Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2017, 58, 69–79 DOI: 10.1111/sjop.

12340

Personality and Social Psychology

Job insecurity and discretionary behaviors: Social exchange perspective
versus group value model
BEATRICE PICCOLI,1 HANS DE WITTE1,2 and WILLIAM D. REISEL3
1
Research Group Work, Organizational and Personnel Psychology, University of Leuven (KUL), Belgium
2
Optentia Research Focus Area, North-West University, South Africa
3
Tobin College of Business, St. John’s University, New York, USA

Piccoli, B., De Witte, H. & Reisel, W. D. (2017). Job insecurity and discretionary behaviors: Social exchange perspective versus group value model.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 58, 69–79.

This study examines the relationship between job insecurity and discretionary behaviors, that is, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) and
counterproductive work behaviors (CWB), with the purpose to extend knowledge on the theoretical explanations for these outcomes. Considering the
employment relationship with the organization, two different perspectives are suggested and compared in a multiple mediator model, in order to understand
the reasons for discretionary behaviors. We draw upon social exchange theory as the basis of psychological contract perceptions and we rely on the group
value model to explain organizational justice evaluations. A total of 570 blue-collar workers in Italy participated in our survey. The results show that job
insecurity is indirectly related to OCB and CWB through psychological contract breach and organizational injustice. Both mediational mechanisms have
equivalent strength in explaining the relationships, namely, they are complementary processes in accounting for both behaviors. These findings suggest that
employees’ behaviors in job insecure contexts are driven not only by concerns related to the exchange of resources with the organization, but also by
evaluations about their value as important members of the group.
Key words: Job insecurity, discretionary behaviors, psychological contract breach, social exchange theory, organizational injustice, group value model.
Beatrice Piccoli, Research Group Work, Organizational and Personnel Psychology, University of Leuven (KUL), Belgium.
E-mail: beatrice.piccoli@kuleuven.be

INTRODUCTION has demonstrated that stressors are a relevant antecedent of

Many employees can be expected to perceive job insecurity
during their careers, namely, uncertainty about possible job loss in
the future. This prospect is likely related to broad economic
instability of labour markets and ultimately with employers that
frequently utilize flexible contracts and alternative forms of
employment. As one of the most common and prominent work
stressors, job insecurity has been related to a number of negative
individual and organizational outcomes, like lower job satisfaction
and reduced organizational commitment (e.g., Cheng & Chan,
2008). In this study we aim to increase the understanding of the
effects of job insecurity on discretionary behaviors, that is,
organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) and counterproductive
work behaviors (CWB). In general, behavioral consequences are
less thoroughly examined in job insecurity research, compared to
the effects on health, well-being and job attitudes (e.g., Wang, Lu
& Siu, 2015). Yet, the relevance of discretionary behaviors
is of practical interest, especially in the current employment
environment of uncertainty and global competition in which
organizations are increasingly dependent on the performance of
their employees. Discretionary behaviors are part of contextual
performance, therefore they are acknowledged as essential in
shaping the organizational, social, and psychological context that
supports or detracts from task performance activities (Dalal,
2005). On the positive side, OCBs are voluntary altruistic and
prosocial acts not necessarily recognized and rewarded but that
nonetheless improve the functioning of the organization. On the
negative side, CWBs are intentional behaviors intended to hurt
the organization or its members (Spector & Fox, 2010). Research
discretionary behaviors and job insecurity is an important work
stressor (Probst, 2008). Therefore, in order to facilitate conditions
that avoid CWB and support OCB, it is important to understand
how and why job insecurity may be associated with employee
discretionary behaviors and to suggest theoretical explanations for
these relationships.
In the present paper, we aim to provide these contributions to
the literature. First, we fill the gap in research on behavioral
responses to job insecurity, because relatively few studies focus
on discretionary behaviors, especially CWB. The findings show
that job insecurity tends to decrease the likelihood of OCB
(Reisel, Probst, Chia, Maloles & K€ onig, 2010) and to increase
CWB (Van den Broeck, Sulea, Vander Elst, Fischmann, Iliescu &
De Witte, 2014). However, research on the processes through
which job insecurity exerts its impact on behaviors is scarce and
mainly focused on just one explanation, neglecting the possible
interplay of manifold mediators in the same relationship (De
Witte, 2016). Therefore, the second aim of this study is to provide
multiple theoretical explanations for the behavioral consequences
associated with job insecurity, taking into consideration the
potential importance of alternative mechanisms. In particular, as
job insecurity is tied to the employment relationship with the
organization, we rely upon two different organizational
perspectives: social exchange theory and the group value model.
Social exchange involves an exchange of resources that generates
an expectation of some return for a contribution (Cropanzano &
Mitchell, 2005). Employees in an uncertain job position are
inclined to evaluate their organizational relationship from this
perspective, because employment is considered a resource and job

© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
70 B. Piccoli et al.
security a reward in return for employees’ investment (Piccoli &
De Witte, 2015). The imbalance in the reciprocity of the
exchange resulting from job insecurity can be operationalized via
the concept of psychological contract breach.
Another perspective explaining the employment relationship is
expressed by the group value model (Tyler, 1989). It argues that
important inferences about the self as a valued member of the
organization are conveyed from employees’ justice judgements.
This model thus emphasizes the relational inferences and
implications of fairness perceptions. Although studies on stress at
work have clearly demonstrated the importance of the relational
processes (e.g., Van Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher & Christ, 2004),
they have not been included in job insecurity research. Employees
worried about the future of their work may perceive to be
excluded from the organization (Van Prooijen, van den Bos &
Wilke, 2004). The group value model maintains the view that this
perception of exclusion is due to evaluations of organizational
injustice.
By comparing these different mechanisms suggested by two
theories in the same research model, we may provide information
about the relative importance of each process in accounting for
behavioral responses to job insecurity. Therefore, our third goal is
to examine if psychological contract breach (related to social
exchange theory) and organizational injustice (associated to the
group value model) complement each other and whether different
processes play a role in explaining different behaviors, OCB and
CWB.
Lastly, with our study we also add to the research on
discretionary behaviors, by increasing the knowledge on its
antecedents and underlying mechanisms. A stressful factor such
as job insecurity and the nature of the employment relationship in
terms of exchange of resources or group membership may be the
reasons explaining voluntary behaviors.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Job insecurity and discretionary behaviors
Job insecurity refers to the perceived threat of job loss and the
worries related to that threat (De Witte, Vander Elst & De
Cuyper, 2015). In this study we assume job insecurity as a one-
dimensional concept with a cognitive component (probability of
job loss) and an affective component (worries related to that
probability). Therefore, we view job insecurity as a subjective
experience generated from the evaluation and interpretation of the
individual’s current job.
There is ample evidence demonstrating that job insecurity has a
negative association with employees’ health and attitudes (e.g.,
Cheng & Chan, 2008; De Witte, Pienaar & De Cuyper, 2016;
Sverke, Hellgren & N€aswall, 2002). However, less is known
about the effects on discretionary behaviors. These forms of extra-
role behaviors consist of volitional acts recognized as contributing
to effective organizational functioning. OCBs are beneficial
behaviors intended to help people or the organization that go
beyond the formal job description (Organ & Paine, 1999).
Conversely, CWBs violate organizational rules and may
potentially cause economic damage or psychological and
emotional harm to members (Bennett & Robinson, 2000).
© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Scand J Psychol 58 (2017)
The targets of both forms of behaviors have been distinguished
as being individual versus organization directed. An interpersonal
dimension (OCB-I; CWB-I) and an organizational dimension
(OCB-O; CWB-O) were labeled for these behaviors (Organ &
Paine, 1999; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Our focus in this
research is with the organizational side of discretionary behaviors,
because the theoretical explanations that we utilize are dominantly
related to organizational processes and specifically to the
relationship between the employee and the organization.
In most studies, OCB and CWB demonstrate correlations in the
opposite direction with antecedents and consequences (e.g., see
the meta-analysis by Dalal, 2005). On this line, some empirical
evidence has shown that job insecurity is associated with fewer
OCB (e.g., Reisel et al., 2010) and more CWB (e.g., Van den
Broeck et al., 2014). As one of the most prominent work
stressors, job insecurity may affect discretionary behaviors
because it leads to a strain reaction. This is because a job insecure
employee must expend emotional or physical resources to cope
with the threatening anticipation of job loss (Vander Elst, De
Cuyper, Baillien, Niesen & De Witte, 2016). A means of coping
with such a stressor may be behavioral withdrawal (reduced
OCB) and/or aggressive responses (increase of CWB). The aim of
our study is to extend the knowledge on the theoretical
explanations of the behaviors resulting from job insecurity, in
order to prevent CWB and to support OCB. By identifying
explanatory processes in the relationship between job insecurity
and discretionary behaviors it is possible to intervene on them in
order to improve these behaviors. In particular, we suggest social
exchange theory and the group value model as two different
perspectives related to the employment relationship with the
organization. Our reference is the employment relationship,
because employees under the threat of job loss are more inclined
to evaluate the quality of their relationship with the organization,
since subjective uncertainty increases the need to have stable
appraisals of themselves (Festinger, 1954; Piccoli & De Witte,
2015). Moreover, discretionary behaviors are indicators of
performance, therefore they are relevant dimensions for the
organization.
Traditionally, exchange theories have emphasized instrumental
considerations (self-interest) as the fundamental mechanism
guiding responses to organizational treatment. In contrast,
proponents of the group value model argue that the treatment by
the organization also sends symbolic messages about whether one
is valued within the group (Restubog, Hornsey, Bordia & Esposo,
2008). Therefore, on the one hand, job insecure employees may
view the exchange of resources as an important aspect of their
relationship with the organization. Specifically, here we point out
the set of reciprocal expectations held by employees about their
obligations and their entitlements that are considered part of the
notion of psychological contract (Rousseau, 1995). On the other
hand, insecure employees may focus upon their relational bonds
with the organization. In particular, we consider the messages of
inclusion that the justice treatment (both procedural and
interactional) conveys to employees, regarding their membership
(Tyler, 1989).
Therefore, our proposal is to study the relationship between job
insecurity and discretionary behaviors in a model including the
parallel mediating effects of psychological contract breach and
Scand J Psychol 58 (2017)
Total effect (path C)
Direct effect (not via mediators: path C’)
Psychological
(A paths) Contract (B paths)
Breach
_ assumption leads to our first hypothesis:
+ +
Job Insecurity
+ _
+ social exchange. Therefore, the effects of psychological contract
Orga. Injustice
(P.Inj. + I.Inj.)
Direct effect (not via mediators: path C’)
Total effect (path C)
Fig. 1. Model proposed with specific paths.
Notes: Orga. Injustice = organizational injustice; P.Inj. = procedural
injustice; I.Inj. = interactional injustice; OCB-O = organizational
citizenship behaviors, organizationally directed; CWB-O = counter-
productive work behaviors, organizationally directed.
organizational injustice. A multiple mediator model with these
two mediators may reveal whether discretionary behaviors of
insecure employees are a function of the concerns over the
exchange of resources and/or whether they are related to the
perceptions to be valued group members. The proposed mediation
model is shown graphically in Fig. 1.
Job insecurity, psychological contract breach and discretionary
behaviors: Social exchange explanation
The outcomes of job insecurity have received considerable
research attention (for meta-analyses, see Cheng & Chan, 2008;
Sverke, Hellgren & N€aswall, 2002). In particular, research
on the psychological contract has provided a framework for
understanding organizational consequences of job insecurity. The
psychological contract is defined as the perceived mutual
obligations between two parties, the employee and the employer
(Robinson, Kraatz & Rousseau, 1994). It refers to a set of beliefs
employees hold regarding the terms and conditions of their
employment relationship with the organization. These beliefs
transcend the written and explicit agreements of the formal
employment contract (Rousseau, 1995). Within the psychological
contract, the idea of balance is fundamental: a perceived
discrepancy between what has been promised and what has been
delivered results in the perception of a breach of the contract. In
this case, employees perceive that the organization has not
adequately fulfilled promised obligations (Robinson & Morison,
2000). Consequently, unmet expectations related to the perceived
reciprocity of the exchange lie at the basis of the breach.
Several studies have linked the experience of job insecurity to
the perception of a breached psychological contract (e.g., De
Cuyper & De Witte, 2006, 2007). In fact, in most Western
societies, labour laws and unions protect employees against
termination, creating a social safety net that produces expectations
© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Job insecurity and discretionary behaviors 71
in the psychological contract in terms of secure employment
(Keim, Landis, Pierce & Earnest, 2014). Consequently, employees
view employment stability as part of their implied agreement with
the organization. Thus, job insecurity can violate workers’
expectations about the security/loyalty exchange and may be
perceived as a breach of the psychological contract. This
OCB-O
Hypothesis 1. Job insecurity is positively related to perceptions
of psychological contract breach.
CWB-O The psychological contract approach is rooted in the idea of
on discretionary behaviors can be explained through the social
exchange perspective. Central to this theory is the assumption that
when one party (the employer) provides the other party (the
employee) with a benefit, the other party feels an obligation to
reciprocate (Blau, 1964). Over time, favorable reciprocation
strengthens the sense of commitment between the parties.
Specifically, employees are expected to make role-specific
contributions in exchange for fair rewards and continuous
employment. These instrumental exchanges related to the “give
and take” between the individual and the organization influence
work behaviors. Consistent with this reasoning but above and
beyond in-role requirements of employees, are voluntary
behaviors that make positive contributions, namely, OCBs. There
are no formal sanctions if employees do not perform these
behaviors. As such, OCBs may be considered indicative of a
favorable employee/employer relationship. By extension,
psychological contract theory suggests that employees are less
likely to perform organization-directed OCB when they perceive a
breach of the psychological contract with their employer.
Research has indeed provided empirical support for this by
demonstrating the positive influence of social exchange
relationships on OCB (e.g., Dalal, 2005; Robinson & Morison,
1995). Specifically, there are two exchange mechanisms that
explain how psychological contract may influence OCB. The first
one is the norm of reciprocity, which suggests that helpful
behavior is repaid in kind (Gouldner, 1960). The second
explanation is that by engaging in positive behaviors, employees
maximize their chances of being rewarded in the future. In the
case of psychological contract breach, employees are released
from their felt duty to reciprocate with positive behaviors. In
particular, they will be most likely to withhold their extra-role
behaviors from the organization, because this implies a low risk,
as OCB is normally not a formal aspect of a performance
evaluation.
Therefore, following the social exchange perspective and
considering the first hypothesis linking job insecurity to
psychological contract breach, we propose:
Hypothesis 2. Psychological contract breach mediates the
relationship between job insecurity and OCB.
In contrast to OCB, CWB is a voluntary behavior that violates
organizational norms. Deviance and aggressive behaviors in the
workplace have been variably conceptualized and labeled. Such
behaviors range from abusive treatment of colleagues to
damaging property and retaliations. Usually, factors related to the
negative relationship with the employer (e.g., psychological
72 B. Piccoli et al.
contract breach) are more likely to influence deviance directed at
harming the organization (i.e., CWB-O). When employees
perceive a breach of the psychological contract, they may adjust
equity in the employment relationship by reducing or eliminating
extra-role behaviors. This may also manifest as the withholding
of actions, potentially leading to less effort on the job, working
more slowly or taking longer breaks than permitted (i.e.,
counterproductive work behaviors). In this case, employees who
perform these behaviors are retaliating against the organization for
the imbalanced exchange relationship. Their aim is to compensate
for an outcome that is perceived as being deserved but not
received (Fox, Spector, Goh, Bruursema & Kessler, 2012).
The social exchange perspective suggests a positive
relationship between psychological contract breach and CWB.
Consequently, in keeping with the first hypothesis, we predict:
Hypothesis 3. Psychological contract breach mediates the
relationship between job insecurity and CWB.
Job insecurity, organizational injustice and discretionary
behaviors: Group value explanation
The workplace is not only a venue for exchanging socio-
economic resources, but it also represents an important
component of the self-concept in terms of social membership.
This assumption is emphasized in studies on stress at work where
the importance of relational processes for explaining the responses
to stress has been well demonstrated (e.g., Van Dick et al., 2004).
Therefore, we suggest integrating into our model a relational
perspective because job insecurity is a focal work stressor and this
approach has not been included in job insecurity research. In
particular, we propose to draw on the group value model
according to which the organizational justice treatment conveys
to employees implicit messages of inclusion about group
membership (Tyler, 1989). This model was originally proposed as
a means of explaining the positive reactions to procedural justice
even when it did not result in more favorable outcomes. In fact,
the previous instrumental models of justice proposed that people
care about fair procedures because these lead to desirable results
(Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Instead, the group value model arose
as a critique of the assumption that the effects of justice can be
entirely explained by resource- and exchange-based concerns of
employees regarding their relationship with the organization. The
alternative relational approach by Tyler (1989) emphasizes the
social bonds among group members and authorities, because
the quality of social relationships has a greater influence on
justice judgments than evaluations of control over the procedures
and the favorability of outcomes (Tyler, Degoey & Smith, 1996).
Specifically, this model argues that the way employees are treated
by their organization indicates identity-relevant information.
Employees infer that they are valued group members when they
receive fair and respectful treatment. In particular, procedural
and interactional justice communicate one’s sense of being
appreciated and considered as an important member of the
organization. According to the group value model, justice
judgments inherently involve considerations of both the structure
of procedures and the quality of treatment, suggesting that both
components of justice need to be combined. As a consequence,
perceived fairness of the procedures and of the interactional
© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Scand J Psychol 58 (2017)
treatment may both affirm an employee’s level of inclusion in the
group (Tyler & Lind, 1992). By contrast, injustice treatment
indicates disrespect and a marginal position of the employee
within the organization (Tyler, 1989). Therefore, people draw
conclusions about themselves as members of the organization
based on their fairness evaluations (Blader & Tyler, 2009).
Consequently, the group value model suggests that employees
are concerned about their social relationship with the authorities
or organization, because they fear being excluded by management
(Van Prooijen et al., 2004). Especially in situations of job
insecurity in which information about the authority’s
trustworthiness is missing, people use data on justice treatment as
a signal when they form impressions about the organization (Lind
& van den Bos, 2002). In fact, there is a strong link between
justice and job insecurity and, according to Lind and van den Bos
(2002), this connection is so fundamental that it occurs despite
any real association between the insecurity experienced and
treatment received. Thus, the evaluations of organizational justice
seem to be influenced by the perceptions of job insecurity because
justice judgements are formed taking into account, in part, the
considerations related to uncertainty of the situation. Employees
who worry about the future of their job fear to be excluded from
the organization. Therefore, they may perceive having a marginal
position within the organization or being a low-status member of
the group. Following the group value explanation, job insecure
employees may perceive a threat to be excluded as a consequence
of injustice evaluations.
Thus, we forward the hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4. Job insecurity is positively related to perceptions
of organizational injustice (procedural and interactional).
The group value model can be used to explain the effects of
organizational justice on discretionary behaviors. In fact, research
suggests that relational judgments of justice are closely related to
people’s willingness to perform voluntary behaviors (Tyler,
DeGoey & Smith, 1996).
Procedural and interactional justice, in particular, are two
organizational variables that are salient for employees (Niehoff &
Moorman, 1993). Through them, organizations attempt to promote
a fair distribution of outcomes. These dimensions of organizational
justice have been found to be more strongly related to employees’
behavioral reactions toward the organization than distributive
justice (Colquitt, Scott, Rodell et al., 2013). According to the
group value explanation, individuals treated fairly by group
authorities feel more respected and more proud of their
organization and, as a result, they are more likely to comply with
organizational rules and to engage in extra-role behaviors (Tyler
et al., 1996). In particular, following this perspective, procedural
and interactional justice affect relational bonds among employees
and the organization. For example, employees with the opportunity
to have input into their own performance evaluations see this
practice as procedurally fair because this indicates that the
organization values their input. Thus, procedural justice provides a
positive social context that motivates employees’ attachment to
their organization and leads to more OCBs (Blader & Tyler, 2009).
By contrast, when procedures are perceived as unfair, employees
may be more inclined to exhibit negative behaviors (i.e., CWB).
Indeed, among the reasons that lead to harmful behaviors, injustice
Scand J Psychol 58 (2017)
is the most common cause (Ambrose, Seabright & Schminke,
2002). A similar effect also involves interactional justice, that is,
the quality of the interpersonal treatment that employees receive by
their supervisor when he or she communicates about the decisions.
Supervisory interactions that are disrespectful to the employee
are considered an indicator of a diminished status within the
organization and can produce strong feelings of frustration and
negative behaviors (Tyler et al., 1996).
In keeping with Hypothesis 4 that relates job insecurity to
organizational injustice, and following the group value model
explanation, we propose:
Hypothesis 5. Organizational injustice (procedural and
interactional) mediates the relationship between job insecurity
and OCB.
Hypothesis 6. Organizational injustice (procedural and
interactional) mediates the relationship between job insecurity
and CWB.
In our multiple mediator model, we included the parallel
mediating effects of psychological contract breach and
organizational injustice in order to verify if they operate jointly to
elicit discretionary behaviors in job insecure contexts. By
conducting a simultaneous test of the two explanations, we can
examine the differential association of both mechanisms with both
types of behaviors (OCB and CWB). Note that with this study we
intend to take a first step in investigating the mediational role of
psychological contract breach and organizational injustice in order
to explain the job insecurity-discretionary behaviors relationship.
We therefore use a cross-sectional design though we acknowledge
that such a design does not permit causal inferences. We ground
the expected relationships on the literature and previous research
related to our constructs. In particular, we followed the dominant
approach in the job insecurity literature that convincingly showed
the negative effects of job insecurity on individual and
organizational outcomes (e.g., De Witte et al., 2016).
METHOD
Sample and procedure
The data for the research was collected from employees working
in the paper industry in the north-eastern section of Italy in 2012.
A questionnaire was completed by 570 blue-collar workers
located in the firm’s five operating plants. This category of
workers has been heavily affected by the economic crisis in Italy.
In particular, we chose to focus on blue-collar workers for
different reasons. First, they are an understudied group compared
to other occupational categories (Tomas & Maslic Sersic, 2015).
Second, blue-collar workers are exposed to higher degrees of
uncertainty because they are often less skilled and less well-paid
(N€aswall & De Witte, 2003). Third, as argued by Sverke and
colleagues (2002), employees in manual labour jobs react more
strongly to the perceived threat of unemployment than do
employees working non-manual jobs because of their more
pronounced economic dependency on paid work.
Specifically, our sample was composed of 76% men and 24%
women. The mean age was 43.6 years (SD = 4.6). With regard to
© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Job insecurity and discretionary behaviors 73
tenure, 43% of the participants had been working in the company
for more than 10 years and 86% had a permanent contract. The
administration of the survey began with the researchers presenting
the idea to the head of the firm. Once agreement was granted,
questionnaires were distributed to employees at meetings held
during working hours. Participation was voluntary. First, members
of the research team provided employees with informed consent
materials that explained the anonymous nature of the data
collection and their rights as research participants. Then, they
were informed that only members of the research team could
view the data. In addition, during the filling out of the
questionnaire, supervisors were not present. The response rate
was 79%.
Measures
Job insecurity was measured using four items from the Job
Insecurity Scale validated by Vander Elst, De Witte and De
Cuyper (2014). Items measured workers’ perception and worries
of whether they would be able to keep their current job. A sample
item is: “I think I will lose my job in the near future”. Participants
were asked to express their own agreement/disagreement with
items on a 1–5 scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to
“strongly agree”. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.81.
Psychological Contract Breach. We used a global measure of
perceived contract breach. This assessed employees’ perceptions
of how well their psychological contracts had been fulfilled by
organizations. The measure contained five items from the scale of
Robinson and Morrison (2000), with responses on a 1–5 scale
ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. A sample
items is: “I have not received everything promised to me in
exchange for my contributions” (a = 0.85).
Organizational justice. It was measured with the scale of Niehoff
and Moorman (1993), on a response scale ranged from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Procedural justice was
measured with 4 items assessing the degree to which job
decisions included mechanisms that ensured the gathering of
accurate and unbiased information, employee voice and an appeal
process (e.g., “All job decisions are applied consistently across all
affected employees”). The Cronbach alpha was 0.87. Interactional
justice was measured with four items evaluating the degree to
which employees felt their needs were considered and were
provided adequate explanations for job decisions (e.g., “When
decisions are made about my job, the supervisor treats me with
respect and dignity”). The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.93.
Organizational citizenship behaviors. We measured two
dimensions of organizationally directed citizenship behaviors,
namely civic virtue and conscientiousness, using the scale of
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990). The items
were rated on a five-point frequency scale ranging from 1 (never)
to 5 (always). Civic virtue includes behaviors indicating a strong
sense of responsibility toward the organization, for example
offering advice and suggestions or trying to solve problems. It
was measured with four items. A sample item is “I attend
meetings that are not mandatory, but important” (a = 0.73).
Conscientiousness refers to behaviors showing that an individual
74 B. Piccoli et al.
pays special attention when carrying out his/her work, for
example sticking scrupulously to protocol or keeping precisely to
working hours. It was measured with four items. A sample item is
“My attendance at work is above the norm” (a = 0.72.).
Counterproductive work behaviors. We measured organiza-
tionally directed counterproductive work behaviors with five items
originating from the scale of deviant behaviors by Bennett and
Robinson (2000). A sample item is “Intentionally I worked slower
than I could have worked”. Respondents were asked to indicate
on a 1–5 scale (never-always) the extent to which they had
engaged in these behaviors in the last year (a = 0.74).
Data analysis
Analyses were done in two stages: (1) testing of the measurement
model and (2) testing the mediated-effects hypotheses. As
psychological contract breach indicates a negative event related to
the employee-organization relationship, we reversed the scores on
organizational justice, thus tapping injustice, transforming it into
an indicator of a negative employment relationship with the
organization.
Using AMOS 17 (Arbuckle, 2008), in the first step of the
analysis we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test
the factorial validity of our measures. In the measurement
model (and consequently also for testing the mediated-effects
hypotheses) we combined procedural and interactional injustice
into a single latent factor (organizational injustice) because these
two dimensions both refer to the same theoretical construct
derived from the group value theory. A similar treatment was
employed with organizational citizenship behavior (OCB-O),
where we combined civic virtue and conscientiousness into a
single variable.
We tested the hypothesised measurement model and compared
it with two alternative models. The hypothesised model was a
five-factor model in which all items loaded on the corresponding
latent variable: job insecurity, psychological contract breach,
organizational injustice, OCB and CWB. The alternative nested
measurement models were: (1) a three-factor model: one factor
for job insecurity, another latent factor representing the two
mediators (psychological contract breach and organizational
injustice) and a third factor for the outcomes (OCB and CWB);
and (2) a one-factor model in which all items loaded on the same
factor. In cross-sectional research, common method variance can
be a problem because the data in a single questionnaire may be
closely correlated (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff,
2003). For this reason, the one factor model was tested as it may
provide an indication whether a single factor accounts for the
covariances among items. In addition, we further evaluated the
risk for common method bias testing a model including an
unmeasured latent factor (model 4). In this model, the items
loaded on the five hypothesized latent factors, as well as on a
latent common method factor (i.e., a six-factor model). In models
1–3, all of the observed variables loaded on only one latent factor
and latent variables were allowed to correlate. The maximum
likelihood method was selected as the estimation procedure.
Following the recommendations of Hu and Bentler (1999), the fit
of the models was evaluated using various indices: (1) the non-
© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Scand J Psychol 58 (2017)
normed fit index (NNFI); (2) the comparative fit index (CFI);
(3) root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA); and
(4) standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). In particular,
for NNFI and CFI values between 0.90 and 0.95 are considered
acceptable. RMSEA and SRMR values indicate a good fit when
they are smaller than or equal to 0.08. Competing models were
also compared based on the chi-square difference test in addition
to the fit indices.
The mediational hypotheses, that is, the second step of the
analysis, were tested using the SPSS-macro of Preacher and
Hayes (2008) for testing specific indirect effects in multiple
mediator models (INDIRECT: http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-
and-mplus-macros-and-code.html#indirect). We use this macro
because it allows us to compare the strengths of two indirect
effects in order to decide which underlying theory should be
given more credence, namely, a contrast test. In fact, contrasts
compare the unique abilities of each mediator to account for the
effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable,
conditional on the inclusion of the other mediator(s) in the model.
Note that the word ‘effect’ may suggest a causal relationship,
though, given the cross-sectional nature of the data, we do not
make inferences about causality. We use this terminology simply
for reasons of clarification (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).
In the model, job insecurity was inserted as the independent
variable, psychological contract breach and organizational
injustice as the mediator variables. Separate analyses were
conducted for the two dependent variables, that is, OCB and
CWB (see the model with the specific paths in Fig. 1).
Bootstrapping was used to construct two-side confidence intervals
so as to evaluate mediation effects. Bootstrapping is one of the
more valid and powerful methods for testing mediating variable
effects (MacKinnon, Lockwood & Williams, 2004) because it
does not impose the assumption of normality of the sampling
distribution. The statistical significance of bootstrap estimated
indirect effects was tested: 95% bootstrap confidence intervals
(5,000 samples) for indirect effects were computed to evaluate
whether they included zero. Specifically, total and specific indirect
effects are significant if zero is not contained in the 95% of
confidence interval (lower-upper).
The proportion of the relationship of job insecurity with OCB
and CWB that was explained by the two mediators, were also
calculated (effect ratios). Moreover, we controlled for some
demographic and work-related characteristics that might covary
with job insecurity (N€aswall & De Witte, 2003): age (years),
gender (0 = female, 1 = male), contract type (0 = temporary,
1 = permanent) and job tenure (0 = less than 10 years, 1 = more
than 10 years).
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
The means, standard deviations and correlations for all scales
(with Cronbach’s alphas) are shown in Table 1. The correlations
were as expected: job insecurity was positively related to
psychological contract breach, procedural and interactional
injustice. Furthermore, job insecurity correlated negatively with
OCB (civic virtue and conscientiousness) and positively with
Scand J Psychol 58 (2017) Job insecurity and discretionary behaviors 75

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) and Correlations among variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Job Insecurity 2.43 0.82 (.81)

2. Procedural Injustice 2.60 0.98 0.38** (0.87)
3. Interactional Injustice 2.79 1.01 0.40** 0.70** (0.93)
4. Counterproductive Work Behaviors (CWB-O) 2.52 0.48 0.23** 0.30** 0.31** (0.74)
5. Civic Virtue (OCB-O) 3.46 0.83 0.11* 0.11* 0.15** 0.19** (0.73)
6. Conscientiousness (OCB-O) 4.01 0.72 0.28** 0.35** 0.40** 0.62** 0.35** (0.72)
7. Psychological Contract Breach (PCB) 2.51 0.89 0.47** 0.43** 0.47** 0.28** 0.09* 0.32** (0.85)

Notes: Cronbach’s alphas are shown in parentheses along the diagonal. (N = 570). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

CWB. Finally, psychological contract breach was negatively
correlated with OCB and positively correlated with CWB; in the
same way, organizational injustice correlated negatively with
OCB and positively with CWB.
Measurement model
The hypothesised measurement model with five latent variables
(job insecurity, psychological contract breach, organizational
injustice, OCB and CWB) provided a good fit to the data:
v2(393) = 745.95; NNFI = 0.92; CFI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.05 with
C.I. = 0.05–0.06; SRMR = 0.06. The loading of the variables on
their corresponding factor was satisfactory (ranging from 0.55
to 0.90). The competing models were: (1) a three-factor
model (v2(400) = 1429.90, p < 0.001); (2) a one-factor model
(v2(403) = 2150.20, p < 0.001); and (3) a measurement model
with a common method factor, that is, a six-factor model with
the unmeasured latent factor (v2(379) = 850.51, p < 0.001). The
hypothesized measurement model fitted the data better than each
of the alternative models (see Table 2). In particular, the results of
the last two models indicate that common method variance is
unlikely to significantly distort the sample’s responses. First, the
one-factor model showed no acceptable fit indices. Second, fit
indices of the measurement model with a common method factor
were worse than the hypothesised measurement model. Third, the
unmeasured latent factor of the last model explained only 8% of
the variance, which is well below the threshold of 25% suggested
by Williams, Cote and Buckley (1989). Consequently, we decided
to use the five scales proposed in the measurement model to test
the hypotheses.
Test of the mediated-effects hypotheses
As suggested by Preacher and Hayes (2008), examining multiple
mediation involves two parts: (1) investigating the total indirect
effect; and (2) testing hypotheses regarding individual mediators,
that is, investigating the specific indirect effects associated with
each mediator. Therefore, as shown in Table 3, we first found that
job insecurity was negatively related to OCB through the two
mediators: the total indirect effect is 0.11 (p < 0.001).
Moreover, job insecurity was positively associated with CWB
through the two mediators: the total indirect effect is 0.09
(p < 0.001). Specifically, the relationship between job insecurity
and psychological contract breach was positive (0.50, p < 0.001),
supporting Hypothesis 1. Job insecurity also had a positive
relationship with organizational injustice (0.48, p < 0.001), in line
with Hypothesis 2 (path A in Fig.1). Furthermore, psychological
contract breach mediated the relationship between job insecurity
and both discretionary behaviors, OCB and CWB: these results
support Hypotheses 3 and 4, considering the specific indirect
effects. In particular, the indirect effect through psychological
contract breach from job insecurity to OCB was 0.04 (bootstrap
CI: 0.09 ~ 0.01), and from job insecurity to CWB 0.04
(bootstrap CI: 0.01 ~ 0.08). In addition, the relationship between
job insecurity and both discretionary behaviors was also mediated
by organizational injustice (significant indirect effects), in line
with Hypotheses 5 and 6. In detail, the indirect effect through
organizational injustice from job insecurity to OCB was 0.07
(bootstrap CI: 0.12 ~ 0.03) and from job insecurity to CWB
0.05 (bootstrap CI: 0.02 ~ 0.09). Specifically, 61% of the
relationship between job insecurity and OCB was explained by
psychological contract breach and organizational injustice: each

Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analyses for all measurement models (N = 570)

Model
Model v2 df p NNFI CFI RMSEA (C.I.) SRMR comparison Dv2 Ddf

1. Five-factor model (hypothesised model) 745.95 393 <0.001 0.92 0.93 0.05 (0.05–0.06) 0.06
2. Three-factor model (JI, PCB + OI, OCB + 1429.90 400 <0.001 0.77 0.78 0.09 (0.09–0.10) 0.09 2 versus 1 682.95*** 7
CWB)
3. One-factor model (all items on the same 2150.20 403 <0.001 0.60 0.63 0.11 (0.11–0.12) 0.11 3 versus 1 1404.25*** 10
factor)
4. Measurement model with common 850.51 379 <0.001 0.87 0.88 0.07 (0.06–0.08) 0.09 4 versus 1 104.56*** 14
method factor

Notes: JI = job insecurity; PCB = psychological contract breach; OI = organizational injustice; OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors;
CWB = counterproductive work behaviors. ***p < 0.001; Dv2 = chi-square difference test.

© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
76 B. Piccoli et al. Scand J Psychol 58 (2017)

Table 3. Results of the analyses for the multiple mediation model using the SPSS-macro of Preacher and Hayes (2008) (N = 570)

Organizational citizenship behaviors Counterproductive work behaviors

Bootstrap 95% Effect Bootstrap Effect

Coefficient SE p CI a ratio b Coefficient SE p 95% CI a ratio b

IV to mediators (A paths)
Psychological Contract Breach 0.50 0.05 < 0.001 0.50 0.05 < 0.001
Organizational Injustice 0.48 0.06 < 0.001 0.48 0.06 < 0.001
Direct effects of mediators to DV (B paths)
Psychological Contract Breach 0.08 0.04 < 0.05 0.07 0.03 < 0.05
Organizational Injustice 0.15 0.03 < 0.001 0.09 0.02 < 0.001
Total effect of IV on DV (C path) 0.18 0.04 < 0.001 0.13 0.03 < 0.001
Direct effect of IV on DV (C’ path) 0.07 0.04 ns 0.04 0.03 ns
Model R2 0.13 0.12
Total indirect effect of IV on DV 0.11 0.02 < 0.001 [ 0.16; 0.06] 0.61 0.09 0.02 < 0.001 [0.05; 0.12] 0.69
through proposed mediators
Psychological Contract Breach 0.04 0.02 < 0.05 [ 0.09; 0.01] 0.22 0.04 0.01 < 0.05 [0.01; 0.08] 0.31
Organizational Injustice 0.07 0.02 < 0.001 [ 0.12; 0.03] 0.39 0.05 0.01 < 0.01 [0.02; 0.09] 0.38
Contrast test
Psychological Contract Breach vs. 0.03 0.03 ns [0.10; 0.04] 0.01 0.02 ns [0.04; 0.06]
Organizational Injustice

Notes: IV = independent variable; DV = dependent variable. Separate analyses are tested for organizational citizenship behaviors and counterproductive
work behaviors. aIf zero is not included in the interval, the effect is significant. bThe portion of the relationship of job insecurity and OCB/CWB that was
explained by mediators.

mediator significantly accounted for the relationship (22% and
39%, respectively). However, the test of the difference between
the specific indirect effects indicates no difference between the
mediators (see the contrast test result in Table 3). Moreover, 69%
of the relationship between job insecurity and CWB was
explained by psychological contract breach and organizational
injustice: also for this dependent variable, each mediator
significantly accounted for the relationship (31% and 38%,
respectively) but neither significantly differed from the other
(contrast test in Table 3). Additionally, we note that direct
relationships between job insecurity and both discretionary
behaviors were not significant when considering the two
mediators (path C’ in Fig. 1), suggesting a full mediation model.
Lastly, no control variable was statistically significant.
DISCUSSION
The aim of the present article was to understand the reasons of
discretionary behaviors (i.e., OCB and CWB) resulting from job
insecurity, extending knowledge on theoretical explanations.
Specifically, we suggested psychological contract breach and
organizational injustice as two different mechanisms stemming
from different theoretical frameworks, that is, social exchange
theory and the group value model, related to the nature of the
employment relationship. Discretionary behaviors are voluntary
reactions and may be viewed as behavioral indicators of the
quality (or lack thereof) of the relationship between the employee
and the organization (Fox et al., 2012).
This study contributes to the job insecurity literature in several
ways. First, it adds to the analysis of the understudied relationship
between job insecurity and discretionary behaviors, and more
specifically to the explanation of the process that underlies that
association. Second, we provide a replication of previous studies
in which mediation by psychological contract breach was
examined (e.g., De Cuyper & De Witte, 2007). Third, the study
adds to existing research by investigating organizational injustice
as a new explanation related to a relational perspective, namely,
the group value model. Furthermore, we offer an empirical test in
which the mediational roles of psychological contract breach and
organizational injustice were tested simultaneously. In this way,
we could draw conclusions on their complementarity.
Considering the nature of the employee-organization
relationship in terms of exchange of resources, we have identified
the construct of psychological contract, that is, the perceived
mutual obligations between the two parties (Rousseau, 1995).
From our results, and confirming previous studies (e.g., Reisel
et al., 2010), job insecurity reduces employees’ felt obligations to
engage in OCBs, due to their perception of psychological contract
breach and therefore of an imbalanced exchange relationship with
the organization. This may also lead employees to perform acts
like CWBs in order to restore the equity in the exchange and to
compensate for an outcome (job security) perceived as being
deserved but not received.
According to a different perspective, job insecure employees
may also consider it important to have a valued status within the
organization. The evaluations about employees as respected
members of the group are conveyed via procedural and
interactional justice (Tyler, 1996). Our findings suggest that
employees perceiving job insecurity may demonstrate less OCB
and more CWB because they do not feel appreciated and
important members of the organization, as a result of
organizational injustice perceptions.
In particular, by integrating the group value perspective we
move beyond the social exchange framework typically invoked in
the job insecurity literature (e.g., De Cuyper & De Witte, 2006;
Wong, Wong, Ngo & Lui, 2005) to examine how relational
processes are important for behavioral outcomes. The introduction
of this social-psychological perspective may suggest a new

© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Scand J Psychol 58 (2017)
avenue for understanding the effects of job insecurity,
contributing to the literature. We did not propose the group value
model as a theory to ‘replace’ the social exchange perspective,
but as a complementary explanation that adds breadth to our
understanding of the job insecurity consequences. We think that
the focus on instrumentality and self-interest that is implicit
within exchange theory may distract attention from symbolic and
relational processes related to job insecurity. Organizational
justice, as proposed in the group value model, may help to
explain these aspects and, consequently, the behavioral outcomes
of job insecurity.
In this study, we also aimed to examine the relative importance
of the two explanations, psychological contract breach and
organizational injustice. Based on our results, the two processes
operate simultaneously with the same strength. There is no
evidence that one mechanism is stronger, for example, for a
specific type of discretionary behavior. These findings may also
contribute to the literature on discretionary behaviors, as they
shed further light on the direct antecedents of OCB and CWB.
In sum, our results indicate that organizational injustice is a
complementary explanation to psychological contract breach and
both may offer a comprehensive framework to understand the
complexity of extra-role behaviors. Note that there might be also a
relationship between both processes. In effect, the receipt by the
employee of what was promised from the employer may also fulfil
the need of being an appreciated member of the organization.
Conversely, unmet expectations in terms of promised obligations
may lead to perceptions of disrespect and exclusion from the
group. This suggestion seems also confirmed by Robinson and
Morrison (2000), who argue that immediately following the
perception of a contract breach, employees engage in a cognitive
sense-making process through which they try to infer meaning
about the event. In general, this happens when people are faced
with unfavorable outcomes because they try to determine the
reason for the negative event. An important component of this
attribution process is the evaluation of how fairly employees were
treated by the organization. In the case in which workers hold the
organization responsible for the breach of the contract, they may
also perceive having been unfairly treated. To infringe the contract
may indicate to employees that they are not valued or respected in
the relationship (Robinson & Morrison, 2000).
Considering the practical implications of our study, the findings
provide some evidence that insecure workers adjust discretionary
behaviors according to their perceptions of exchange in the
psychological contract and evaluations of fair treatment. On the
one hand, this means that organizations need to be careful about
what they promise to employees, especially during periods of
staffing uncertainty. For example, even if promises about the
psychological contract are made in good faith, managers may not
be able to fulfil them at a later point in time if conditions become
unfavorable to maintaining full employment. In order to reduce
perceptions of psychological contract breach and their negative
correlates, organizations may consider increasing the amount of
contact and communication between organizational agents and
employees, as one of the causes of uncertainty is the lack of clear
communication about what will happen in the future. More
information about organizational politics and extensive
communication could help employees to better understand
© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Job insecurity and discretionary behaviors 77
organizational strategies and, therefore, to feel less insecure (Wang
et al., 2015).
On the other hand, our results also suggest that managers
should be particularly attentive to employees’ perceptions of
justice in the face of insecure situations. Organizations need to
involve workers in the decision-making process, and endeavour
to develop activities to increase their sense of favorable group
membership. The greater the threat of job loss, the more
important it is for managers to take actions that increase, maintain
or restore employees’ justice perceptions, by creating an
environment in which workers’ actions make a difference.
Therefore, where it is not possible to eliminate job insecurity,
managers can design organizational interventions to boost
psychological contract and enhance organizational justice. These
would help employees to stay engaged and productive in an
uncertain working environment.
Limitations and future research directions
Our conclusions should be considered in the light of some
limitations. First, the research design employed cross-sectional
data, which limits our ability to make causal inferences. We are
aware that a cross-sectional design is not an ideal to examine
mediation effects. However, this study tried to clarify the
explanatory processes by means of theory and reference to prior
empirical research. Also longitudinal studies on effects of job
insecurity have proved its negative influence on health and
attitudes, confirming that job insecurity is a hindrance stressor that
interferes with personal growth and task accomplishment (De
Witte et al., 2016). That stated, future longitudinal designs that
allow us to track the effects of changes in the reactions to job
insecurity would provide supporting evidence to our findings,
especially because behavioral reactions develop over time.
Second, all of the measures of our constructs relied on
participant self-reports. The fact that we used a single source of
information regarding predictor and criterion variables may
introduce the potential bias of common method variance and this
could affect the findings (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Several
procedural recommendations were adopted in this study in order to
control for method biases: counterbalancing the order of the
measurement of the predictor and criterion variables; avoiding
the use of bipolar numerical scale values and providing labels for
the midpoints of scales; utilizing scales with reverse-coded items
phrased in a positive manner; using internationally validated
measurements and testing a one-factor model versus multi-factor
models with CFA. However, the perceptions of job insecurity,
psychological contract breach and organizational justice are all
highly subjective and a measure by self-reports seems appropriate.
A different concern is related to the self-reported measure for
CWB. Some criticisms have been raised because of social
desirability biases that could influence the results of respondents.
However, evidence has been found to support the validity of self-
reports for these behaviors (e.g., Fox, Spector, Goh & Bruursema,
2007). In particular, Ones, Viswesvaran and Schmidt (1993) argue
that self-reported criteria tend to result in even higher estimates of
validity than external measures of deviance. The explanation
that they provide is that: (1) many deviant behaviors are not
detectable, therefore limiting the validity of external measures; and
78 B. Piccoli et al.
(2) empirical evidence shows that the correlation between reports
and actual behavior is substantial. Also Bennett and Robinson
(2000, p. 357) conclude that “self-report can be a valid way of
assessing the broad variety of deviant behaviors in the workplace,
particularly when respondents are assured anonymity.”
Additionally, also recent research using multisource data (e.g.,
Berry, Carpenter & Barratt, 2012) has shown that there is a
correspondence between self- and other-report CWB measures, as
well as a similar pattern of relationships with other variables.
A similar concern is noteworthy with respect to self-evaluations
of OCB. The risk, in this case, is that respondents may
intentionally inflate self-reports of OCBs so they might receive
favorable impressions from their organization’s managers.
However, OCB measures should reflect employees’ perceptions
about their behavior rather than those, for example, of their
supervisor. Moreover, the same factors influencing self-report
answers can also distort the evaluations of the direct supervisor
(Organ & Paine, 1999). Lastly, as Conway and Lance (2010)
argue, if a relationship is tested between a self-reported variable
and an independently measured variable, the result could be an
attenuated relationship due to unshared method effects and/or
random error, or even an inflated correlation.
A third limitation of this study relates to the characteristics of
our sample: blue-collar workers in the paper industry. A non-
heterogeneous sample obviously limits the generalization of the
results. It could also be that the use of this category of workers
affects the association between job insecurity and behaviors.
Research shows that the impact of job insecurity on well-being is
stronger for blue-collar workers (Tomas & Maslic Sersic, 2015),
so perhaps also the relationship with behaviors could be stronger.
Future studies should test our model in other occupational
categories and also investigate the effects of the context, including
industry and country differences.
Moreover, we tested the role of procedural and interactional
justice because they are related to relational processes in the
group value explanation. It could be interesting to develop a more
specific operationalization of social identification and to test this
construct. For example, measuring concepts like organizational
identification or group belongingness as mediators of the job
insecurity-outcomes relationship, might be fruitful for future
research.
Lastly, feelings of insecurity may also relate to fairness
perceptions about different work outcomes, including pay level,
workload and job responsibilities, namely, distributive justice
(Piccoli & De Witte, 2015). This dimension of justice could be
added as possible mediator in future studies and simultaneously
tested with the other justice dimensions, in order to evaluate the
relative importance of the three explanations. Another avenue for
research could be also to examine if the same mediational
processes are applicable to different performance behaviors, for
example task performance, creativity, innovative behaviors, and
safety performance.
REFERENCES
Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A. & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in
the workplace: The role of organizational injustice. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 947–965.
© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Scand J Psychol 58 (2017)
Arbuckle, J. L. (2008). AMOS 17 User’s Guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS.
Bennett, R. J. & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure
of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–
360.
Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C. & Barratt, C. L. (2012). Do other-reports
of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental
contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97, 613–636.
Blader, S. L. & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group
engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural
justice, economic outcomes, and extra role behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 445–464.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Cheng, G. H.-L. & Chan, D. K.-S. (2008). Who suffers more from job
insecurity? A meta-analytic review. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 57, 272–303.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P.,
Conlon, D. E. & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a
decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based
perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 199–236.
Conway, J. M. & Lance, C. E. (2010). What Reviewers Should Expect
from Authors Regarding Common Method Bias in Organizational
Research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334.
Cropanzano, R. & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An
interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.
Dalal, S. R. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between
organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241–1255.
De Cuyper, N. & De Witte, H. (2006). The impact of job insecurity and
contract type on attitudes, well-being and behavioral reports. A
psychological contract perspective. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 79, 395–409.
De Cuyper, N. & De Witte, H. (2007). Job insecurity in temporary versus
permanent workers: Association with attitudes, well-being, and
behavior. Work & Stress, 21, 65–84.
De Witte, H. (2016). On the scarring effects of job insecurity (and how
they can be explained). Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment
& Health, 42, 99–102.
De Witte, H., Pienaar, J. & De Cuyper, N. (2016). Review of 30 years of
longitudinal studies on the association between job insecurity and
health and well-being. Is there causal evidence? Australian
Psychologist, 51, 18–31.
De Witte, H., Vander Elst, T. & De Cuyper, N. (2015). Job insecurity,
health and well-being. In J. Vuori, R. Blonk & R. H. Price (Eds.),
Sustainable working lives: Managing work transitions and health
throughout the life course (pp. 109–128). New York: Springer.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human
Relations, 7, 117–140.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A. & Bruursema, K. (2007). Does your
coworker know what you’re doing? Convergence of self- and peer-
reports of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of
Stress Management, 14, 41–60.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., Bruursema, K. & Kessler, S. R. (2012).
The deviant citizen: Measuring potential positive relations between
counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
85, 199–220.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary
statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
Hu, L.-T. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Keim, A. C., Landis, R. S., Pierce, C. A. & Earnest, D. V. (2014). Why
do employees worry about their jobs? A meta-analytic review of
predictors of job insecurity. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 19, 269–290.
Lind, E. A. & Van den Bos, K. (2002). When justice works: Toward a
general theory of uncertainty management. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 24, 181–223.
Scand J Psychol 58 (2017)
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M. & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence
limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and
resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128.
N€aswall, K. & De Witte, H. (2003). Who feels insecure in Europe?
Predicting job insecurity from background variables. Economic and
Industrial Democracy, 24, 189–215.
Ngo, H., Loi, R., Foley, S., Zheng, X. & Zhang, L. (2013). Perceptions of
organizational context and job attitudes: The mediating effect of
organizational identification. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30,
149–168.
Niehoff, B. P. & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the
relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational
citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527–556.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C. & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Meta-analysis of
integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel
selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 679–703.
Organ, D. W. & Paine, J. B. (1999). A new kind of performance for
industrial and organizational psychology: Recent contributions to the
study of organizational citizenship behavior. International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14, 337–368.
Piccoli, B. & De Witte, H. (2015). Job insecurity and emotional
exhaustion: Testing psychological contract breach versus distributive
injustice as indicators of lack of reciprocity. Work & Stress, 29, 246–
263.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y. & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of
the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H. & Fetter, R. (1990).
Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust
in leader, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. The
Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.
Preacher, K. J. & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling
strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple
mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
Probst, T. M. (2008). Job insecurity. In J. Barling & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),
The Sage handbook of organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 178–195).
London: Sage.
Reisel, W. D., Probst, T. M., Chia, S. L., Maloles, C. M. & K€ onig, C.
(2010). The effects of job insecurity on job satisfaction, organizational
citizenship behavior, deviant behavior, and negative emotions of
employees. International Studies of Management & Organization, 40,
74–91.
Restubog, S. L. D., Hornsey, M. J., Bordia, P. & Esposo, S. R. (2008).
Effects of psychological contract breach on organizational citizenship
behavior: Insights from the group value model. Journal of
Management Studies, 45, 1377–1400.
Robinson, S. L. & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace
behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management
Journal, 38, 555–572.
Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S. & Rousseau, M. L. (1994). Changing
obligations and the psychological contract: A longitudinal study.
Academy of Management Journal, 37, 137–152.
Robinson, S. L. & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of
psychological contract breach and violation: a longitudinal study.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 525–546.
© 2016 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Job insecurity and discretionary behaviors 79
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contract in organizations:
Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Spector, P. E. & Fox, S. (2010). Counterproductive work behavior and
organizational citizenship behavior: Are they opposite forms of active
behavior? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59, 21–39.
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J. & N€aswall, K. (2002). No security: A meta-
analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 242–64.
Thibaut, J. & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tomas, J. & Maslic Sersic, D. (2015). Job insecurity and health among
industrial shift workers: The role of organizational context. Psychology of
Human Resources Journal/ Psihologia Resurselor Umane, 13, 189–205.
Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the
group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
830–838.
Tyler, T. R., DeGoey, P. & Smith, H. J. (1996). Understanding why the
justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological
dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, 913–930.
Tyler, T. R. & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in
groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). New York: Academic Press.
Van den Broeck, A., Sulea, C., Vander Elst, T., Fischmann, G., Iliescu, D.
& De Witte, H. (2014). The mediating role of psychological needs in
the relation between qualitative job insecurity and counterproductive
work behavior. Career Development International, 19, 526–547.
Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J. & Christ, O. (2004). The utility
of a broader conceptualization of organizational identification: Which
aspects really matter? Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 77, 171–192.
Van Prooijen, J.-W., Van den Bos, K. & Wilke, H. A. M. (2004). Group
belongingness and procedural justice: Social inclusion and exclusion
by peers affects the psychology of voice. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 87, 66–79.
Vander Elst, T., De Cuyper, N., Baillien, E., Niesen, W. & De Witte, H.
(2016). Perceived Control and Psychological Contract Breach as
Explanations of the Relationships Between Job Insecurity, Job Strain
and Coping Reactions: Towards a Theoretical Integration. Stress &
Health, 32, 100–116.
Vander Elst, T., De Witte, H. & De Cuyper, N. (2014). The job insecurity
scale: A psychometric evaluation across five European countries.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23, 364–
380.
Wang, H. J., Lu, C. Q. & Siu, O. L. (2015). Job insecurity and job
performance: The moderating role of organizational justice and the
mediating role of work engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology,
100, 1249–1258.
Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A. & Buckley, M. R. (1989). Lack of method
variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or
artefact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 462–468.
Wong, Y. T., Wong, C. S., Ngo, H. Y. & Lui, H. K. (2005). Different
responses to job insecurity of Chinese workers in joint ventures and
state-owned enterprises. Human Relations, 58, 1391–418.
Received 21 July 2015, accepted 2 October 2016