job in security in temporary versus permanent workers
Post on 06-Apr-2018
225 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
8/3/2019 Job In Security in Temporary Versus Permanent Workers
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/job-in-security-in-temporary-versus-permanent-workers 1/21
Job insecurity in temporary versus permanent workers:
Associations with attitudes, well-being, and behaviour
NELE DE CUYPER & HANS DE WITTE
Research Centre for Work, Organization and Personnel Psychology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven,
Belgium
AbstractRecent research suggests that the relationship between job insecurity and psychological outcomes is
more negative among permanent compared with temporary workers. We investigate possibleinteraction effects between job insecurity and type of contract (temporary versus permanent) forvarious psychological outcomes (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, life satisfaction, andself-rated performance), some of which have received little attention. We aim to explain theseinteraction effects, while taking into account the heterogeneous nature of temporary workers in termsof tenure, employment prospects, and wish to do temporary employment. We argue that permanentworkers expect higher levels of job security; job insecurity breaches permanent workers’ but nottemporary workers’ expectations. This may relate to unfavourable outcomes. Similarly, theheterogeneous nature of temporary workers may relate to job security expectations and thus toreactions to job insecurity. This study was conducted on a sample of 477 temporary and permanentworkers from various occupational sectors in Belgium. The results suggested that the interaction effectbetween job insecurity and contract type may be limited to job satisfaction and organizationalcommitment. Furthermore, permanent workers had higher expectations about job security. Breach of
these expectations furthermore mediated the relationship between job insecurity and all outcomes,except for self-rated performance. However, the heterogeneity indicators were found to be unrelatedto job security expectations.
Keywords: Job insecurity, psychological contract, temporary employment, well-being, job satisfaction,
commitment, performance
Introduction
Current research has adopted increasingly complex designs to understand the responses of
temporary workers as regards well-being, work-related attitudes, and behaviour. In thisrespect, temporary employment refers to dependent jobs of limited duration, as in the case
of fixed term employment (OECD, 2002). Initial research has drawn on the relationship
between temporary employment and job insecurity (i.e., an overall concern about the
continued existence of the job in the future; Klandermans & Van Vuuren, 1999), and on the
likely harmful consequences of job insecurity to predict unfavourable outcomes among
temporary workers (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2006a; Parker, Griffin, Sprigg, & Wall, 2002;
Sverke, Hellgren, & Naswall, 2002). More recently, various authors have argued that job
Correspondence: Nele De Cuyper, Research Centre for Work, Organization and Personnel Psychology, K.U.Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. Tel: '32 16 32 60 14. E-mail: nele.decuyper@psy.kuleuven.be
Work & Stress, January Á March 2007; 21(1): 65 Á 84
8/3/2019 Job In Security in Temporary Versus Permanent Workers
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/job-in-security-in-temporary-versus-permanent-workers 2/21
insecurity and temporary employment can be related through the mechanism of modera-
tion. In particular, they have established that the relationship between job insecurity and
psychological outcomes is more negative among permanent compared with temporary
workers. In this respect, most studies have focused upon proximal outcomes; i.e., outcomes
which are affected directly, such as job satisfaction or organizational commitment (De
Cuyper & De Witte, 2005, 2006b; De Witte & Naswall, 2003; Mauno, Kinnunen,
Makikangas, & Natti, 2005). Comparatively little evidence has been found concerningdistal outcomes such as well-being (e.g., Bernhard-Oettel, Sverke, & De Witte, 2005;
Virtanen, Vahtera, Kivimaki, Pentii, & Ferrie, 2002) or work-related behaviour (e.g., De
Cuyper & De Witte, 2006b); i.e. outcomes which are affected indirectly, either because they
develop over time or because they are conditional upon other processes (e.g., mediation
by proximal outcomes; Chirumbolo & Hellgren, 2003; Sverke et al., 2002). Moreover, the
psychological theories constructed so far are perhaps not fully adequate for understanding
potential interaction effects between contract type and job insecurity.
The aim of the present paper is therefore to develop knowledge on the relationship
between temporary employment and job insecurity, and how they together relate to various
psychological outcomes. First, we want to replicate earlier findings on the interactionbetween contract type and job insecurity, with specific attention to the distinction between
proximal and distal outcomes. In particular, we select job satisfaction and organizational
commitment as proximal variables, while life satisfaction and self-rated performance
represent distal variables. Second, we aim to understand why temporary and permanent
workers may differ in their reactions to job insecurity. Specifically, we integrate earlier
suggestions that the interaction effect may relate to (1) differences between temporary and
permanent workers regarding their expectations about the level of job security that should
be provided by the employer, or (2) to the heterogeneous nature of the temporary
workforce. In this respect, research in the realm of temporary employment has highlighted
the importance of contract duration (e.g., Rousseau, 1995), employment prospects (e.g.,
Connelly & Gallagher, 2004), and preferences regarding temporary employment (Krausz,
Brandwein, & Fox, 1995) for understanding temporary workers’ responses.
Empirical research: Job insecurity and contract type
The dominant approach has been to start from the harmful effects of job insecurity, as
found among samples largely dominated by permanent workers or excluding temporary
workers from the analyses (Virtanen et al., 2002). For example, job insecurity has been
found to be related to reduced job satisfaction and organizational commitment, poor well-
being, and undesirable behaviours (for review studies, see De Witte, 1999, 2005; Sverke
et al., 2002). As job insecurity is a significant and inherent feature of temporaryemployment arrangements (Kinnunen & Natti, 1994; Naswall & De Witte, 2003), this
would imply overall poorer results for temporary compared with permanent workers.
However, research on the psychological consequences of being temporarily employed has
yielded inconsistent and inconclusive results (Connelly & Gallagher, 2004; De Cuyper, De
Witte, & Isaksson, 2005). For example, some studies establish higher job satisfaction (e.g.,
Benach, Amable, Muntaner, & Benavides, 2002) and organizational commitment (e.g., Van
Dyne & Ang, 1998) among permanent compared with temporary workers. Other studies
find the opposite pattern (e.g., Mauno et al., 2005; McDonald & Makin, 2000), and still
others do not find significant differences (De Witte & Naswall, 2003; Van Breukelen &
Allegro, 2000). Likewise, temporary compared with permanent workers report both better(Liukkonen, Virtanen, Kivimaki, Pentii, & Vahtera, 2002) and poorer (Virtanen et al.,
66 N. De Cuyper & H. De Witte
8/3/2019 Job In Security in Temporary Versus Permanent Workers
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/job-in-security-in-temporary-versus-permanent-workers 3/21
2002) mental health. With respect to self-rated performance, either no differences (De
Cuyper & De Witte, 2005; Ellingson, Gruys, & Sackett, 1998) or poorer results for
permanent workers have been found (Van Dyne & Ang, 1998). The inconsistent
relationship between the predictor and criterion variables has inspired researchers to
formulate moderation rather than mediation hypotheses, in line with advice by Baron and
Kenny (1986).
Possible moderation hypotheses were originally proposed by De Witte and Naswall(2003). In their first hypothesis, the authors argue that being temporarily employed while
feeling insecure is the worst possible combination: the likely negative effects of temporary
employment and job insecurity may strengthen each other in a multiplicative rather than
additive way. This aligns with earlier findings from stress literature on the combined impact
of stressors on psychological outcomes (e.g., Koslowsky, 1998). By way of contrast, the
second hypothesis states that the relationship between job insecurity and unfavourable
outcomes is stronger among permanent workers than among temporary workers. This is
based on the assumption that permanent but not temporary workers expect their employer
to guarantee job security. Job insecurity, then, may be a symptom of impaired quality of the
employment relationship for permanent workers but not for temporary workers. This, inturn, may explain why job insecurity is particularly harmful among permanent compared
with temporary workers. Support for this second hypothesis comes from the studies by De
Witte and Naswall (2003), De Cuyper and De Witte (2006b), and Mauno et al. (2005): job
insecurity reduces job satisfaction and organizational commitment among permanent
workers but not among temporary workers. Still, these observations should be treated with
considerable caution: most evidence concerns proximal variables, while evidence for distal
outcomes is somewhat weaker. The studies by De Cuyper and De Witte (2005, 2006b),
Mauno et al. (2005), and Virtanen et al. (2002) each use various indicators of well-being.
The interaction effect between job insecurity and contract type was replicated for some of
these indicators, but not for others. Similarly, the interaction effect between job insecurity
and temporary employment is not consistently found in studies on work-related behaviour
such as performance or turnover intentions (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2005; Mauno et al.,
2005). This may suggest that job insecurity effects are particularly powerful when proximal
outcomes are concerned, as was established earlier by Sverke et al. (2002).
In this study, we investigate proximal (job satisfaction and organizational commitment)
and distal (life satisfaction and self-rated performance) outcomes to assess the possibility of
generalizing interaction effects between type of contract and job insecurity:
Hypothesis 1. The relationship between job insecurity and both proximal (job satisfaction,
organizational commitment) and distal (life satisfaction, self-rated performance) outcomes
is more negative among permanent workers compared with temporary workers.
Explaining the interaction effect between job insecurity and contract type
Two explanations have been proposed with a view to achieving understanding on why job
insecurity may relate to unfavourable outcomes among permanent workers but not among
temporary workers. The first explanation relates to differences in expectations between
temporary and permanent workers regarding the employer’s obligation to provide job
security, as advanced by De Witte and Naswall (2003), and further developed by De
Cuyper and De Witte (2006b) in the context of the psychological contract. The second
explanation highlights the heterogeneous nature of the temporary workforce in terms of contract duration, employment prospects, and preference for temporary employment.
Job insecurity in temporary workers 67
8/3/2019 Job In Security in Temporary Versus Permanent Workers
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/job-in-security-in-temporary-versus-permanent-workers 4/21
Job insecurity, the psychological contract, and psychological outcomes. Recent speculation
suggests that job insecurity may have unfavourable effects for permanent workers because it
represents an unwelcome change in their psychological contract, but that it does not in the
psychological contract that is dominant among temporary workers (De Cuyper & De Witte,
2006b; Mauno et al., 2005). The psychological contract refers to ‘‘the idiosyncratic set of
reciprocal expectations held by employees concerning their obligations and their entitle-
ments’’ (McLean Parks, Kidder, & Gallagher, 1998, p. 698). Most research has however
focused upon employees’ entitlements, i.e., what employees expect from their employer (De
Cuyper et al., 2005), and these entitlements are typically classified under the headings
relational or transactional. This classification has led authors to talk about relational and
transactional psychological contracts, even though they may not be mutually exclusive
(Rousseau, 1995). Rather, they may focus upon relational psychological contract entitle-
ments more than upon transactional psychological contract entitlements, or vice versa
(McLean Parks et al., 1998).
Relational psychological contract entitlements are part of a socio-emotional exchange
relationship, and they are mostly of a dynamic and subjective nature. They intend to
establish and maintain a long-term employment relationship. Therefore, it is generally
assumed that the psychological contract of permanent workers compared with temporary
workers includes more relational psychological contract entitlements, which in some
cases has been demonstrated (e.g., De Cuyper & De Witte, 2006b; De Cuyper, Rigotti, De
Witte, & Mohr , in press; Millward & Brewerton, 2000; Millward & Hopkins, 1998). In
particular, the psychological contract of permanent workers is likely to include job security
and a focus on advancement in the internal labour market as employees’ entitlements.
Hence, job insecurity may breach the psychological contract of permanent workers, where
this is known to relate to job dissatisfaction, reduced organizational commitment, lower life
satisfaction, and lower job performance (Conway & Briner, 2005; Robinson & Rousseau,
1994; Rousseau, 1995). By way of contrast, transactional psychological contract entitle-
ments focus upon monetary exchange, and they are based upon performance-related
considerations. They typically evolve over a specific, short-term period, which suggests that
they are more likely to be part of the psychological contract of temporary compared with
permanent workers. Psychological contracts in which transactional entitlements are
foremost may not include a long-term engagement from the part of the employer.
Accordingly, job insecurity may not breach these specific psychological contracts, which
is why job insecurity is less likely to relate to unfavourable outcomes among temporary
workers. Research in this area is scarce, and it has seldom investigated the entire
psychological contract reasoning. Still, first evidence reported by De Cuyper and De Witte(2006b) generally agrees with the psychological contract perspective. However, further
research is clearly needed to validate this psychological contract perspective. Therefore, our
second hypothesis is presented below.
Hypothesis 2a. (1) The psychological contract of permanent workers includes more
relational entitlements than the psychological contract of temporary workers. (2)
Psychological contracts in which relational entitlements dominate are breached in the
presence of job insecurity. (3) This breach mediates the relationship between job insecurity
and both proximal (job satisfaction, organizational commitment) and distal (life satisfac-
tion, self-rated performance) outcomes.
68 N. De Cuyper & H. De Witte
8/3/2019 Job In Security in Temporary Versus Permanent Workers
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/job-in-security-in-temporary-versus-permanent-workers 5/21
Hypothesis 2b. (1) The psychological contract of temporary workers includes more
transactional entitlements than the psychological contract of permanent workers. (2)
Psychological contracts in which transactional entitlements dominate are not breached in
the presence of job insecurity. (3) Hence, breach of transactional entitlements does not
mediate the relationship between job insecurity and both proximal (job satisfaction,
organizational commitment) and distal (life satisfaction, self-rated performance) outcomes.
Job insecurity, the heterogeneous nature of temporary workforce, and psychological outcomes.
Alternatively, Bernhard-Oettel et al. (2005) suggest that the interaction effect between
contract type and job insecurity may be conditional upon the specific type of temporary
worker under consideration. This aligns with earlier studies in the realm of temporary work
research which suggest that the heterogeneous nature of temporary workers should be
included in all analyses (e.g., Connelly & Gallagher, 2004, De Cuyper et al., 2005;
Gallagher & McLean Parks, 2001; Virtanen, Liukkonen, Vahtera, Kivimaki, & Koskenvuo,
2003). In particular, the authors (Bernhard-Oettel et al., 2005) establish that job insecurity
relates to mental distress and job-induced tension among permanent and fixed term
contract workers, but not among on-call workers. Following Aronsson, Gustafsson, and
Dallner (2002), they argue that fixed term contract workers compared with on-call workers
are more similar to permanent workers in terms of income level, income security and
tenure-based incentives such as eligibility for fringe benefits, and that this similarity may
explain the results. While a valuable contribution in underlining the heterogeneous nature
of the temporary workforce, a more complete explanation would account for the lack of job
insecurity effects among on call workers.
A promising approach might be to integrate the debate on the heterogeneous nature of
temporary workers into the psychological contract perspective. In particular, temporary
workers may be prone to harmful effects of job insecurity when relational psychological
contract entitlements are added to their otherwise transactional psychological contract. Inthis respect, there may be various factors which possibly affect the psychological contract of
temporary workers. First, organizational tenure may be a critical contract characteristic:
seniority is the governing principle to gain access to privileges and entitlements. Similarly,
Rousseau (1995; Rousseau & Wade-Benzoni, 1995) has argued that contract duration may
be crucial in formulating relational psychological contract entitlements, implying that
relational psychological contract entitlements are likely to be part of the psychological
contract of high-tenure temporary workers. Second, employees assessing their chance on a
permanent contract or on a renewed contract as high, compared to low, may anticipate
relational psychological contract entitlements (Connelly & Gallagher, 2004; Gallagher &
McLean Parks, 2001). Yet another test may involve temporary workers’ preferencesregarding temporary employment, which is often referred to as ‘‘volition’’ (e.g., Krausz,
2000; Krausz et al., 1995; Isaksson & Bellaagh, 2002; Marler, Barringer, & Milkovich,
2002). Temporary workers who would prefer to be permanently employed (‘‘involuntary
temporary workers’’) might aim at a psychological contract with relational entitlements
(Beard & Edwards, 1995), and they may actively seek information on relational job and
career aspects (Freese & Schalk, 1996). In the same way, those who are not forced into
temporary employment (‘‘voluntary temporary workers’’) may seek out transactional
exchanges (Millward & Brewerton, 2000; Van Dyne & Ang, 1998). This is demonstrated
in the study by Chambel and Castanheira (in press): direct hires who are high on volition
establish a more transactional and less relational relationship. Altogether, relationalentitlements are likely in the psychological contract of temporary workers with long
Job insecurity in temporary workers 69
8/3/2019 Job In Security in Temporary Versus Permanent Workers
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/job-in-security-in-temporary-versus-permanent-workers 6/21
contract duration, those with favourable prospects and ‘‘involuntary’’ temporary workers.
For them, job insecurity is likely to breach their psychological contract, which, in turn, may
result in poor psychological consequences. Similarly, transactional psychological contract
entitlements may be foremost for those on short-term contracts, for those having no
prospects on a renewed or permanent contract and for voluntary temporary workers. These
temporary workers may not perceive job insecurity as a threat to their psychological
contract and, hence, job insecurity is less likely to relate to unfavourable psychologicaloutcomes. Another aim of the present study is to check whether job insecurity might be
more negative for some temporary workers as compared to others, aligning with the
psychological contract perspective.
Hypothesis 3. The relationship between job insecurity and both proximal (job satisfaction,
organizational commitment) and distal (life satisfaction, self-rated performance) variables is
more negative for (1) temporary workers with long versus short contract duration, (2) for
temporary workers with favourable versus unfavourable employment prospects, and (3) for
involuntary versus voluntary temporary workers.
Hypothesis 4. Temporary workers (1) with long versus short contract duration, (2) those with
favourable versus unfavourable employment prospects, and (3) involuntary versus voluntary
temporary workers have more relational and fewer transactional entitlements as part of their
psychological contract.
The successive arguments (1) that relational but not transactional psychological contracts
are breached in the presence of job insecurity and (2) that breach of the relational but not
transactional psychological contract may mediate the relationship between job insecurity
and the outcomes were advanced earlier (see hypothesis 2).
Method
Data collection
Data were collected in four Belgian organizations during autumn 2004, totalling 447
respondents. The organizations were recruited in different occupational sectors in order to
maximize the possibilities of generalizing from the findings. Furthermore, they all employed
a sufficient number of temporary (fixed-term contract) workers in order to meet the aim of
our study. All employees of these organizations were invited to fill out confidential
questionnaires, either during working time or at home, as they preferred. One organization
represented an industrial setting (n0249, response 87%), one organization was a public
enterprise (n080; response 58%), and two organizations represented the retail sector(n 1071, response 32.6%; n 2047, response 39.2%).While comparable to those reported
in earlier studies on temporary employment, response rates for the retail sector were
somewhat lower, possibly because these organizations did not have a HR department to
actively support the research and the research goals.
Respondents
About one respondent in three was employed on a fixed-term, temporary contract (n0142,
31.8%). The other respondents were permanently employed (open-ended contract;
n0305, 73.2%). Blue-collar workers dominated the sample (n0327, 73.2%), due to thelarge industrial sample. A total of 87.4% (n0390) of the respondents did not go to college
70 N. De Cuyper & H. De Witte
8/3/2019 Job In Security in Temporary Versus Permanent Workers
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/job-in-security-in-temporary-versus-permanent-workers 7/21
(higher education or university). However, 63.4% (n0297) of all the respondents
completed high school education. Furthermore, more women (n0279, 63.4%) than
men (n0161, 36.6%) participated. The majority was married or cohabiting (n0384,
88.1%). Mean age of the sample was 34 years and mean tenure was 10 years. Respondents
worked on average 32 hours per week.
There were differences between temporary and permanent workers on most background
characteristics. First, 64.7% (n090) of those temporarily employed did not followhigher education, compared to 84.7% of those permanently employed, X2(1, 427)0
21.96, pB.001. Second, there was a higher percentage of females in the temporary
(n0101, 72.7%) compared with the permanent (n0178, 59.1%) sample, X2(1, 440)0
7.50, pB.01. Also, there were relatively more singles in the temporary sample (n025,
18.0%) than in the permanent sample (n027, 9.1%), X2(1, 436)07.13, pB.05.
Furthermore, the temporary sample was on average younger ( M 027 years, 6 months)
than the permanent sample ( M 037 years, 4 months; F (1, 427)0110.28, pB.01), and
organizational tenure was lower for temporary workers ( M 01 year, 9 months) than for
permanent workers ( M 014 years, 2 months; F (1, 442)0258.90, pB.01). Also, tempor-
ary workers spent on average fewer hours working as compared to permanent workers, 28and 34 hours per week respectively, F (1, 438)035.47, pB.01. Finally, no contract-based
differences were found with regard to occupational position, X2(1, 446)01.25, p0.30.
Measures
Unless stated otherwise, all scales reported in this section were found to have single factor
structures (Principal Components Analysis; Varimax Rotation), and responses were made
on a five-point scale (10strongly disagree; 50strongly agree). Information about
correlations between scales for the total sample and for the temporary sample is reported
in Table I.
Control variables. In all analyses, we controlled for tenure (years), weekly working hours
(average hours per week), occupational position (00blue-collar worker; 10white-collar
worker), education (00no higher education; 10higher education), family situation(00single; 10married or cohabiting), and gender (00female; 10male). We furthermore
checked whether results changed under the influence of occupational sector. As they did
not, we did not control for sector. Finally, we did not control for age because of its high
correlation with tenure (r 0.75, pB.001).
Contract type. Permanent (open-ended) employment was coded as 1, temporary (fixed
term) employment as 0. Job insecurity (a0.86) was measured with a 4-item scale developed by De Witte (2000).
The scale included both affective (e.g., ‘‘I feel insecure about the future of my job’’) and
cognitive (e.g., ‘‘I am sure I can keep my job’’) items.
Dependent variables. Job satisfaction (a0.85) was measured with four items developed by
Price (1997). A sample item is ‘‘I am not happy with my job’’ (reverse coded). A higher
score reflected a more positive affect. Organizational commitment (a0.77) was measured
using the five items of Cook and Wall (1980), one of which read as follows: ‘‘I am quite
proud to be able to tell people who it is I work for.’’ Life satisfaction (a0.86) was measured
with six items on a 7-point scale (10very dissatisfied; 70very satisfied). The scale wasdeveloped for the purpose of this study. However, it was tested earlier in a pilot project, in
Job insecurity in temporary workers 71
8/3/2019 Job In Security in Temporary Versus Permanent Workers
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/job-in-security-in-temporary-versus-permanent-workers 8/21
Table I. The correlation matrix: The total sample (upper half) and the temporary sample (lower half).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Tenure 1 na na na na na na
2. Prospects .21** 1 na na na na na
3. Volition .02 .30** 1 na na na na
4. Job insecurity (.26** (.65** (.36** 1 (.17** (.23** (.21** (
5. Job satisfaction (.11 .16 .08 .05 1 .68** .35**
6. Organizational commitment (.03 .18* .22** (.12 .65** 1 .28**
7. Life satisfaction (.12 .15 .04 (.13 .40** .29** 1 8. Self-rated performance .06 .22** (.05 (.24** .30** .29** .25**
9. Relational content .04 .08 .01 (.08 .16 .17 .11 (
10. Transactional content (.28** .04 .01 (.03 .12 .18* .05
11. Fulfilment: relational (.08 .18 .23* (.27** .27** .19* .14
12. Fulfilment: transactional (.28** .09 .07 (.15 .32** .29** .26**
13. Permanent na na na na na na na
* pB.05, ** pB.01.
na0not applicable.
8/3/2019 Job In Security in Temporary Versus Permanent Workers
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/job-in-security-in-temporary-versus-permanent-workers 9/21
which it was found reliable in a seven-country sample (Isaksson et al., 2003). A sample item
was ‘‘How satisfied do you currently feel about your leisure time?’’ Finally, self-rated
performance (a0.80) was measured with six items from Abramis (1994). Employees were
asked to judge the quality of their performance during the last working week (‘‘In your own
judgment, how well did you fulfil the following tasks?’’) on a scale from 1 (very badly) to 5
(very well). Items referred to, for example, achieving one’s objectives or performing without
mistakes.
Psychological contract. Fifteen psychological contract items were developed for the purpose
of this study, based on factor analyses of earlier instruments (Isaksson et al., 2002).
Respondents were asked to indicate whether (yes01) or not (no00) the organization
promised or committed itself to a diverse range of promises. Based on the reduction in
eigenvalues following Principal Components Analyses with Varimax rotation, we decided to
define two factors, together accounting for 50.86% of the total variance. The first factor
included seven items, which reflected relational psychological contract content (a0.88).
The items were the following: ‘‘Has your organization promised or committed itself to (1)provide you with a job that is challenging, (2) provide you with a career, (3) allow you
to participate in decision-making, (4) provide you opportunities to advance and grow, (5)
provide you with interesting work, (6) provide you with a reasonably secure job, and (7)
help you deal with problems you encounter outside work.’’ The second factor reflected
transactional psychological contract content (a0.89) with 6 items: ‘‘Has your organization
promised or committed itself to (1) provide you with a good working atmosphere, (2)
provide possibilities to work together in a pleasant way, (3) provide an environment free
from violence and harassment, (4) provide you with a safe working environment, (5) ensure
fair treatment by managers and supervisors, and (6) provide you with good pay for the work
you are doing.’’ Two items were excluded from the analyses because of their highcrossloadings (‘‘be flexible in matching demands of non-work roles with work,’’ ‘‘improve
your future employment prospects’’).
When respondents perceived that a promise was made, they had to indicate the extent
to which it was kept on a scale from 1 (promise not kept at all) to 5 (promise fully kept).
A mean value was calculated separately for relational (a0.81) and transactional (a0.81)
psychological contract breach. A higher score reflected a higher degree of fulfilment or less
breach.
Heterogeneity of the sample of temporary workers. We assessed this heterogeneity along three
dimensions. Organizational tenure was assessed by the number of years spent with the
current employer. Employment prospects (a0.80) were measured using three items, which
were developed for the purpose of this study. However, the scale was validated earlier in
a pilot project among seven countries (Isaksson et al., 2002). The items were the following:
‘‘I think I will be employed in this organization for longer than has been agreed in my
employment contract,’’ ‘‘I expect that I will have to leave here once my present employment
contract has run out’’ (reverse coded), and ‘‘I think my present employment contract will be
renewed when it expires.’’ Finally, volition (a0.82) was measured using four items which
were suggested by Krausz (personal communication, 2002) and similar to those suggested
by Ellingson et al. (1998). A sample item is ‘‘My current employment contract is the one
that I prefer.’’
Job insecurity in temporary workers 73
8/3/2019 Job In Security in Temporary Versus Permanent Workers
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/job-in-security-in-temporary-versus-permanent-workers 10/21
Analyses
We performed hierarchical regression analyses, in which cases were excluded listwise. First,
to test for possible interactions between contract type and job insecurity (hypothesis 1), we
introduced the control variables in the first step, and contract type and job insecurity in the
second step. In the final step, the interaction term between contract type and job insecurity
was included. These variables were first centred, and then they were multiplied (Aiken &West, 1991). Regressions were done separately for all outcome variables.
Second, we followed a two-step procedure to investigate the psychological contract
perspective for the total sample (hypothesis 2). Specifically, to investigate possible
differences between temporary and permanent workers on psychological contract content,
we introduced the control variables (step 1) and contract type (step 2) in the regression
analyses, separately for transactional and relational psychological contract content.
Furthermore, we investigated whether (transactional and relational) psychological contract
fulfilment mediated the relationship between job insecurity and psychological outcomes.
This was tested by regressing (1) psychological contract fulfilment on job insecurity, (2) the
outcomes on job insecurity, and (3) the outcomes on both job insecurity and psychologicalcontract fulfilment (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Conditional for mediation was that (1) job
insecurity was related to psychological contract fulfilment, (2) psychological contract
fulfilment was related to the outcome variables, (3) so that it reduced the relationship
between job insecurity and the outcomes. When these conditions were fulfilled, the Sobel
test (Sobel, 1982) was used to assess the extent to which psychological contract fulfilment
carried the effect of job insecurity on the outcome variables.
Third, a similar procedure was followed, however excluding permanent workers from
the analyses, to account for the heterogeneity in the sample of temporary workers.
We investigated possible interaction effects between job insecurity and various hetero-
geneity indicators (hypothesis 3). In particular, the control variables (except for tenure)
were introduced in the first step of the regression analyses, the heterogeneity indicators were
introduced in the second step, job insecurity in the third step, and the interaction term in
the final step. In this respect, the procedure recommended by Aiken and West (1991) was
followed: the predictors were centred and multiplied. Finally, we checked whether tenure,
employment prospects, and volition added in explaining variance in relational and
transactional psychological contract content. The control variables (except for tenure)
were introduced in the first step of the regression analyses, and the heterogeneity indicators
were introduced in the second step (hypothesis 4).
Results
Hypothesis 1: Interactions between type of contract and job insecurity (total sample)
Our first hypothesis concerned the interaction between contract type and job insecurity. As
shown in Table II, the interaction term between contract type and job insecurity added in
explaining variance in job satisfaction and organizational commitment. However, it was not
significant for life satisfaction and self-rated performance.A next step was to investigate the direction of the interaction effects. Figures 1 and 2
suggest that the relationship between job insecurity and both job satisfaction and
organizational commitment was more negative for permanent workers than for temporary
workers. Temporary workers who were highly job insecure ( M 04.21) did not differsignificantly on job satisfaction from temporary workers low on job insecurity ( M 04.18),
74 N. De Cuyper & H. De Witte
8/3/2019 Job In Security in Temporary Versus Permanent Workers
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/job-in-security-in-temporary-versus-permanent-workers 11/21
t (140)0-.20, p0.84. However, permanent workers who reported high levels of job
insecurity ( M 03.62) were lower on job satisfaction as compared to their more secure
colleagues ( M 04.01), t (301)04.42, pB.001. Similarly, job insecurity did not relate
to reduced organizational commitment among temporary workers ( M low insecure03.83;
M high insecure03.74; t (140)0.87, p0.38), while it did among permanent workers
( M low insecure03.80; M high insecure03.43; t (301)05.12, pB.001). This pattern of results
suggests that hypothesis 1 was supported when proximal variables (job satisfaction,
organizational commitment) were concerned, however not when distal variables (lifesatisfaction, self-rated performance) were concerned.
Hypothesis 2: The psychological contract perspective (total sample)
Hypothesis 2a concerned relationships between contract type and relational psychological
contract entitlements, and between job insecurity and fulfilment of relational psychological
contract entitlements. Controlling for tenure, weekly working hours, occupational position,
education, family situation, and gender, permanent employment was a significant predictor
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
low job insecurity high job insecurity
j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n
temporary
permanent
Figure 1. The interaction between contract type and job insecurity for job satisfaction.
Table II. Summary of hierarchical regression analyses: Interaction between contract type and job insecurity.1
Job satisfaction Org. commitment Life satisfaction Self-rated performance
Step 1
Tenure .03 .19** (.02 .11
Hours .05 .04 .09 .06
White collar (.10 (.08 .11* .07
Higher education (.09 (.11* .04 (.12*Married .02 .01 .18*** (.05
Male (.13** (.02 (.12* (.03
Step 2
Permanent (.34*** (.33*** (.17* (.12
Job insecurity (.36*** (.38*** (.31*** (.31***
Step 3
Permanent)job insecurity (.19*** (.17** (.07 .10
Adj. R2 Step 1 .06 .02 .04 .01
Adj. R2 Step 2 .16 .12 .10 .07
Adj. R2 Step 3 .19 .14 .10 .07
1Only the last step of the regression analyses is reported.
* pB.05, ** pB.01, *** pB.001.
Job insecurity in temporary workers 75
8/3/2019 Job In Security in Temporary Versus Permanent Workers
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/job-in-security-in-temporary-versus-permanent-workers 12/21
for relational psychological contract entitlements (b0.18, pB.01, R2adj0.11), in line with
predictions: (hypothesis 2a (1)). In a next step, we checked whether the relationship betweenjob insecurity and the psychological outcomes was mediated by fulfilment of relational
psychological contract entitlements. As predicted in hypothesis 2a (2), the results showed
that job insecurity was negatively related to the fulfilment of relational psychological contract
entitlements (b0(.26, pB.001, R2adj0.15). Also, job insecurity was related to reduced
job satisfaction, organizational commitment, life satisfaction, and self-rated performance
(Table III, step 2). The fulfilment of relational psychological contract entitlements was
positively related to all outcomes, except for self-rated performance. Moreover, after
introducing fulfilment of relational psychological contract entitlements, the relationship
between job insecurity and job satisfaction was no longer significant (zsobel0(3.63,
pB.001), while the relationship between job insecurity and both organizational commit-ment (zsobel0(3.08, pB.01) and life satisfaction (zsobel0(2.65, pB.01) was significantly
reduced (Table III, step 3). This suggests that fulfilment of relational psychological contract
entitlements fully mediated the relationship between job insecurity and job satisfaction, and
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
low job insecurity high job insecurity
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o m m i t m e n t
temporary
permanent
Figure 2. The interaction between contract type and job insecurity for organizational commitment.
Table III. Summary of hierarchical regression analyses: Mediation by relational psychological contract fulfilment.1
Job satisfaction Org. commitment Life satisfaction Self-rated performance
Step 1
Tenure (.14** (.10 .02 .06 (.10 (.07 .07 .07
Hours (.02 .02 (.03 (.00 .05 .08 .06 .07
White collar (.12* (.09 (.11 (.00 .09 .11 .06 (.08
Higher education (.06 (.06 (.09 (.09 .03 .03 (.07 (.07
Married (.02 .00 (.02 (.00 .14 .15** (.08 (.08
Male (.21*** (.19*** (.03 (.01 (.16** (.15** (.07 (.07
Step 2
Job insecurity (.18** (.10 (.19** (.12* (.23*** (.19** (.26*** (.25***
Step 3
Relational fulfilment .30*** .25*** .18** .04
Adj. R2 .11 .18 .06 .11 .07 .10 .06 .06
1
Only step 2 and step 3 of the regression analyses are reported.* pB.05, ** pB.01, *** pB.001.
76 N. De Cuyper & H. De Witte
8/3/2019 Job In Security in Temporary Versus Permanent Workers
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/job-in-security-in-temporary-versus-permanent-workers 13/21
it partially mediated the relationship between job insecurity and both organizational
commitment and life satisfaction. This largely supported hypothesis 2a (3).
In hypothesis 2b, we formulated a complementary reasoning for transactional psycho-
logical contract content. Contrary to hypothesis 2b (1), however, permanent employment
was not significantly related to transactional psychological contract entitlements (b0(.03,
p0.68, R2adj0.01). Furthermore, job insecurity was negatively related to the fulfilment
of transactional psychological contract entitlements (b0(.16, pB.01, R2adj0.10),contrary to expectations formulated in hypothesis 2b (2), and to the psychological
outcomes (Table IV, step 2). The fulfilment of the transactional psychological contract
entitlements was associated positively with all outcomes. While it significantly reduced the
relationship between job insecurity and both job satisfaction (zsobel0(2.97, pB.01) and
organizational commitment (zsobel0(2.82, pB.01), this was not the case for life
satisfaction and performance (Table IV, step 3). Altogether, the relationship between job
insecurity and both job satisfaction and organizational commitment is partially mediated by
fulfilment of transactional psychological contract entitlements. This did not align with
hypothesis 2b (3). No mediation by fulfilment of transactional psychological contract
entitlements was found between job insecurity and both life satisfaction and self-ratedperformance, consistent with hypothesis 2b (3).
Hypothesis 3: Interactions between heterogeneity indicators and job insecurity (temporary sample)
We investigated whether there may be interaction effects between job insecurity and various
heterogeneity indicators on the psychological outcomes (Table V). Having favourable
employment prospects was positively related to job satisfaction, life satisfaction and self-
rated performance, and tenure was negatively related to job satisfaction. Furthermore, job
insecurity was not predictive for the proximal outcomes (job satisfaction and organizational
commitment), but it was for the distal outcomes (life satisfaction and self-rated
performance). Only one out of 12 possible interactions was significant. This largely rejected
hypothesis 3. The interaction term between job insecurity and volition added in explaining
organizational commitment. Figure 3 shows the nature of the interaction effect: involuntary
Table IV. Summary of hierarchical regression analyses: Mediation by transactional psychological contract
fulfilment.1
Job satisfaction Org. commitment Life satisfaction Self-rated performance
Step 1
Tenure (.14** (.03 .03 .12* (.10 (.04 .06 .11*
Hours (.01 .02 (.06 (.02 .09 .12* .05 .07
White collar (.12* (.09 (.10 (.08 .10 .11 .06 .07
Higher education (.06 (.04 (.11 (.10 .05 .06 (.11* (.10
Married (.03 (.03 (.03 (.02 .14** .15** (.10* (.10*
Male (.21* (.18*** (.04 (.02 (.16** (.15** (.04 (.03
Step 2
Job insecurity (.19*** (.13* (.22*** (.17** (.24*** (.20*** (.29*** (.26***
Step 3
Transactional fulfilment .39*** .33*** .22*** .17***
Adj. R2 .10 .26 .06 .16 .07 .11 .08 .10
1Only step 2 and step 3 of the regression analyses are reported.
* pB.05, ** pB.01, *** pB.001.
Job insecurity in temporary workers 77
8/3/2019 Job In Security in Temporary Versus Permanent Workers
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/job-in-security-in-temporary-versus-permanent-workers 14/21
Table V. Summary of hierarchical regression analyses: The heterogeneous nature of temporary workers and job
Job satisfaction Org. commitment
Step 1
Hours worked .05 .07 .09 .03 .04 .09 .17
White collar (.05 (.04 (.08 (.08 (.08 (.14 (.02
Higher education (.10 (.10 (.10 (.15 (.15 (.16 .02
Married .05 .05 .04 .04 .03 .01 .13
Male (.26** (.27** (.23* (.17 (.18* (.11 (.06
Step 2
Tenure (.17* (.18* (.24* (.09 (.10 (.19 (.10
Prospects .18* .12 .13 .14 .10 .10 .19*Volition .04 .03 .06 .18 .17 .24* (.00
Step 3
Job insecurity (.09 (.12 (.08 (.13
Step 4
Job insecurity)tenure (.10 (.17
Job insecurity)prospects .02 .05
Job insecurity)volition (.17 (.30**
R 2adj .10 .10 .11 .07 .07 .13 .00
1Only steps 2, 3, and 4 of the regression analyses are reported.
* p B.05, ** pB.01, *** pB.001.
8/3/2019 Job In Security in Temporary Versus Permanent Workers
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/job-in-security-in-temporary-versus-permanent-workers 15/21
temporary workers who moreover felt insecure about their job ( M 03.80) did not report
lower organizational commitment than more secure involuntary workers ( M 03.59),
t (81)0(1.32, p0.32. In contrast, lower organizational commitment was found among
voluntary temporary workers who felt insecure ( M 03.60) compared with those who feltless insecure ( M 03.99), t (57)02.51, pB.05.
Hypothesis 4: The psychological contract perspective among temporary workers
Finally, we investigated whether the heterogeneous nature of the temporary workforce in
terms of tenure, employment prospects, and volition would relate to the psychological
contracts of temporary workers. Controlling for tenure, weekly working hours, occupational
position, education, family status, and gender, we did not find an association between
relational psychological contract entitlements and tenure (b0.09, p0.35), employment
prospects (b0.18, p0.06) or volition (b0.09, p0.35). The total explained variance (Adj
R2) was .18, with most variance explained by the background characteristics (Adj R
20.13).
Similarly, tenure (b0(.16, p0.10), employment prospects (b0.11, p0.23) and volition
(b0.12, p0.25) did not add significantly in explaining transactional psychological contract
content. The heterogeneous nature of the temporary workforce did not explain significantly
more variance (R2adj0.11) than did the control variables (R
2adj0.09). These results did
not support hypothesis 4.
Discussion
The first aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between job insecurity and
both proximal and distal variables in temporary compared with permanent workers. In this
respect, our analysis revealed that the interaction between contract type and job insecurity
added in explaining variance in the proximal outcomes, namely job satisfaction and
organizational commitment, but not in the distal outcomes, namely life satisfaction and
self-rated performance. Specifically, we found that job insecurity was more negative for
permanent workers when proximal variables were concerned, but not when distal variables
were concerned. These findings largely agree with earlier research: while the interaction
effect is consistently found in studies on job satisfaction and organizational commitment,
results for well-being and behaviour have been inconclusive (De Cuyper & De Witte,
2006b; De Witte & Naswall, 2003; Mauno et al., 2005).
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
low job insecurity high job insecurity
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o m m i t m e n t
involuntarytemporary
voluntary
temporary
Figure 3. The interaction between volition and job insecurity for organizational commitment.
Job insecurity in temporary workers 79
8/3/2019 Job In Security in Temporary Versus Permanent Workers
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/job-in-security-in-temporary-versus-permanent-workers 16/21
Second, we aimed to test a potential explanation for the interaction effect between
contract type and job insecurity. We argued that the psychological contract of permanent
workers may include more relational entitlements compared with the psychological contract
of temporary workers, evidence for which was found in the present study as well as in other
studies (Millward & Brewerton, 2000; Millward & Hopkins, 1998). We furthermore
established that job insecurity was perceived as a breach of relational psychological contract
entitlements, which, in turn, reduced job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and life
satisfaction. This may suggest that job insecurity is related to unfavourable outcomes
particularly among those holding psychological contracts in which relational psychological
contract entitlements are foremost, as do permanent workers.
However, results concerning the transactional psychological contract may seem to
invalidate this explanation: job insecurity was related to breach of transactional psycholo-
gical contract entitlements as well. Also, breach of transactional psychological contract
entitlements mediated the relationship between job insecurity and the proximal outcomes
(job satisfaction and organizational commitment). These results call for some explanation
and comment. One explanation may concern the measurement of transactional psycholo-
gical contract entitlements: while some items were clearly transactional in nature (e.g.,
provide you with a safe working environment; provide you with good pay for the work you
do), others could be interpreted as being somewhat relational in nature (e.g., provide you
with a good working atmosphere; provide possibilities to work together in a pleasant way).
Yet another explanation might be that relational psychological contract content is
conditional upon transactional psychological contract content. Indeed, contract type was
not predictive for transactional psychological contract content. This may align with
suggestions by McLean Parks et al. (1998) that variance in psychological contracts is
particular to the degree to which they include relational elements, while there may be little
variance in the number of transactional elements. This may suggest that workers do not
clearly distinguish between transactional and relational psychological contract entitlements
and their fulfilment, and it may explain why job insecurity related to fulfilment of both
transactional and relational psychological contract entitlements. In this respect, job
insecurity may be associated with unfavourable outcomes when both relational and the
transactional psychological contract entitlements are breached. Accordingly, rather than
distinguishing between transactional and relational content, future research may want to
apply an aggregate psychological contract measure. The high correlations between
transactional and relational psychological contract content and their fulfilment in this
study may offer additional support for this suggestion.
To date, there is no satisfactory explanation of why the interaction effect was found forproximal variables but not for distal variables. One explanation might be that temporary
workers may not perceive their employer as responsible for job insecurity, and thus, job
insecurity effects may not show in their attitudes towards the job, the employer or the
organization, but rather in more distal outcomes. In contrast, permanent workers may
blame their employer for feeling insecure, and this may translate into reduced job
satisfaction and organizational commitment, which in turn may have a spillover effect to
life satisfaction and self-rated performance. Alternatively, it might be that temporary
workers want to increase their chances to become permanently employed by showing
favourable attitudes (e.g., Connelly & Gallagher, 2004; Feather & Rauter, 2004; Mauno
et al., 2005). These impression management techniques may be less relevant when lifesatisfaction is concerned, and they may perhaps be too transparent when behaviours which
80 N. De Cuyper & H. De Witte
8/3/2019 Job In Security in Temporary Versus Permanent Workers
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/job-in-security-in-temporary-versus-permanent-workers 17/21
are easily evaluated by the employer are concerned. An important avenue for future
research may be to further explore this speculation about impression management.
Finally, most innovative in this paper was the combination of two perspectives to explain
the interaction effect between contract type (temporary versus permanent) and job
insecurity; namely the psychological contract perspective and the heterogeneous nature
of the temporary workforce. The assumed importance of distinguishing between different
types of workers, in particular fixed term contract workers and on call workers, washighlighted by Bernhard-Oettel and colleagues (2005). However, the authors do not
describe possible dimensions along which fixed term contract workers and on call workers
may differ, even though this may be highly relevant in the context of international research:
definitions of specific contract types are likely to differ across countries, and thus, more
general descriptions may ease comparisons across studies. Therefore, we selected three
heterogeneity indicators that are found relevant in the realm of temporary work research:
tenure, employment prospects, and volition. However, these heterogeneity indicators were
weak and overall non-significant predictors for both relational and transactional psycho-
logical contract content. Furthermore, only one out of 12 possible interaction terms
between heterogeneity indicators and job insecurity added in explaining variance in theoutcomes. Specifically, job insecurity was a relevant predictor of organizational commit-
ment among voluntary temporary workers but not among those for whom temporary work
was involuntary. This interaction effect is somewhat puzzling, as we predicted more
negative consequences of job insecurity among involuntary workers, rather than among
voluntary workers: involuntary workers would prefer a more secure job, and hence, job
insecurity was expected to be particularly harmful for them. However, it may be that
volition mask underlying motives for accepting temporary employment. Possibly, voluntary
temporary workers have accepted temporary employment because they think it will
eventually lead to permanent employment. For example, in the study by Tan and Tan
(2002), this stepping stone motive loaded on the factor that included items that aretraditionally considered as prototypical for voluntary workers, namely motives related to
gaining work experience and new skills, and the possibility to enrich resumes. Altogether,
our results suggested that the heterogeneous nature of temporary workers may perhaps be
somewhat less relevant when investigating the interaction effect between job insecurity and
temporary employment. Still, there may be various other indicators of heterogeneity, and
these definitely warrant further investigation.
Limitations
There were some drawbacks in this study. First, the study was limited with regard to thetype of temporary workers it focused upon, namely fixed-term contract workers. This
reflected the Belgian labour market, in which fixed-term contract workers cover the large
majority of all temporary workers. Possibly, including other types of temporary workers,
such as on call workers, day-to-day workers, or temporary agency workers, may introduce
more variance in the heterogeneity indicators, which, in turn, may affect the results. Other
sample restrictions may concern the relatively large share of blue-collar workers and the
relatively small share of highly educated workers. However, earlier research (De Cuyper &
De Witte, 2006b) on possible interactions between contract type and job insecurity yielded
similar results using a sample dominated by white-collar workers and highly educated
workers. Furthermore, we believe that the varied organizational context in this study mayoffer good possibilities for generalizing findings.
Job insecurity in temporary workers 81
8/3/2019 Job In Security in Temporary Versus Permanent Workers
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/job-in-security-in-temporary-versus-permanent-workers 18/21
Second, interpretation was limited due to the cross-sectional and self-reported nature of
the study. Even though our interpretation was inspired by earlier research on job insecurity
and temporary employment, a longitudinal design may be more convincing. Still, it is quite
difficult to establish due to the high turnover among temporary workers. Furthermore, self
reports may not be too problematic when investigating interaction effects: common method
effects are likely to attenuate rather than to strengthen interaction (Conway & Briner,
2002). Also, contract type as one of the central variables in this study was an objectivecharacteristic of the employment relationship, further decreasing the risk of common
method effects.
Third, we investigated the psychological contract as a crucial construct to explain
differences between temporary and permanent workers. In this study, however, we only
addressed one side of the psychological contract, namely employees’ entitlements. Future
research may want to include employees’ obligations as well. For example, it may want to
investigate how a breach of the psychological contract may affect employees’ perceptions on
their obligations.
Finally, explained variance was low in most regression analyses, particularly when distal
outcomes were concerned. Our study mainly aimed at illustrating the differential impact of job insecurity for temporary and permanent workers. Adding other issues that may affect
employees’ well-being (e.g., job characteristics) is likely to enhance the explained variance.
Concluding remarks
This study has contributed to the literature in explaining the interaction effect between
contract type and job insecurity, as reported in earlier research. However, it has also pointed
out some important questions that may inspire future research. First, we showed that the
interaction effect between contract type and job insecurity may be limited to proximal
outcomes, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In contrast, it may notadd in explaining distal outcomes, such as life satisfaction or self-rated performance.
Further investigation could reveal why the interaction effect is found for some variables but
not for others. Second, we formulated a tentative explanation for the interaction effect in
terms of contract-based differences in psychological contracts. While our results tended to
support this explanation, some important issues need further investigation. Most
importantly, future research may need to check whether or not transactional psychological
contract entitlements are shared by all employees, and whether relational psychological
contract entitlements are added to this core. Third, we took into account the heterogeneous
nature of the temporary workforce in terms of tenure, employment prospects, and
preference for temporary work. We showed that these indicators may not affect temporaries’
responses to job insecurity, nor their perception of the psychological contract. However, we
would like to invite researchers to explore this debate on heterogeneity into more detail, for
example by considering other heterogeneity indicators.
References
Abramis, D. (1994). Relationship of job stressors to job performance: Linear or an inverted-U? Psychological
Reports , 75 , 547 Á 558.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions . Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Aronsson, G., Gustafsson, K., & Dallner, M. (2002). Work environment and health in different types of temporaryjobs. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 11 , 151 Á 175.
82 N. De Cuyper & H. De Witte
8/3/2019 Job In Security in Temporary Versus Permanent Workers
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/job-in-security-in-temporary-versus-permanent-workers 19/21
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 51 ,
1173 Á 1182.
Beard, K. M., & Edwards, J. R. (1995). Employees at risk: Contingent work and the psychological experience
of contingent workers. In C. I. Cooper, & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organisational behavior: Vol. 2
(pp. 109 Á 126). Oxford: John Willey & Sons.
Benach, J., Amable, M., Muntaner, C., & Benavides, F. G. (2002). The consequences of flexible work for health:
Are we looking at the right place? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56 , 405 Á 406.Bernhard-Oettel, C., Sverke, M., & De Witte, H. (2005). Comparing three alternative types of employment with
permanent full-time work: How do employment contract and perceived job conditions relate to health
complaints. Work & Stress , 19 , 301 Á 318.
Chambel, M. J., & Castanheira, F. (in press). They don’t want to be temporaries: Similarities between temps and
core workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior .
Chirumbolo, A., & Hellgren, J. (2003). Individual and organizational consequences of job insecurity: A European
study. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24 , 217 Á 240.
Connelly, C. E., & Gallagher, D. G. (2004). Emerging trends in contingent work research. Journal of Management ,
30 , 959 Á 983.
Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2002). Full-time versus part-time employees: Understanding the links between work
status, the psychological contract, and attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 61 , 279 Á 301.
Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2005). Understanding psychological contracts at work. A critical evaluation of theory and research . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need
fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology , 53 , 39 Á 52.
De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2005). Job insecurity: Mediator or moderator of the relationship between contract
type and well-being. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 31 , 79 Á 86.
De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2006a). Autonomy and workload among temporary workers: Their effects on job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, life satisfaction and self-rated performance. International Journal of
Stress Management , 13 , 441 Á 459.
De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2006b). The impact of job insecurity and contract type on attitudes, well-being
and behavioural reports. A psychological contract perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 79 , 395 Á 409.
De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., & Isaksson, K. (2005). Temporary employment in Europe. Conclusions. In N. De
Cuyper, K. Isaksson, & H. De Witte (Eds.), Employment contracts and well-being among European workers
(p. 225 Á 244). Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing.
De Cuyper, N., Rigotti, T., De Witte, H., & Mohr, G. (in press). Balancing psychological contracts: Validation of a
typology. International Journal of Human Resource Management.
De Witte, H. (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 , 155 Á 177.
De Witte, H. (2000). Arbeidsethos en jobonzekerheid: meting en gevolgen voor welzijn, tevredenheid en inzet op
het werk [Work ethic and job insecurity: measurement and consequences for well-being, satisfaction and
performance]. In R. Bouwen, K. De Witte, H. De Witte, & T. Taillieu (Eds.), Van groep naar gemeenschap. Liber
Amicorum Prof. Dr. Leo Lagrou (pp. 325 Á 350). Leuven: Garant.
De Witte, H. (2005). Job insecurity: Review of the international literature on definitions, prevalence, antecedents
and consequences. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 31 , 1 Á 6.
De Witte, H., & Naswall, K. (2003). Objective versus subjective job insecurity: Consequences of temporary workfor job satisfaction and organizational commitment in four European countries. Economic and Industrial
Democracy, 24 , 149 Á 188.
Ellingson, J. E., Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (1998). Factors related to the satisfaction and performance of
temporary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology , 83 , 913 Á 921.
Feather, N. T., & Rauter, K. A. (2004). Organizational citizenship behaviours in relation to job status, job
insecurity, organizational commitment and identification, job satisfaction and work values. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77 , 81 Á 94.
Freese, C., & Schalk, R. (1996). Implications of differences in psychological contracts for human resource
management. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 5 , 501 Á 509.
Gallagher, D. G., & McLean Parks, J. (2001). I pledge thee my troth . . . contingently. Commitment and the
contingent work relationship. Human Resource Management Review, 11 , 181 Á 208.
Isaksson, K., & Bellaagh, K. (2002). Health problems and quitting among female ‘‘temps’’. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 11 , 27 Á 45.
Job insecurity in temporary workers 83
8/3/2019 Job In Security in Temporary Versus Permanent Workers
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/job-in-security-in-temporary-versus-permanent-workers 20/21
Isaksson, K., Bernhard, C., Claes, R., De Witte, H., Guest, D., Krausz, M., Mohr, G., Peiro, J. M. Schalk, R.,
(2003). Employment contracts and psychological contracts in Europe. Results from a pilot sttudy. Saltsa Report.
1. National Institute for Working Life & Saltsa. Stockholm: Sweden.
Kinnunen, U., & Natti, J. (1994). Job insecurity in Finland: Antecedents and consequences. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology , 4 , 297 Á 321.
Klandermans, B., & Van Vuuren, T. (1999). Job insecurity: Introduction. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 8 , 145 Á 153.
Koslowsky, M. (1998). Modeling the stress-strain relationship in work settings. London/New York: Routledge.Krausz, M. (2000). Effects of short- and long-term preference for temporary work upon psychological outcomes.
International Journal of Manpower , 21 , 635 Á 647.
Krausz, M., Brandwein, T., & Fox, S. (1995). Work attitudes and emotional responses of permanent, voluntary
and involuntary temporary-help employees: An exploratory study. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
44 , 217 Á 232.
Liukkonen, V., Virtanen, P., Kivimaki, M., Pentii, J., & Vahtera, J. (2004). Social capital in working life and the
health of employees. Social Science and Medicine, 59 , 2447 Á 2458.
Marler, J. H., Barringer, M. W., & Milkovich, G. T. (2002). Boundaryless and traditional contingent employees:
worlds apart. Journal of Organizational Behaviour , 23 , 425 Á 453.
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., Makikangas, A., & Natti, J. (2005). Psychological consequences of fixed term
employment and perceived job insecurity among health care staff. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 14 , 209 Á 237.
McDonald, D. J., & Makin, P. J. (2000). The psychological contract, organizational commitment and job
satisfaction of temporary staff. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal , 21 , 84 Á 91.
McLean Parks, J., Kidder, D. L., & Gallagher, D. G. (1998). Fitting square pegs into round holes: Mapping the
domain of contingent work arrangements onto the psychological contract. Journal of Organizational Behavior ,
19 (Special issue), 697 Á 730.
Millward, L. J., & Brewerton, P. M. (2000). Psychological contracts: Employee relations for the twenty-first
century? In C. L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology: Vol. 15 (pp. 1 Á 61).Chichester: John Willey & Sons.
Millward, L. J., & Hopkins, L. (1998). Psychological contracts, organizational and job commitment. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 28 , 1530 Á 1556.
Naswall, K., & De Witte, H. (2003). Who feels insecure in Europe? Predicting job insecurity from background
variables. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24 , 189 Á 215.
OECD. (2002). Employment outlook . Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.Parker, S. K., Griffin, M. A., Sprigg, C. A., & Wall, T. A. (2002). Effect of temporary contracts on perceived work
characteristics and job strain: A longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 55 , 689 Á 717.
Price, J. (1997). Handbook of organizational measurement. International Journal of Manpower , 18 , 301 Á 558.
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm.
Journal of Organizational Behavior , 15 , 245 Á 229.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations. Understanding written and unwritten agreements.
Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Rousseau, D. M., & Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (1995). Chapter 8. Changing individual-organization attachments. A
two way street. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature of work. The Jossey Bass social and behavioral science series
(p. 290 Á 322). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotoc intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.),
Sociological Methodology (pp. 290 Á
312). Washington DC: American Sociological Asssociation.Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Naswall, K. (2002). No security: A meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its
consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 7 , 242 Á 264.
Tan, H., & Tan, C. (2002). Temporary employees in Singapore: What drives them? The Journal of Psychology , 136 ,
83 Á 102.
Van Breukelen, W., & Allegro, J. (2000). Effecten van een nieuwe vorm van flexibilisering van de arbeid. Een
onderzoek in de logistieke sector [The effects of a new kind of labour flexibility. A study in the logistics sector].
Gedrag en Organisatie , 13 , 107 Á 125.
Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (1998). Organizational citizenship behavior of contingent workers in Singapore. Academy
of Management Journal , 41 , 692 Á 703.
Virtanen, P., Liukkonen, V., Vahtera, J., Kivimaki, M., & Koskenvuo, M. (2003). Health inequalities in the
workforce: The labour market core-periphery structure. International Journal of Epidemiology , 32 , 1015 Á 1021.
Virtanen, J., Vahtera, M., Kivimaki, J., Pentii, J. F., & Ferrie, J. (2002). Employment security and health. Journal of
Epidemiological Community Health, 56 , 569 Á 574.
84 N. De Cuyper & H. De Witte
top related