Int. Studies of Mgt. & Org., vol. 40, no. 1, Spring 2010, pp. 20–39.

© 2010 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved.

ISSN 0020–8825 / 2010 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/IMO0020-8825400102

GUO-HUA HUANG, CYNTHIA LEE,

SUSAN ASHFORD, ZHENXIONG CHEN,
AND XIAOPENG REN

Affective Job Insecurity

A Mediator of Cognitive Job Insecurity and
Employee Outcomes Relationships

Abstract: Researchers who work on job insecurity (JI) have largely ignored
the differences between cognitive job insecurity and affective job insecurity. In
this study, we argue that it is conceptually important to study affective JI and
cognitive JI as distinct constructs. Based on the conceptualization of stress and
affective event theory, we propose that affective JI is an outcome of cognitive
JI and that affective JI partially mediates the relationship between cognitive
JI and employee outcomes. In two samples of working people, we found that
affective JI partially explains the effect of cognitive JI on employees’ job

Guo-hua Huang is an assistant professor in the Department of Management, Hong Kong

Baptist University, Kowloon, Hong Kong; tel.: (852) 3411-2155; fax: (852) 3411-5583;
mnhgh@hkbu.edu.hk. Cynthia Lee is a chaired professor of management, Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, and professor of management and organizational development,
College of Business Administration, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115; tel.:
(617) 373-5146; fax: (617) 373-2491; e-mail: c.lee@neu.edu. Susan Ashford is the as-
sociate dean for leadership programming and the executive MBA program, Michael and
Susan Jandernoa Professor of Management and Organizations, Ross School of Business,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1234; tel.: (734) 763-1091; fax: (734)
615-4323; e-mail: sja@bus.umich.edu. Zhenxiong Chen is a professor of management,
School of Management, Marketing, and International Business, Australian National
University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia; tel.: 61-2-6125-6194; fax: 61-2-6125-5005;
e-mail: george.chen@anu.edu.au. Xiaopeng Ren is an associate professor at the Cen-
ter for Social and Economic Behavior, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Beijing, China; tel.: 8610-64836462; fax: 8610-64872070; e-mail: renxp@
psych.ac.cn. The work described in this article was supported by Cynthia Lee’s Walsh
Professorship, College of Business Administration, Northeastern University.

20
 AFFECTIVE JOB INSECURITY 21

satisfaction, organizational commitment, and somatic well-being. Implications

and recommendations for future research are discussed.

The past three decades have seen a dramatic change in the nature of work
(Ashford, George, and Blatt 2007; Schabracq and Cooper 2000) and in an
organization’s psychological contract with its workers (Rousseau 1995). As
organizations restructure and “right-size,” not only in industrialized coun-
tries but also in rapidly developing economies such as China and India, an
increasingly occurring phenomenon is job insecurity (JI) (Klandermans and
van Vuuren 1999; Lee, Bobko, and Chen 2006). Job insecurity is important
as studies have documented its significant impact on important individual and
organizational outcomes, such as employee psychological well-being, job
satisfaction, and job performance (Ashford, Lee, and Bobko 1989; Sverke,
Hellgren, and Näswall 2002). The eight consequences reviewed in Sverke,
Hellgren, and Näswall’s (2002) recent meta-analysis indicate that JI has det-
rimental consequences for both the individual and the organization.
Our study adds to the conceptualization of JI. Most researchers agree that
JI is a subjective phenomenon (Ashford, Lee, and Bobko 1989; Greenhalgh
and Rosenblatt 1984; Hartley et al. 1991; Klandermans and van Vuuren 1999;
Sverke, Hellgren, and Näswall 2002). Job insecurity is thought to reflect the
degree to which employees perceive their jobs, or important features of their
jobs, to be threatened and to which they perceive themselves to be powerless to
do anything about it (Ashford, Lee, and Bobko 1989; Greenhalgh and Rosen-
blatt 1984). Job insecurity reflects the subjective anticipation of an involuntary
event. As such, this anticipation has two components: one that is cognitive
(beliefs) and one that is affective (emotional state). However, the literature
to date has treated JI as an essentially cognitive phenomenon. Predominant
measures tap employees’ perceptions of various aspects of their work settings
(see Table 1) or subjective probabilities of various events affecting the job or
its various features (Ashford, Lee, and Bobko 1989).
Weiss and Cropanzano’s (1996) Affective Event Theory (AET), however,
emphasizes the unique role of affective reactions in the workplace. They
offered their theory as a counterbalance to theories that exclusively focus
on judgment or cognitive processes. According to AET, the experience of a
positive or negative work event (e.g., cognitive JI) can elicit affective reactions
(e.g., concern or worry about job insecurity) that contribute to the formation
of work attitudes and behaviors (Mignonac and Herrbach 2004; Rupp and
Spencer 2006). Hartley et al. (1991) proposed a model in which cognitive JI
as stressor predicts emotional reactions. Given the theoretical importance of
affect in a domain like job insecurity and given the scant empirical attention,
we examine affective JI reaction as an outcome of cognitive JI and also as a
22 HUANG (CHINA) ET AL.

mediator between cognitive JI and work-related outcomes.

We contribute to the literature by studying the JI phenomenon in China. Most
existing studies have been conducted in well-developed North American and
European countries. Considering the increasing magnitude of JI in China due
to the significant economic reforms during the past two decades, studying JI in
Chinese organizations may be necessary and interesting (Wong et al. 2005). In
the following sections, we first review the literature on JI, focusing on the nature
of the construct. Based on the review, we propose three hypotheses regarding
the mediating role of affective JI in the relationship between cognitive JI and
work-related outcomes. We then report the results of a study we conducted in
China, including two samples from four Chinese organizations. The contribu-
tions, implications, and limitations of our study are discussed at the end.

Cognitive and affective job insecurity

Researchers have defined JI as “perceived powerlessness to maintain desired

continuity in a threatened job situation” (Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt 1984, 438),
“concern about the future permanence of the job” (Van Vuuren and Klander-
mans 1990, 134), and “expectations about continuity in a job situation” (Davy,
Kinicki, and Scheck 1997, 323). An important distinction among the various
conceptualizations of JI is the relative emphasis on cognitive versus affective
elements of JI (König and Staufenbiel 2006; Reisel and Banai 2002). Portrayals
that emphasize cognitive JI refer to the perception of the likelihood of negative
changes to one’s job, (e.g., losing the job or losing attractive job features) while
affective JI captures the affective elements of the JI experience, such as being
concerned, worried, or anxious about losing the job or particular job features.
We summarize existing approaches to the JI construct in Table 1.
As shown in Table 1, studies have focused heavily on a cognitive over an
affective conceptualization of JI. Few studies have employed both concep-
tualizations and theory development. The fact that researchers have largely
ignored the distinction between cognitive and affective JI has limited the
conceptual development of JI (König and Staufenbiel 2006).
Fortunately, a few studies have begun to examine this distinction (e.g.,
Borg and Elizur 1992; König and Staufenbiel 2006; Reisel and Banai 2002).
For instance, Borg and Elizur (1992) differentiated two dimensions of JI:
JI as cognitive appraisal and JI as worry (affective) and found that the two
dimensions were correlated at a low level. Adopting their measure in German
organizations, König and Staufenbiel (2006) found that the two dimensions
correlated differently with employee job attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction,
commitment, or justice perceptions) and behaviors (e.g., performance). The
correlations of affective JI are consistent with the general idea that people
Table 1
Summary of different approaches to the study of job insecurity
Author(s) Date (and sample) Conceptualization Operationalization
Caplan et al. 1975 (USA) Cognitive, global Additive (4 items)
Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt 1984 (conceptual paper) Cognitive, multidimensional Multiplicative (conceptual)
Johnson, Messe, and Crano 1984 (USA) Affective, global Additive (7 items)
Ashford, Lee, and Bobko 1989 (USA) Cognitive, multidimensional Multiplicative (5 subscales, 60
items)
Hartley et al. 1991 (Israeli sample) Cognitive, global Additive (3 items)
Hartley et al. 1991 (Dutch and UK samples) Cognitive and affective, global Additive (3 items)
Borg and Elizur 1992 (multinational sample Cognitive and affective, global Additive (4 items for JI fear [cog-
from Europe) nitive] and 3 items for JI worry
[affective])
Hellgren, Sverke, and Isaksson 1999 (Sweden) Uncleara Additive (3 items for total job and
4 items for job features)

AFFECTIVE JOB INSECURITY

Probst 2003 (USA) Cognitive and affective Additive (18 items for JI percep-
tion and 20 items for JI satisfac-
tion)

Note: Studies are in order of the date of publication of the original scales.
a
Although the authors claim they followed Ashford, Lee, and Boblo’s (1989) conceptualization, the wording of the items in their scale seems
to involve both cognitive (e.g., “I feel that [the organization] can provide me with a stimulating job content in the near future”) and emotional
(e.g., “I am worried about having to leave my job before I would like to”).

23
24 HUANG (CHINA) ET AL.

that care about their job report high affective JI. Further, the correlations of
cognitive JI are consistent with earlier research that has shown harmful effect
of cognitive JI on performance, job attitudes, and health (cf. Sverke, Hellgren,
and Näswall 2002). Sampling in Canada, Ito and Brotheridge (2007) studied
the relationships between cognitive and affective JI. Using two items from
Caplan et al.’s (1975) scale to measure cognitive JI and Borg and Elizer’s
(1992) two-item scale to measure affective JI, they have found that cognitive
JI and affective JI were associated with each other but differed in their as-
sociations with predictors and consequences.
This literature stream, however, has its limitations. First, no consensus
has been reached on the operationalization of cognitive and affective JI. As
shown in Table 1, despite prevailing theory (e.g., Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt
1984), some researchers use global measures reflecting career and job loss
dimensions of cognitive JI as in the Caplan’s measure. Others use a multi-
dimensional measure reflecting the job loss and job features dimensions of
cognitive JI. Second, there is no consistency in the treatment of these two JI
components. For instance, some studies combined cognitive and affective JI
in a single construct and aggregated the two into one measure (cf. Reisel and
Banai 2002). Third, with regard to the effect of affective JI on job attitudes,
findings have been mixed. Studies have documented both negative (e.g., Ito
and Brotheridge 2007) and positive (e.g., König and Staufenbiel 2006) ef-
fects. For example, while Ito and Brotheridge (2007) found affective JI to be
negatively related to affective organizational commitment and job satisfac-
tion but have no relationship with turnover intention, König and Staufenbiel
(2006) reported positive associations between affective JI and organizational
commitment and job satisfaction as well as a negative association between
affective JI and turnover intent. Given these issues, more studies are needed
to examine the conceptualization and impact of cognitive and affective JI.
The most widely accepted definition of JI in the literature is “perceived
powerlessness to maintain desired continuity in a threatened job situation”
(Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt 1984, 438). This definition’s content domain cov-
ers not only loss of the whole job, but also loss of job features. Moreover, it
involves not only the threat to one’s job and features, but also the sense of pow-
erlessness to counteract the threat. Based on this conceptualization, Ashford,
Lee, and Bobko (1989) developed a five-component job insecurity scale (JIS).
Researchers using JIS have found evidence for the impact of JI on important
individual and organizational outcomes (Lee, Bobko, and Chen 2006). How-
ever, this JIS captures only the cognitive aspect of JI. It comprises a cognitive
appraisal of the importance of various job features (or the job itself) and the
perceived probability of the loss of those features (the job itself) multiplied
by perceptions of powerlessness. This theory and measure implicitly portray
 AFFECTIVE JOB INSECURITY 25

individuals as “probability calculators.” This calculative, cognitive portrayal

seems quite distinct from the emotional experience of being worried or emo-
tionally concerned about a change to or the loss of one’s job. Most existing
studies either do not recognize this distinction or, if they do, problematically
combine both cognitive and affective JI into one construct. In contrast with
these previous studies, we examine the cognitive and affective aspects of JI as
two distinct constructs in examining the JI phenomenon.
Two distinct measures are necessary because one’s cognitive judgment of
JI, although likely to be related to, is not the same as one’s emotional reaction
to that judgment. For example, two employees occupying identical positions
may perceive identical levels of JI. However, they may not have identical
affective reactions to these perceptions, depending on a number of variables
ranging from their financial dependence on the job to the characteristics of
their personalities, such as their dispositional optimism. Conceptually, this
distinction is similar to that made in two other literatures, psychological
contracts and the stress literature. Although these literatures recognize the
importance of affect, the JI literature has largely ignored it.
This distinction we are drawing is analogous to the conceptual development
of the psychological contract model in the 1990s (Morrison and Robinson
1997; Rousseau 1995). Psychological contract breach refers to the employee’s
perception of the extent to which the organization has failed to fulfill its
promises or obligations (Robinson and Rousseau 1994). In the psychological
contract literature, researchers have used the terms violation and breach inter-
changeably. However, Morrison and Robinson (1997) distinguished between
the two constructs by suggesting that breach is the cognitive evaluation that
one’s organization has failed to fulfill its obligations, whereas violation is the
affective state that may follow from the breach. We borrow the distinction
between contract breach and violation to examine cognitive and affective JI.
We acknowledge that the two conceptualizations, namely, psychological con-
tract breach and violation and cognitive and affective JI, are not completely
analogous. While contract breach comes from the employer not fulfilling its
obligations, cognitive JI can come from the employee as well through, for
example, poor performance. As such, we examine affective JI as an outcome of
cognitive JI. We believe that this conceptual clarification will make important
contributions to JI research as well as to management practices.
The stress literature employs a model that suggests various antecedent stres-
sors cause stress, which, in turn, causes strain and physical, psychological, or
behavioral outcomes. In this model, contextual factors, such as stressors interact
with individual factors in affecting the subjective appraisal of the stressful
situation, which, in turn, results in affective reactions. Folkman and Lazarus
defined stress as the “relationship between the person and the environment that
26 HUANG (CHINA) ET AL.

is appraised by the person as relevant to his or her well being and in which the
person’s resources are taxed or exceeded” (1985, 152). This definition sug-
gests that a cognitive appraisal of environmental threats, such as organizational
changes (Ashford, Lee, and Bobko 1989; Lee, Bobko, and Chen 2006), can
be sources of stress in organizations. As Lazarus (1991, 1993, 1999) noted,
emotions follow from appraisals. In our case, cognitive JI is the appraisal of a
threat. Affective JI follows from cognitive JI. In turn, employees may be more
or less satisfied with or less committed to their jobs and organizations and they
may experience physical and/or psychological problems.
Furthermore, according to AET, after a negative workplace event, individu-
als typically first respond in terms of negative affect arousals such as anger
or fear (Zhao et al. 2007). Research on neural systems and brain functioning
has offered supporting evidence for this proposition (LeDoux 1995). Once
triggered, affective reactions may overwhelm the individual. The importance
and relevance of the event to personal goals will determine the intensity of
the affect. Thus, as the most proximal reaction to the appraisal of a significant
event, affect plays a central mediating role in determining the effect of the
event on other outcomes.
Based on the above analysis, we propose that cognitive JI is the appraisal of
a workplace event, such as a job threat resulting from organizational change or
from an employee not meeting performance norms. That appraisal results in
affective reactions that, in turn, contribute to the formation of work attitudes
and other individual outcomes such as physical and psychological problems.
Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses to be tested in this study.

Hypothesis 1: Cognitive JI relates positively to affective JI.

Hypothesis 2: Affective JI relates negatively to job satisfaction (H2a)
and organizational commitment (H2b); it relates positively to somatic
complaints (H2c).
Hypothesis 3: Affective JI mediates the negative relationships between
cognitive JI and job satisfaction (H3a) and organizational commitment
(H3b); it mediates the positive relationship between cognitive JI and
somatic complaints (H3c).

Methods

Samples and procedures

We collected data for this study from two samples. Sample 1 consisted of
female nurses from three hospitals in a large city in central China. These hos-
 AFFECTIVE JOB INSECURITY 27

pitals were all state-owned and of similar size. We therefore combined data
from the three hospitals. We followed the same procedure in data collection
in the three hospitals. All the nurses were invited to complete our survey
during their regular monthly meeting at work. Of the nurses who attended
their regular monthly meeting, after listening to our description regarding
the general purpose of the survey and the voluntary nature of their participa-
tion and after we assured confidentiality of the results, only one nurse from
hospital A and two nurses from both hospitals B and C left the meeting room.
In each hospital, the questionnaires were distributed and were collected by a
research assistant. Each participant received a gift of about RMB10 (US$1.30)
after completing the survey. The final sample consisted of 130, 228, and 92
participants from the three hospitals, respectively, and 12 other participants
whose hospital information was missing. All 462 participants were female
nurses. Their mean age was 25. On average, they had 14.57 years of education
and 4.75 years of tenure with the hospitals.
To check the differences among participants from three hospitals, we com-
pared the demographics of the participants using one-way ANOVA and the
chi-square test. Participants from the three hospitals differed significantly in
age (F(2, 442) = 28.98, p < .001), education (F(2, 440) = 6.25, p < .01) and
organizational tenure (F(2, 441) = 41.32, p < .001). To address individual dif-
ferences across organizations in our sample, in all the regression analyses, age,
education, and tenure were included as control variables. Participants from
the three hospitals did not differ significantly in the mean levels of affective
JI (F(2, 447) = 1.71, p > .05). To control for differences at the organizational
level, dummy variables for the three organizations were created as control
variables (Cohen and Cohen, 1983).
Because sample 1 only included female respondents in one occupation,
to ensure generalizability of the result, we collected another sample, which
consisted of employees/managers in a large bank located in a major city in
southern China. This sample was used in a larger study focused on the mea-
surement of cognitive JI (Lee et al. 2008). We mailed the questionnaires with
a cover letter to the respondents via the internal mailing system of the bank,
describing the general purpose of the survey and the voluntary nature of their
participation and assuring confidentiality of the results. The respondents were
given self-addressed envelopes in which to return their completed responses to
our research assistant. In all, 289 subordinate questionnaires were distributed,
and 219 completed questionnaires were returned for a 76 percent response rate.
Of the 219 respondents, 41 percent were female. The respondents reported
an average age of 31.45 years, an average of 13.56 years of education, and
an average organizational tenure of 9.61 years. Of these participants, 78.7
percent held nonmanagerial positions, 14 percent were from lower manage-
28 HUANG (CHINA) ET AL.

ment, and 7.3 percent were from middle management. The job functions of
the respondents included teller, accounting/finance, sales/marketing, computer,
customer service, administration/human resource, and technician.

Measures

Unless noted, we used the same measures in both samples. All the scales used
in this study were translated into Chinese and then translated independently
back into English (Brislin 1980). Expert judges in the Chinese language
examined the questionnaire to ensure that the items were interpretable in
Chinese. Unless noted, all multiple-item measures used a five-point response
scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5).

Affective job insecurity. We used seven items to measure affective JI: “I wish
I had more job security in this company”; “The lack of job security in this
company makes me feel very nervous”; “I feel very uneasy about my chances
of remaining with this company”; “I lose sleep worrying about my future with
this company”; “I am unhappy with the amount of job security that I have”;
“I am very tense about maintaining my current job employment status”; and
“I am not confident that I can remain employed with this company for as long
as I choose.” Our items were written based on the work of Borg and Elizur
(1992) and Johnson, Meese, and Crano (1984), capturing the affective ele-
ments of the job insecurity experience such as being afraid of losing the job
or being concerned about future status with the firm. (Coefficient alphas =
.72 and .71 in the nurse and bank samples, respectively.)

Cognitive job insecurity. We adopt Lee, Bobko, and Chen’s (2006) revised
JIS to measure cognitive JI in this study. These authors added two items on
total job importance and likelihood of job loss of total job to Ashford et al’s
original JIS and validated it using the Chinese samples. In the bank sample,
we used this revised full JIS, which has 59 perceptual items, including 17
items on the importance of job features, 17 items on the likelihood of los-
ing job features, 11 items on the importance of the total job, 11 items on the
likelihood of total job loss, and three items to assess powerlessness. In the
nurse sample, we used a short form of JIS that included 16 items on the total
job (8 items on its importance and 8 on the likelihood of its loss), 16 items
on job features (8 items on their importance and 8 on the likelihood of their
loss) and 3 items on powerlessness. Lee et al. (2008) validated this abridged
form of JIS. In both cases, the total score of this multiplicative cognitive JI
measure was calculated according to its underlying theoretical derivation (cf.
Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt 1984) as a multiplicative function as follows: JI
 AFFECTIVE JOB INSECURITY 29

= [sum (importance of job features × likelihood of losing job features) + sum

(importance of negative changes in total job × likelihood of negative changes
in total job)] × [perceived powerlessness to resist threat].

Job satisfaction. Participants’ overall job satisfaction was assessed by the five-
item general satisfaction scale of the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman and
Oldham 1975). This scale uses a seven-point, strongly agree (7) to strongly
disagree (1) scale format. (Coefficient alphas = 0.72 and 0.91 in the nurse
and bank samples, respectively.)

Somatic complaints. We used a ten-item scale developed and validated by

Caplan et al. (1975) to measured to assess symptoms of strain. The scale items
asked how frequently in the past month (never = 1, once or twice = 2, three
times or more = 3) that respondents had symptoms such as “heart beating
hard,” “dizzy spells,” “trouble sleeping,” and so forth. (Coefficient alphas =
.84 and .83 in the nurse and bank samples, respectively.)

Organizational commitment. In the hospital survey, we included an additional

attitudinal outcome, organizational commitment. It was measured with Mow-
day, Steers, and Porter’s (1979) nine-item scale using a seven-point, strongly
agree (7) to strongly disagree (1) scale format. An example for sample items
is “I feel a strong sense of ‘belonging’ to my organization.” (The internal
reliability coefficient alpha measure for the construct was .85.)
We included a set of control variables because of their potential impact on
the mediator and outcomes. In both surveys, we included individuals’ years
of age, years of education, and number of years of tenure with the organiza-
tions. We created two dummy variables to control for the effect of the three
hospitals. For the bank sample, we also included gender (male = 0; female =
1) and position (1 = nonmanagerial positions; 2 = lower management; and 3
= middle management).

Results

The means, standard deviations, and correlations among all the variables
for the two samples are presented in Tables 2 and 3. All the measures have
acceptable internal consistency reliability estimates. It should be noted that
cognitive JI is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct that employs
a multiplicative model as specified above (Ashford, Lee, and Bobko 1989;
Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt 1984). An overall internal consistency reliability
alpha is, therefore, not an appropriate measure for its reliability. For the same
reason, we did not conduct confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine its
discriminant validity with the measure of affective JI. To examine the factor
30 HUANG (CHINA) ET AL.

structure of our measure of affective JI, we first conducted an exploratory

factor analysis (EFA) using data from the hospital sample. The principal
component analysis method with Varimax rotation was used in the EFA. We
expected the seven items to load on one factor, but two factors were identified
with an eigenvalue larger than one. The first factor explained 50 percent of
the total variance while the second factor only explained 14 percent. We
further conducted a CFA using data from the bank sample. Results show that
the one-factor solution with seven items was acceptable (χ2 = 34.86; df = 9;
RMSEA = 0.10; CFI = .92; NNFI = .86). Therefore, our subsequent analyses
were based on this one-factor solution.
Correlation results show that affective JI correlated moderately with cog-
nitive JI in both the bank sample (r = .26, p < .01) and the nurse sample (r =
.11, p < .05). Further, cognitive and affective JI showed different patterns of
correlation with demographic variables. For example, tenure was unrelated
to cognitive JI, but it was significantly related to affective JI in both samples.
Together, these results provide some support for our argument that the two are
distinct constructs. Consistent with our expectation, affective JI significantly
correlated with all the outcome variables in both samples.
Controlling for the effects of demographics, our regression results were
consistent with the correlations. That is, the main effect of cognitive JI on
individual outcomes was significant (including job satisfaction in both samples
and organizational commitment in the nurse sample) and individual psycho-
somatic complaints in both samples. Second, the main effect of cognitive JI
on affective JI was also significant in both the bank and nurse samples (β =
.24, p < .05; β = .14, p < .01, respectively), supporting H1. Our results also
show that the main effect of affective JI on job satisfaction (β = −.20, p < .05;
β = −.23, p < .01, respectively) and somatic complaints (β = .25, p < .01; β
= .10, p < .10, respectively) is significant in both samples. Lastly, the main
effect of affective JI was also significant on organizational commitment in
the nurse sample β = −.22, p < .01), supporting H2. (This was not measured
in the bank sample.)
To test the hypothesis that affective JI mediates the relationships between
cognitive JI and individual outcomes, we used hierarchical regressions fol-
lowing Baron and Kenny’s (1986) three-step approach. Results for the bank
and nurse sample data are shown in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. Affective
JI had an incremental effect on outcomes after controlling for cognitive JI.
When the effects of affective JI were controlled, the association between
cognitive JI and the outcomes decreased. However, the effects of cognitive
JI were still significant at the same level for all the outcomes except for
organizational commitment in the nurse sample in which the coefficient of
cognitive JI dropped from −.11 (p < .05) to −.08 (p < .10). We also tested
Table 2
Descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and correlations among variables from the bank sample

Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Age 31.45 7.87

Gender .41 .49 .03
Education 13.56 2.09 −.12 −.02
Tenure 9.61 6.72 .80** −.14*** −.18*
Position 1.29 .59 .23** .09 .08 .19*
Cognitive JI 1,334.41 445.80 .13 −.08 −.06 .08 −.03
Affective JI 3.23 .67 .05 −.05 −.02 .15* −.03 .27** (.71)

AFFECTIVE JOB INSECURITY

Job satisfaction 4.42 1.28 .14*** .10 −.09 .14*** −.10 −.43** −.22** (.91)
Somatic complaints 1.34 .36 −.07 −.03 .02 .08 .15* .24** .23** −.25** (.83)

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Notes: N = 219. Internal consistency reliability coefficients (alphas) appear on the diagonal in parentheses. The table uses the full version of
Ashford, Lee, and Bobko’s (1989) JI measure.

31
 32
HUANG (CHINA) ET AL.
Table 3
Descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and correlations among variables from the nurse sample

Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Age 25.07 4.96 —

2 Education 14.57 1.81 .20*** —
3 Tenure 4.75 4.64 .88*** .22*** —
4 Dummy1 .29 .45 .32*** .10** .40*** —
2
5 Dummy .51 .50 −.29*** .04 −.27*** −.65*** —
6 Cognitive JI 684.10 217.80 .04 .04 .07 .08 −.11** —
7 Affective JI 3.40 .65 −.17*** −.11** −.20*** −.08 .08 .11** (.72)
8 Job satisfac- 4.17 1.02 .08 .04 .04 −.08 .05 −.19*** –.26*** (.72)
tion
9 Org. 4.88 .98 .16*** .10** .12*** −.09 .13*** −.11** −.24*** .53*** (.85)
commitment
10 Somatic 1.44 .39 .04 .05 .09 .17*** −.09 .19*** .09* −.24*** −.20*** (.84)
complaints
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Notes: N = 462. Internal consistency reliability coefficients (alphas) appear on the diagonal in parentheses. The table uses the abridged ver-
sion of the Ashford, Lee, and Bobko’s JI measure (see Lee et al. 2008).
 AFFECTIVE JOB INSECURITY 33

Table 4
Results of hierarchical regression for testing mediation with the bank
sample data

AJI Job satisfaction Somatic complaints

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Control
Age −.11 .02 −.00 −.26 −.24
Gender −.04 .23** .22* −.10 −.09
Education .03 −.08 −.07 −.01 −.02
Tenure .20 .14 .18 .21 .16
Position −.04 −.12 −.13 .19* .20*

Independent
JI .24** −.39*** −.35*** .34*** .29***

Mediator
AJI –.20* .25**

DR 2 (note) .05** .15*** .04** .11*** .06***

DF 6.07** 19.88*** 5.21** 13.68*** 7.46***
Adjusted R 2 .03 .21 .24 .12 .17

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Notes: DR2 is for the last variable entered into the model. N = 219.

whether the mediation effects were significant using the Sobel test (Preacher
and Leonardelli 2003; Sobel 1982). The Sobel test revealed that, in the bank
sample, affective JI was a significant partial mediator between cognitive
JI and job satisfaction (z = −2.39, p < .05) and between cognitive JI and
somatic complaints (z = 2.49, p < .05). In the nurse sample, affective JI was
a significant partial mediator between cognitive JI and job satisfaction (z =
−2.14, p < .05) and between cognitive JI and organizational commitment (z
= −2.12, p < .05), but not between cognitive JI and somatic complaints (z =
1.48, p > .10). Overall, the results show that affective JI partially mediated
the relationship between affective JI and employee outcomes. In all, H1 and
H2 were supported while the results supported a partial mediation instead of
a full mediation relationship in H3.
 34
HUANG (CHINA) ET AL.
Table 5
Results of hierarchical regression for testing mediation with the nurse sample data

AJI Job satisfaction Org. commitment Somatic complaints

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7

Control
Age .05 .16 .17* .22 .23** −.12 −.13
Education −.09* .05 .02 .07 .05 .02 .03
Tenure −.25** −.03 −.09 −.02 −.07 .10 .12
Dummy1 .06 −.14** −.13* −.07 −.06 .18*** .17**
Dummy2 .07 −.03 −.01 .12* .14** .04 .03
Independent
Cognitive JI .14*** −.21*** −.17*** −.11** −.08* .19*** .17***
Mediator
Affective JI −.23*** −.22*** .09*

DR 2 (note) .02*** .04*** .05*** .01** .04*** .03*** .01*

DAdjusted R 2 .06 .06 .10 .06 .10 .06 .06

* p < .05; **p < .01; *** p < .001.

Notes: DR2 is for the last variable entered into the model. N = 462.
 AFFECTIVE JOB INSECURITY 35

Discussion

Research on JI has grown considerably since the 1980s as a result of the fast-
changing nature of organizations and the more competitive and dynamic orga-
nizational environment they face. Although researchers have found evidence
for the impact of JI on important individual and organizational outcomes,
several gaps in the literature still exist. In this study, we clarify the distinct
conceptual meanings of cognitive and affective JI and highlight the importance
of treating them as two different constructs. In support of Borg and Elizur
(1992) and Reisel and Banai (2002), our results from two samples showed
initial support for the distinctiveness of cognitive and affective JI.
Affective JI is an outcome of cognitive JI that deserves additional attention
in future longitudinal studies. Further, building on the conceptual framework
established in stress research and the AET, we proposed and tested a mediating
process of JI in which affective JI is an outcome of cognitive JI and in which
affective JI mediates the relationship between cognitive JI and important em-
ployee outcomes. Results from a sample of bank employees and a sample of
nurses from three hospitals show that affective JI partially explains the effect
of cognitive JI on job satisfaction, organizational commitment and somatic
complaints. Using two samples from different types of organizations and rep-
resenting different occupational groups provide evidence for generalizability
of our findings in Chinese settings.
This study contributes to the literature in a number of ways. First, it suggests
that to facilitate an appropriate interpretation of results, researchers should be
careful not to combine cognitive and affective JI items into one scale (e.g.,
Johnson, Meese, and Crano 1984). Second, we have identified affective JI as
a mediator between the cognitive JI and employee outcomes. Future studies
can further examine the construct validity of affective JI by extending our
nomological network and including other antecedents and outcomes. For
example, having strong supportive relationships with one’s supervisor may
lower the negative effects of affective JI or buffer the effects of cognitive JI
on affective JI. Moreover, research should also explore individual differences
in the reaction to cognitive JI. The relationship between cognitive and affec-
tive JI may vary if the individual is optimistic, for example. Further, in time,
people’s reactions to cognitive JI may be weakened. Therefore, longitudinal
studies are needed to explore the mechanism of affective JI.
Although we took careful steps in developing the affective JI items, there
were differences in results from the two samples. That is, the seven-item af-
fective JI scale loaded on two factors in the hospital sample while this scale
loaded on one factor in the bank sample. It is possible that there are differences
in perception by our female sample (hospital) and a mixed gender sample
36 HUANG (CHINA) ET AL.

(bank). Future studies should further refine our affective JI scale across dif-
ferent occupational groups in a variety of settings.
This study has its limitations. Although we used two samples, our study is
cross-sectional in nature, which did not enable us to investigate cause-effect
relationships as our framework suggests. Future studies using a longitudinal
design are needed to examine the discriminant and predictive validity of the
affective JI construct. Because of the construct structure of cognitive JI, we
could not demonstrate discriminant validity of affective JI using confirmatory
factor analysis. It is important that future studies, using longitudinal designs,
investigate the different antecedents and consequences of both the cognitive
and affective JI constructs. The second limitation of our study is that com-
mon method bias may explain some of the positive associations among our
variables. It was not plausible to ask respondents in independent samples to
respond to the studied variables in the present study such as the subject’s in-
security or satisfaction. Future studies are needed that involve different data
sources for variables such as supervisor-rated behavior outcomes. Finally, the
factor analysis results of the seven-item measure of affective JI were acceptable
but not completely satisfactory. Future studies should improve the measure,
especially by avoiding reverse-coded items and by paying attention to item
wording if used with a Chinese- or other non-English-speaking samples.
In conclusion, despite these limitations, we believe that our study contrib-
utes to the job insecurity literature by clarifying that cognitive and affective JI
are two distinct constructs and by showing that affective JI partially mediates
the relationships between cognitive JI and individual outcomes. Although still
at an exploratory stage, this study has important implications for managers es-
pecially in Chinese contexts. First, consistent with results from other cultures,
our results provide further evidence of the negative effects of both cognitive
and affective JI on employee work attitudes and psychological well-being.
Employees’ perceptions about the security of their jobs can lead to worries
or concerns about their jobs. Managers should therefore employ measures to
decrease both cognitive and affective JI.
We believe that there may be some individual and organizational coping strat-
egies and resources toward JI that is especially useful in Chinese context, such
as having quality supervisor-subordinate relationships, impression management
strategies, and supportive organizational practices, that deserve future studies.

References

Ashford, S.J., C.L. Lee, and P. Bobko. 1989. “Content, Causes, and Consequences
of Job Insecurity: A Theory-Based Measure and Substantive Test.” Academy of
Management Journal 32: 803–829.
 AFFECTIVE JOB INSECURITY 37

Ashford, S.J., E. George, and R. Blatt. 2007. “Chapter 2: Old Assumptions,

New Work: The Opportunities and Challenges of Research on Nonstandard
Employment.” Academy of Management Annuals 1: 65–117.
Baron, R.M., and D.A. Kenny. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction
in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical
Considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173–1182.
Borg, I., and D. Elizur. 1992. “Job insecurity: Correlates, moderators and
measurement.” International Journal of Manpower 13(2): 13–26.
Brislin, R.W. 1980. “Translation and Content Analysis of Oral and Written
Material.” In Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Volume 2, ed. H.C.
Triandis and J.W. Berry, 389–444. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Caplan, R.D., S. Cobb, Jr., J.R.P. French, R. Van Harrison, Jr., and S.R. Pinneau.
1975. Job Demands and Worker Health: Main Effects and Occupational
Differences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare.
Cohen, J., and P. Cohen.1983. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis
for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Davy, J.A., A.J. Kinicki, and C.L. Scheck. 1997. “A Test of Job Security’s Direct
and Mediated Effects on Withdrawal Cognitions.” Journal of Organizational
Behavior 18: 323–349.
Folkman, S., and R.S. Lazarus. 1985. “If It Changes It Must Be a Process: Study of
Emotions and Coping During Three Stages of a College Examination.” Journal
of Personal and Social Psychology 48(1): 150–170.
Greenhalgh, L., and Z. Rosenblatt. 1984. “Job Insecurity: Toward Conceptual
Clarity.” Academy of Management Review 9: 438–448.
Hackman, J.R., and G.R. Oldham. 1975. “Development of the Job Diagnostic
Survey.” Journal of Applied Psychology 60: 159–70.
Hartley, J., D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans, and T. Van Vuuren. 1991. Job Insecurity:
Coping with Jobs at Risk. London: Sage.
Hellgren, J., M. Sverke, and K. Isaksson. 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.
Ito, J.K., and C.M. Brotheridge. 2007. “Exploring the Predictors and Consequences of
Job Insecurity’s Components.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 22(1): 40–64.
Johnson, C.D., L.A. Messe, and W.D. Crano. 1984. “Predicting Job Performance of
Low Income Workers: The Work Opinion Questionnaire.” Personnel Psychology
37: 291–299.
Klandermans, B., and T. van Vuuren. 1999. “Job Insecurity: Introduction.”
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 8(2): 145–153.
König, C. J., and T. Staufenbiel. 2006. “The Difference Between Cognitive and
Affective Job Insecurity.” Paper presented at the 21st annual conference of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.
Lazarus, R.S. 1991. Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
———. 1993. “Coping Theory and Research: Past, Present and Future.”
Psychosomatic Medicine 55: 234–247.
———. 1999. Stress and Emotion: A New Synthesis. New York: Springer.
LeDoux, J.E. 1995. “Emotion: Clues from the Brain.” Annual Review of
Psychology 46: 209–235.
38 HUANG (CHINA) ET AL.

Lee, C., P. Bobko, and Z.X. Chen. 2006. “Investigation of the Multidimensional
Model of Job Insecurity in Two Countries.” Applied Psychology: An
International Review 55: 167–195.
Lee, C., P. Bobko, S.J. Ashford, Z.X. Chen, and X.P. Ren. 2008. “Cross-
cultural Development of an Abridged Job Insecurity Measure.” Journal of
Organizational Behavior 29: 373–390.
Mignonac, K., and O. Herrbach. 2004. “Linking Work Events, Affective States, and
Attitudes: An Empirical Study of Managers’ Emotions.” Journal of Business
and Psychology 19: 221–240.
Morrison, E.W., and S.L. Robinson. 1997. “When Employees Feel Betrayed:
A Model of How Psychological Contract Violation Develops.” Academy of
Management Review 22: 226–256.
Mowday, R.T., R. M. Steers, and L.W. Porter. 1979. “The Measurement of
Organizational Commitment.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 14: 224–247.
Preacher, K.J., and G.J. Leonardelli. 2003. “Calculation for the Sobel Test: An
Interactive Calculation Tool for Mediation Tests.” www.psych.ku.edu/preacher/
sobel/sobel.htm, accessed February 16, 2008.
Probst, T.M. 2003. “Development and Validation of the Job Security Index and the Job
Security Satisfaction Scale: A Classical Test Theory and IRT Approach.” Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 76: 451–467.
Reisel, W.D., and M. Banai. 2002. “Job Insecurity Revisited: Reformulating with
Affect.” Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management 4: 87–91.
Robinson, S.L, and D.M. Rousseau. 1994. “Breaching the Psychological Contract:
Not the Exception but the Norm.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 15:
245–259.
Rousseau, D.M. 1995. Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding
Written and Unwritten Agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rupp, D.E., and S. Spencer. 2006. “When Customers Lash Out: The Effects of
Customer Interactional Injustice in Emotional Labor and the Mediating Role of
Discrete Emotions.” Journal of Applied Psychology 91: 971–978.
Schabracq, M.J., and C.L. Cooper. 2000. “The Changing Nature of Work and
Stress.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 15: 227–241.
Sobel, M.E. 1982. “Asymptotic Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural
Equations Models.” In Sociological Methodology, ed. S. Leinhart, 290–312. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sverke, M., J. Hellgren, and K. Näswall. 2002. “No Security: A Meta-Analysis
and Review of Job Insecurity and Its Consequences.” Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology 7: 242–264.
Van Vuuren, C., and P. G. Klandermans. 1990. “Individual Reactions to Job
Insecurity: An Integrated Model.” In European Perspectives in Psychology, vol. 3,
ed. P.J.D. Drenth, J.A. Sergeant, and R.J. Takens, 133–146. Oxford: John Wiley.
Weiss, H.M., and R. Cropanzano. 1996. “Affective Events Theory: A Theoretical
Discussion of the Structure, Causes and Consequences of Affective
Experiences at Work.” In Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual
Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, vol. 18, ed. B.M. Staw and
L.L.Cummings, 1–74. Greenwich, CT: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
Wong, Y.T., C.-S. Wong, H.-Y. Ngo, and S. Lui. 2005. “Different Responses to Job
Insecurity of Chinese Workers in Joint Ventures and State-Owned Enterprises.”
Human Relations 58(11): 1391–1418.
 AFFECTIVE JOB INSECURITY 39

Zhao, H., S.J. Wayne, B.C. Glibkowski, and J. Bravo, 2007. “The Impact of
Psychological Contract Breach in Work-Related Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis.”
Personnel Psychology 60: 647–680.

To order reprints, call 1-800-352-2210; outside the United States, call 717-632-3535.
Copyright of International Studies of Management & Organization is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.