ than the
unemployed respondents. Again, these differences were not tested statistically.
In a research among about 600 workers in the UK, Burchell (1994) distinguished
five sub-groups after performing cluster analysis. One of these groups
(“the labour market descenders”) was characterised by unstable employment
in the past and by a drop in the social class rating of their jobs. This group
scored high on job insecurity and low on job satisfaction. The GHQ-score
of this group was not statistically different from that of the unemployed
respondents. The author, however, did not perform a separate analysis to find out
whether this result was due to job insecurity or to the other variables that were
distinctive for this group of “descenders” (for instance, job satisfaction or an
instable employment pattern in the past). Only Cobb and Kasl (1977), in a
longitudinal research using a variety of physiological, psychosomatic, and
psychological measures, found that the anticipation of unemployment was as
harmful as unemployment itself. Burchell (1992, pp. 349–350), however, warns
that this study was conducted during times of relatively low levels of
unemployment, so that it seems necessary to verify whether the findings still
apply nowadays.
164 DE WITTE

METHOD
Data and sample
In the spring of 1994, 336 employees of a Belgian plant, part of a European
multinational company in the metalworking industry, took part in a large
company survey intended to assess the organizational climate. Separate from the
survey, a small additional questionnaire was distributed in order to analyse the
research questions stated previously. All white-collar workers and managers
were invited to participate in the research. A random sample of 20% of the blue-
collar workers was selected to participate as well. The respondents were gathered
in a large room and had to fill out the written questionnaires during working
hours. Since the administration of the questionnaire was part of a larger survey
commissioned by the company, the response rate was very high (98%). An
extensive procedure was followed in order to guarantee the confidentiality and
anonymity of the results, so that respondents could freely express their opinions.
The sample was rather heterogeneously composed according to occupational
status: Nearly half of the respondents (46%) were blue-collar workers, 24.5%
were white-collar workers, and 29.5% were junior or senior managers. The
sample contained about 18% women and the respondents were rather young:
57.5% was younger than 35 (11.5% being younger than 25), and 21% was older
than 45 years. Management had no redundancy plans, and no restructuring or
downsizing had taken place during the last 10 years, which implies that the
data concern a plant in which there were no “objective” reasons for job
insecurity.
Since our aim is to compare the psychological well-being of insecure workers
with unemployed respondents, we also used the data of 537 short-term un-
employed who participated in a previous study (De Witte & Hooge, 1997;
Hooge, 1995). All were unemployed for about 10 months, and filled out written
questionnaires as part of a larger study on the experience of short-term
unemployment.

Measures
The questionnaire contained one item to measure (short-term) job insecurity, a
set of items on job characteristics, a version of the General Health Questionnaire,
and some questions regarding background variables, such as occupational status,
gender, and age.
Only one item was used to measure short-term job insecurity: “How large, in
your opinion, is the probability that you will become unemployed in the near
future?”. Possible answers were: “very large”, “rather large”, “neither large, nor
small”, “rather small”, or “very small or impossible”. This item had already been
used in previous research in Belgium (see e.g. De Witte, 1996) and had proven
 REVIEW AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES 165

useful to tap the perception of job insecurity. The item covers an overall concern
about the possible termination of the “job as such”, as explained earlier. It
seemed appropriate to use such a global measure for this study, since we wanted
to compare the impact of job insecurity “as such” with the impact of unemploy-
ment. Since one of the research questions concerns the relative impact of job
insecurity compared to that of other work stressors, the use of a global measure
(instead of one that refers to various work aspects) also seemed necessary, to
avoid contamination (e.g. questions on certain work aspects are part of both
measures on job insecurity and job characteristics).
A set of 20 items was applied to measure different aspects of the work
situation. This set was developed in previous research (De Witte, 1990) and had
proven relevant in assessing important job characteristics (see e.g. De Witte &
Lagrou, 1990). The respondents had to rate the frequency of these job aspects on
a 4-point scale, ranging from “very frequent” to “rarely or never”. After factor
analysis, six factors were found. The same factor structure was found in many
previous studies (see e.g. De Witte & Lagrou, 1990; Hooge & De Witte, 1996),
suggesting the stability of the job characteristics used. Separate analyses of
reliability took place, resulting in six reliable scales: autonomy (3 items; alpha =
0.82; typical item: “I can autonomously decide what work to do during a day”),
responsible work (4 items; alpha = 0.72; typical items: “I have a lot of responsi-
bilities in my work”), varied work (2 items; alpha = 0.70; typical item: “My work
is varied”), skill utilization (4 items; alpha = 0.75; typical item: “I can
demonstrate my skills in my work”), high workload demands (2 items; alpha =
0.79; typical item: “I have to work fast”), and physical burdening work (5 items;
alpha = 0.81; typical item: “I have to perform heavy physical work”). The scales
“autonomy”, “responsible work” and “varied work” refer to Kohn and
Schooler’s (1983) concept of “occupational self-direction”. “High workload
demands” and “autonomy” refer to the concepts “workload demands” and
“decision latitude” of Karasek and Theorell (1990). The scale “skill utilization”
resembles O’Brien’s (1986) concept. The scale “physical burdening work” was
added to the analysis, since it seemed relevant to cover work characteristics
typical of blue-collar workers as well.
The 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) was used
to measure general psychological well-being (or general psychological distress;
see: Goldberg, 1972; Koeter & Ormel, 1991). This scale has proven useful as an
indicator of mental health in occupational studies (see e.g. Banks, Clegg,
Jackson, Kemp, Stafford, & Wall, 1980) and has equally been used in studies on
job insecurity (see e.g. Iversen & Sabroe, 1988; Roskies et al., 1993). The
12 items were combined into a reliable scale (alpha = 0.85), ranging from 0 to 36.
A high score indicates low psychological well-being. The GHQ-12 was also
applied in the study of the short term unemployed (with an alpha of 0.86).
166 DE WITTE

RESULTS
Is job insecurity associated with psychological
distress?
Before analysing whether job insecurity is associated with psychological well-
being, we have to determine whether there are any differences at all regarding our
job insecurity measure. Table 1 lists the frequency distribution of the answers to
that item.
The results in Table 1 indeed show some variation in the perception of job
(in)security. About half of the respondents felt (rather or very) secure, and 36%
of them reported the likelihood of becoming unemployed in the short term as
“neither large, nor small”. A minority of 9.3% felt insecure; 3.3% of them felt
very insecure. These figures are very similar to the figures reported for Flanders
(Belgium) as a whole, using the same item (see De Witte, 1996, pp. 274–275).
An analysis of variance was performed to analyse the association of job
insecurity and well-being. The results, presented in Table 2, confirm that job
insecurity is associated with psychological distress: The scores on the GHQ-12
increase among respondents who feel more insecure. The association of both
variables is statistically significant, F(4,309) = 2.29, P < .05, and the Eta
coefficient, testing non-linear association, amounts to 0.17. A priori contrasts
were used to test the difference between the extreme groups in Table 1 (the
“very” versus the “rather” secure; and the “very” versus the “rather” insecure).
These tests did not reveal significant differences.1 Therefore, the smaller groups
were combined into two groups, respectively the “secure” and the “insecure”.

TABLE 1
How large is the probability that you will become

{
unemployed in the near future?

Percentage

{
1. Very small or impossible 11.9
51.5
2. Rather small 39.6
3. Neither small, nor large 36.0
4. Rather large 6.0
9.3
5. Very large 3.3

No response 3.2

Total group 100.0

1
The t value of the difference between the “very” versus the “rather” secure = 0.55; df = 310;
n.s.; the t value of the difference between the “very” versus the “rather” insecure = –0.18; df = 310;
n.s.
 REVIEW AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES 167
TABLE 2
Association between job insecurity and psychologica l

{
well-being (GHQ-12)

Probability of unemployment in the near future Score on the GHQ-12

{
1. Very small or impossible (very secure) 10.4
10.0
2. Rather small (rather secure) 9.9
3. Neither small, nor large 11.6
4. Rather large (rather insecure) 12.0 12.2
5. Very large (very insecure) 12.4

F value 2, 29* 4, 44*

df (4, 309) (2, 311)
Eta 0.17 0.17

*.05 > P > .01

This reduction of the values of the job insecurity measure facilitated further
multivariate analyses (e.g. to test for interaction effects after an analysis of
variance), since the number of respondents in the extreme categories was rather
small (e.g. only 31 respondents felt (very or rather) insecure).2 A new analysis
of variance was performed (see the second column of Table 2), revealing
a statistically significant pattern similar to the one discussed above,
F(2,311) = 4.44, P < .05, with an identical Eta of 0.17. Again a priori contrasts
were calculated to test the differences between the three remaining groups. The
“secure” had a significant lower score on the GHQ-12 (indicating higher
psychological well-being) compared to the “insecure” (t = –2.12, df = 311,
P < .05) and to the group that felt “neither secure, nor insecure” (t = –2.55, df =
311, P < .05). However, the last group did not differ significantly from the
“insecure” (t = –0.58, df = 311, n.s.), suggesting that feeling “neither secure, nor
insecure” was equally harmful to our respondents as feeling “insecure”.
To analyse whether job insecurity autonomously influenced psychological
well-being, a second analysis of variance was computed with psychological well-
being as the dependent variable and job insecurity, occupational status, gender,
and age (simultaneously) as independent variables. The results are listed in the
upper part of Table 3. The results of this additional analysis of variance show that
the association between job insecurity and psychological distress cannot be
attributed to the impact of occupational status, gender, and age. After controlling
for these background variables, the impact of job insecurity remained significant,
F(2,311) = 6.26, P < .01, and Beta even slightly increased after adjustment for the

2
The reduction of the values of the variable job insecurity reduces the amount of cells that have
to be calculated during an analysis of variance. Since no differences on the dependent variables
(GHQ-12 score) were found, such a reduction seemed justified.
168 DE WITTE

TABLE 3
Results of the analysis of variance with job insecurity, occupational status,
gender, and age as independent variables and psychological well-bein g
as dependent variable

F df Original Beta adjusted

eta for Independent
Variables

Main effects
Job insecurity 6.26 ** (2, 311) 0.17 0.20
Occupational status 1.30 † (2, 311) 0.09 0.09
Gender 0.13 † (1, 311) 0.06 0.02
Age 2.92 * (3, 311) 0.17 0.17

Interaction effects
Job insecurity with occupational status 1.70 † (4, 311) – –
Job insecurity with gender 4.71 * (2, 311) – –
Job insecurity with age 0.70 † (6, 311) – –

* .05 > P > .01; ** .01 > P > .001; † n.s.

other independent variables. Surprisingly, occupational status and gender were

not associated with well-being. Older respondents scored slightly higher on the
GHQ-12 than younger ones, indicating a lower psychological well-being among
this age group, F(3,311) = 2.92, P < .05, Beta = .17.

A differential impact according to occupational

status, gender, and age?
We can now turn to the test of our first unresolved issue: the question of whether
the association between job insecurity and psychological distress is moderated by
occupational status, gender, and age. To analyse this issue, interaction effects
with occupational status, gender, and age on the one hand and job insecurity on
the other hand were computed while performing the analysis of variance reported
in Table 3. These results are listed in the lower part of Table 3, and disconfirm
two of our hypotheses. No significant interaction is found with occupational
status, F(4,311) = 1.7, n.s., and age, F(6,311) = 0.7, n.s., suggesting the relation-
ship between job insecurity and well-being to be similar for all age groups and all
occupational groups. One hypothesis is confirmed, however: The interaction
between gender and job insecurity turned out to be statistically significant,
F(2,311) = 4.71, P < .05. A separate analysis of variance was performed to
examine the scores of the male (n = 269) and female (n = 54) respondents.
Among men, the level of psychological distress increases from secure to insecure
respondents, F(2,257) = 6.3, P < .01, Eta = 0.22): the secure scored on average
9.8 on the GHQ, the middle group 11.7, and the insecure 12.1. Among women,
 REVIEW AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES 169

no such increase is found, F(2,50) = 0.13; n.s. Thus, as hypothesized, job

insecurity is not related to psychological well-being among women. Note,
however, that the female “insecure” group exists of only six respondents.

Importance of job insecurity compared to

other job stressors
The relative importance of job insecurity for mental health was analysed in three
steps. First, Pearson correlations were computed between job insecurity and the
six scales concerning work aspects on the one hand, and psychological well-
being on the other hand.3 The GHQ-12 was inversed to facilitate interpretation:
A positive correlation indicates that a high score on a scale is associated with
well-being, whereas a negative correlation indicates that this aspect increases
distress. These correlations are listed in the first column of Table 4. Second, a
regression analysis was performed with the GHQ-12 scores as dependent
variable (forward stepwise inclusion of predictor variables, Nie, Hull, Jenkins,
Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975, p. 345). Only variables that correlated significantly
with the GHQ-12 were included in the equation. The results of this analysis are
shown in the second column of Table 4. In a third step, occupational status,
gender, and age were added to the analysis, to verify whether the results of the
previous analysis were stable after controlling for the influence of background
characteristics (see third column of Table 4).
Four job characteristics show a significant correlation with well-being in this
study (see first column of Table 4). The strongest correlation is found with skill
utilization: respondents who report that they can use their capacities report a
higher level of well-being, r = 0.24, P < .001. High workload demands are
associated with lower well-being, r = –0.19, P < .001. Job insecurity is also
associated with distress, as shown earlier, r = –0.14, P < .01. The amount of
autonomy in the work correlates slightly with higher mental well-being,
r = 0.10, P < .05). No significant correlations are observed with the three
remaining scales (responsible work, varied work, and physical burdening work).
Consequently, these scales were not included in the regression analysis. The
results of the regression analysis (see second column of Table 4) reveal that the
psychological well-being of the respondents was only influenced by three
aspects, F(3,306) = 16.42***: skill utilization, (high) workload demands,
and job insecurity. The first aspect increases well-being, whereas the other two
increase distress. The impact of autonomy on well-being disappeared after
controlling for the other work aspects. This analysis again demonstrates that the
correlation between job insecurity and well-being is a robust one: It remains

3
This time, the original range in values for job insecurity was used (five values instead of
three), since a regression analysis starts from correlations. A reduction of this range to three values,
however, results in similar results as those reported in Table 4.
170 DE WITTE

TABLE 4
Results of a regression analysis with job characteristics and job insecurity as
predictors and psychological well-being as dependent variable

Pearson Correlations Standardized Regression

Predictors with GHQ-12 a Coefficients

With Job With Job and

Characteristics Background
Only Characteristics

Job characteristics
Skill utilization 0,24 *** 0,28 *** 0,30 ***

Workload demands –0,19 *** –0,27 *** –0,26 **

Job insecurity –0,14 ** –0,13 ** –0,15 **

Autonomy 0,10 * – –
Responsible work –0,06 n.s. / /
Varied work 0,05 n.s. / /
Physical burdening work –0,02 n.s. / /

Background characteristics
Occupational status –0,08 n.s. / –
Gender –0,05 n.s. / –
Age –0,14 ** / –0,17 **

F 16,42 *** 15,25 ***

df (3,306) (4,306)

R 0,37 0,41
R2 0,14 0,17

a
The score on the GHQ-12 was reversed. A positive sign thus indicates that a high score on the
scale is associated with well-being. * .05 > P > .01; ** .01 > P > .001; *** P < .001.

significant after controlling for other relevant work aspects. This conclusion is
further corroborated by the results of the second regression analysis (see third
column of Table 4). These results confirm that the results of the previous analysis
are not altered after controlling for occupational status, gender, and age. As
mentioned before (see Table 3), only age has an additional and direct effect on
well-being. After controlling for additional work aspects and background
characteristics, job insecurity still induced distress, suggesting that it indeed is
one of the most distressful aspects of the working situation.
 REVIEW AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES 171
TABLE 5
Comparison of those who feel job insecure with a
sample of short-term unemployed concerning
their score on the GHQ-12

Score on the GHQ-12

Job insecure employed (n=29) 12.2

Short-term unemployed (n=537) 12.7

t = –0.776; df = 564; n.s.

Importance of job insecurity compared

to unemployment
Table 5 contains the GHQ-12 scores of the insecure respondents in this study and
the scores of short-term unemployed explored in a previous study. Both groups in
Table 5 have approximately the same score on the GHQ-12: 12.2 for those who
feel (very or rather) insecure compared to the slightly higher score of 12.7 for the
short-term unemployed. These means statistically do not differ from each other,
t = –0.776, df = 564; n.s. This suggests that experiencing insecurity can be as
distressing as experiencing (short-term) unemployment.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

Previous research documents that job insecurity causes stress reactions among
workers: It decreases their psychological well-being and job satisfaction, and
increases psychosomatic complaints and physical strains. In this study, three
unresolved research questions were addressed. First, we wanted to analyse
whether the impact of job insecurity on workers is different according to their
professional position, gender, and age. Second, we wanted to analyse how im-
portant job insecurity is compared to other stressors at the workplace. Third, the
impact of job insecurity compared to unemployment was assessed. Data were
used from a Belgian plant, part of a European multinational company in the
metalworking industry (N = 336). The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12)
was used to measure general psychological well-being.
Before discussing the results, a warning is in order. This study should be
considered as an exploratory study. Therefore, its results should be treated with
caution, since the data used to answer the research questions were collected in
one company only. Using just one plant introduces homogeneity in the design:
The results could partly be explained by the specificity of the company involved.
Variables such as the specific organizational structure or culture, previous
experiences (or not) with restructuring or downsizing, and the strength of the
trade unions in the company, could account for some of the findings. This calls
for replication of the findings reported earlier. A replication on a larger and
172 DE WITTE

less homogeneous database seems also warranted to overcome some of the

limitations of this exploratory study, such as, for instance, the measurement of
job insecurity with just one item. Note however, that the percentage of
respondents who reported feeling insecure about their jobs was almost identical
to the percentage reported in studies of a representative sample of workers in
Flanders (Belgium), using the same item (see De Witte, 1996). This suggests
some representativeness of the data used in the analysis, at least as far as job
insecurity is concerned.
The finding that job insecurity is associated with psychological distress was
replicated in this study. This finding is in accordance with the literature in this
field (see e.g. Burchell, 1994; Van Vuuren et al., 1991). The findings in this study
also illustrate that job insecurity is a subjective experience, as emphasized in the
definition of Van Vuuren (1990), which was adopted in this article. Even though
the company in which the respondents worked was not at risk (management had
no redundancy plans), about 9% of the interviewees felt insecure. Since these
feelings have negative consequences for the well-being of the workers involved,
plant management should attach importance to this issue. After all, a decrease in
well-being and job satisfaction can erode the effectiveness of the organization
(see e.g. Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984).
An interesting finding is that there was little difference in well-being between
those who felt rather insecure and those who felt very insecure. Similarly, there
seemed to be little difference in well-being between those who felt insecure and
those who felt “neither secure, nor insecure”. The latter finding, however, could
be due to the limited amount of respondents who felt insecure in this study. These
findings are interesting, since they are in accordance with the findings of another
study covering more plants of the same multinational company (De Witte, 1997).
In that study too, and using a different questionnaire, little differences were found
between those who felt insecure and those who felt “neither secure, nor
insecure”. This suggests that “not feeling secure” could be stressful “as such”,
regardless of the intensity of these feelings. Further research should try to test
this hypothesis, since such a finding has important implications for management
as well. It would imply that the amount of employees who feel burdened by job
insecurity is much larger than currently assumed.
The findings of this study also demonstrate that the association between job
insecurity and psychological well-being is a robust one, since the association
remaines significant after controlling for occupational status, gender, age, and (in
a later analysis) different job characteristics. This finding is in accordance with
the available literature in this field, since other studies equally found that job
insecurity autonomously influences distress (e.g. Lim, 1996). Surprisingly, no
differences were found between male and female respondents when analysing
their well-being. Equally surprising is the lack of any association between well-
being and occupational status. Links with gender and occupational status are well
documented in literature (see e.g. Jenkins, 1991; Karasek & Theorell, 1990,
 REVIEW AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES 173

respectively), and it is unclear why they are not found in this study. Perhaps some
(unknown) aspects of the specific plant analysed interfere here (such as
personnel policy), reducing gender and occupational differences.
Gender was found to interact with job insecurity in this study. Job insecurity
was not related to psychological well-being among women. Among men, a
significant increase in distress was noted among those who felt insecure, but not
among the secure. This result is in accordance with the literature on the
consequences of unemployment (Fryer & Payne, 1986; Warr, 1984), suggesting
that the experience of unemployment is more problematic for men. These
findings can partly be explained by role theory (De Goede & Maassen, 1988):
Alternative roles can protect the individual from the negative effects of job
insecurity, an effect similar to the stress-buffering effect of social support in the
stress literature (see e.g. Lim, 1996, 1997). To test the assumptions of role
theory, a further distinction should be made among the female respondents
according to their family situation (e.g. comparison of single women to women
who are married with an employed husband). The limited amount of women in
this study did not allow for such a test. The limited amount of women in this
study also underlines the importance of a replication study. Future research
should analyse this issue more carefully, including a test of different possible
explanations of the stress-buffering effect of the (female) gender of the
respondents. Note that research only demonstrates that women suffer less from
unemployment than men (see e.g. De Witte & Wets, 1996). This relative dif-
ference between men and women does not mean that unemployment is harmless
for the well-being of women.
The interaction terms between job insecurity and occupational status or age
were not significant. The finding that no differential impact of job insecurity
according to occupational status was observed contrasts with the literature on the
experience of unemployment, showing that unemployment is more of a burden
to the blue-collar workers than to white-collar workers or professionals (De
Witte, 1994; Schaufeli & Van Yperen, 1993). This result also contradicts the
status inconsistency hypothesis (Schaufeli, 1992), and the reasoning developed
by Roskies and Louis-Guerin (1990). Future research should, however, replicate
this finding, before more definite conclusions can be drawn.
The results of this exploratory study confirm that job insecurity is one of the
more important work stressors, as stated in the job insecurity literature
(Klandermans et al., 1991, p. 44). In this study, well-being was influenced by
many job characteristics that were put forward in literature, e.g. skill utilization
(O’Brien, 1986), workload demands and decision latitude (Karasek & Theorell,
1990), or autonomy (Kohn & Schooler, 1983). However, after controlling for
these work aspects, job insecurity still autonomously induced distress,
suggesting that it indeed is one of the most distressful aspects of the working
situation. In this research, job insecurity turned out to be the “least distressful
factor of the most distressful factors”: It belonged to the most harmful job
174 DE WITTE

stressors, but was less important than the other factors in the study. Note that the
respondents all worked in a plant in which there were no “objective” reasons for
job insecurity: management had no redundancy plans, and no restructuring or
downsizing had taken place during the last 10 years. This suggests job insecurity
to be an important stressor in a “normal” situation. The relative importance of this
variable probably exceeds the importance found in this study, when management
suddenly announces lay-offs. In this exploratory study, only a small amount of
possible work stressors were included in the design. Future research should add
other important job characteristics to the design, such as for example role
ambiguity and the like, to analyse the robustness of this finding.
This study finally also confirms that—at least for the total sample—“the
anticipation of harm can have effects as potent as experiencing the harm itself”
(Lazarus, 1966, cited in Roskies et al., 1993, p. 619). In conformity with the
results of the classic study on termination of Cobb and Kasl (1977), job insecurity
was found to be as harmful for the well-being of our respondents as unemploy-
ment was for a representative sample of short-term unemployed. This finding,
even though it needs to be confirmed in future research, again emphasizes the
strength of job insecurity as a stressor. It also suggests that the findings of Cobb
and Kasl are not outdated. In this study, a rather large sample of unemployed
individuals was used to compare scores on the GHQ-12. No attention was given
to the composition of this sample of unemployed according to background
characteristics, such as gender, age, and level of education. These variables all
influence the well-being of the unemployed (see e.g. De Witte & Hooge, 1997).
In this exploratory study, the possible impact of these background variables was
not kept under control, when comparing employed and unemployed individuals.
The limited number of “insecure” employees did not allow for such an analysis.
Future research, in which a larger sample of workers is used, should try to do so.

REFERENCES
Ashford, S., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes, and consequences of job insecurity:
A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management Journal, 32(4),
803–829.
Banks, M., Clegg, C., Jackson, P., Kemp, N., Stafford, E., & Wall T. (1980). The use of the
General Health Questionnaire as an indicator of mental health in occupational studies. Journal
of Occupational Psychology, 53, 187–194.
Bridges, W. (1994). Jobshift: How to prosper in a workplace without jobs. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Burchell, B. (1992). Towards a social psychology of the labour market: Or why we need to under-
stand the labour market before we can understand unemployment. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 65(4), 345–354.
Burchell, B. (1994). The effects of labour market position, job insecurity and unemployment on
psychological health. In D. Gallie, C. Marsh, & C. Vogler (Eds), Social change and the
experience of unemployment (pp. 188–212). Oxford, UK: University Press.
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, 227–287.
 REVIEW AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES 175

Cobb, S., & Kasl, S. (1977). Termination: The consequences of job loss. Cincinnati, OH: US
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.
De Goede, M., & Maassen, G. (1988). Beleving van niet-werken: Een onderzoek onder werk-
lozen, arbeidsongeschikten en hun partner. Culemborg/Amsterdam: University of Utrecht.
Dekker, S., & Schaufeli W. (1995). The effects of job insecurity on psychological health and
withdrawal: A longitudinal study. Australian Psychologist, 30(1), 57–63.
De Witte, H. (1990). Conformisme, radicalisme en machteloosheid: Een onderzoek naar de
sociaal-culturele en sociaal-economische opvattingen van arbeiders in Vlaanderen. Leuven,
Belgium: HIVA-KULeuven.
De Witte, H. (1994). (‘t is geen) Leven zonder werk: Een overzicht van recente literatuur over de
psychische gevolgen van werkloosheid. Welzijnsgids, 12, 1–23.
De Witte, H. (1996). Onzekerheid over de arbeidsplaats: impact op werknemers en implicaties
voor de bedrijfsleiding. In R. Bouwen, K. De Witte, & J. Verboven (Eds), Organiseren en
veranderen: Liber Amicorum aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. Gaston De Cock (pp. 271–286).
Leuven, Belgium: Garant.
De Witte, H. (1997). Long term job insecurity as a stressor: Its impact on satisfaction and
commitment. Paper presented at the Eighth European Congress on Work and Organizational
Psychology. Verona, April.
De Witte, H., & Hooge, J. (1997). Aanpassing aan werkloosheid? Een cross-sectionele
vergelijking van kort- en langdurig werklozen. Gedrag & Gezondheid, 25(3), 145–155.
De Witte, H., & Lagrou, L. (1990). The quality of employment in the career of young
psychologists and its impact on their job- and life satisfaction. Psychologica Belgica, 30(1/2),
1–22.
De Witte, H., & Wets, J. (1996). On the heterogeneity of the experience of long-term
unemployment among young women. In M. De Goede, P. de Klauer, J. van Ophem, C.
Verhaar, & A. de Vries (Eds), Youth: Unemployment, identity and policy (pp. 65–85).
Aldershot, UK: Avebury.
Feather, N. (1990). The psychological impact of unemployment. New York: Springer Verlag.
Ferrie, J., Shipley, M., Marmot, M., Stansfeld, S., & Smith G. (1995). Health effects of
anticipation of job change and non-employment: Longitudinal data from the Whitehall II study.
British Medical Journal, 311, 1264–1269.
Fryer, D., & Payne, R. (1986). Being unemployed: a review of the literature on the psychological
experience of unemployment. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds), International review of
industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 235–278). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Furda, J. & Meijman, T. (1992). Druk en dreiging, sturing of stress. In J. Winnubst &
M. Schabracq (Eds), Handboek Arbeid en Gezondheid Psychologie. Hoofdthema’s (pp. 127–
144). Utrecht, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij Lemma.
Goldberg, D. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy of
Management Review, 9(3), 438–448.
Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. (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 Publications.
Heaney, C., Israel, B., & House, J. (1994). Chronic job insecurity among automobile workers:
Effects on job satisfaction and health. Social Science and Medicine, 38(10), 1431–1437.
Hooge, J. (1995). Wie neemt deel aan het individueel begeleidingsplan? Psychosociaal profiel en
opvolging van de deelnemers. Leuven, Belgium: HIVA-KULeuven.
Hooge, J., & De Witte, H. (1996). De teruggetrokkenen: verdwenen van de arbeidsmarkt?
Opvolging en diepere analyse van het type “teruggetrokkenen” onder de werkzoekenden.
HIVA-KULeuven.
176 DE WITTE

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(4),
141–152.
Jacobson, D. (1991). The conceptual approach to job insecurity. In J. Hartley, D. Jacobson, B.
Klandermans, & T. van Vuuren, Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk (pp. 23–39). London:
Sage.
Jacobson, D., & Hartley, J. (1991). Mapping the context. In J. Hartley, D. Jacobson, B.
Klandermans, & T. van Vuuren, Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk (pp. 1–22). London:
Sage.
Jahoda, M. (1982). Employment and unemployment: A social-psychological analysis.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jenkins, R. (1991). Demographic aspects of stress. In C. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds), Personality
and stress: Individual differences in the stress process (pp. 107–132). Chichester, UK: John
Wiley and Sons.
Joelson, L., & Wahlquist, L. (1987). The psychological meaning of job insecurity and job loss:
Results of a longitudinal study. Social Science and Medicine, 25(2), 179–182.
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of
working life. New York: Basic Books Inc.
Klandermans, B., Van Vuuren, T., & Jacobson, D. (1991). Employees and job insecurity. In
J. Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans, & T. van Vuuren, Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at
risk (pp. 40–64). London: Sage.
Koeter, M., & Ormel, J. (1991). General Health Questionnaire: Nederlandse bewerking—
Handleiding . Lisse, Switzerland: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Kohn, M., & Schooler, C. (1983). Work and personality: An inquiry into the impact of social
stratification . Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Landsbergis, P. (1988). Occupational stress among health care workers: a test of the job demands-
control model. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 9, 217–239.
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress: Appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
Lim, V. (1996). Job insecurity and its outcomes: Moderating effects of work-based and non-
work-based social support. Human Relations, 49(2), 171–194.
Lim, V. (1997). Moderating effects of work-based support on the relationship between job
insecurity and its consequences. Work and Stress, 11(3), 251–266.
Nelson, A., Cooper, C., & Jackson, P. (1995). Uncertainty amidst change: The impact of
privatization on employee job satisfaction and well-being. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 68, 57–71.
Nie, H., Hull, C., Jenkins, J., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D. (1975). SPSS: Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
O’Brien, G. (1986). Psychology of work and unemployment. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
O’Quin, K., & Lotempio, S. (1998). Job satisfaction and intentions to turnover in human services
agencies perceived as stable or nonstable. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86(1), 339–344.
Orpen, C. (1993). Correlations between job insecurity and psychological well-being among white
and black employees in South Africa. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 885–886.
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.
Roskies, E., & Louis-Guerin, C. (1990). Job insecurity in managers: Antecedents and con-
sequences. 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.
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). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
 REVIEW AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES 177

Schaufeli, W., Maslach, C., & Marek, T. (Eds). (1993). Professional burnout: Recent develop-
ments in theory and research. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Schaufeli, W., & Van Yperen, N. (1993). Success and failure on the labour market. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 14, 559–572.
Siegrist, J., Peter, R., Junge, A., Cremer, P., & Seidel, D. (1990). Low status control, high effort at
work and ischemic heart disease: prospective evidence from blue-collar men. Social Science
and Medicine, 31(10), 1127–1134.
Van Vuuren, T. (1990). Met ontslag bedreigd. Werknemers in onzekerheid over hun ar-
beidsplaats bij veranderingen in de organisatie. Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij.
Van Vuuren, T., Klandermans, B., Jacobson, D., & Hartley, J. (1991). Employees’ reactions to
job insecurity. In J. Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans, & T. van Vuuren, Job insecurity:
Coping with jobs at risk (pp. 79–103). London: Sage.
Warr, P. (1984). Proceedings of the ICOMH conference “Mental health and the economic
recession”: Economic recession and mental health: A review of research. Tijdschrift voor
sociale gezondheidszorg, 62(8), 298–308.
Warr, P. (1987). Work, unemployment and mental health. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Warr, P., & Jackson, P. (1984). Men without jobs: Some correlates of age and length of
unemployment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57, 77–85.