↓ Skip to main content

Occupations at Risk and Organizational Well-Being: An Empirical Test of a Job Insecurity Integrated Model

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Occupations at Risk and Organizational Well-Being: An Empirical Test of a Job Insecurity Integrated Model
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02084
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonio Chirumbolo, Flavio Urbini, Antonino Callea, Alessandro Lo Presti, Alessandra Talamo

Abstract

One of the more visible effects of the societal changes is the increased feelings of uncertainty in the workforce. In fact, job insecurity represents a crucial occupational risk factor and a major job stressor that has negative consequences on both organizational well-being and individual health. Many studies have focused on the consequences about the fear and the perception of losing the job as a whole (called quantitative job insecurity), while more recently research has begun to examine more extensively the worries and the perceptions of losing valued job features (called qualitative job insecurity). The vast majority of the studies, however, have investigated the effects of quantitative and qualitative job insecurity separately. In this paper, we proposed the Job Insecurity Integrated Model aimed to examine the effects of quantitative job insecurity and qualitative job insecurity on their short-term and long-term outcomes. This model was empirically tested in two independent studies, hypothesizing that qualitative job insecurity mediated the effects of quantitative job insecurity on different outcomes, such as work engagement and organizational identification (Study 1), and job satisfaction, commitment, psychological stress and turnover intention (Study 2). Study 1 was conducted on 329 employees in private firms, while Study 2 on 278 employees in both public sector and private firms. Results robustly showed that qualitative job insecurity totally mediated the effects of quantitative on all the considered outcomes. By showing that the effects of quantitative job insecurity on its outcomes passed through qualitative job insecurity, the Job Insecurity Integrated Model contributes to clarifying previous findings in job insecurity research and puts forward a framework that could profitably produce new investigations with important theoretical and practical implications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Researcher 6 6%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 36 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 29%
Business, Management and Accounting 20 19%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Arts and Humanities 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 36 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,367,874
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,261
of 30,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,640
of 438,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#338
of 547 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,248 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 438,534 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 547 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.