Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci

Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job

insecurity on performance
Tahira M. Probst a,⇑, Nicholas J. Gailey a, Lixin Jiang b, Sergio López Bohle c
a
Washington State University Vancouver, United States
b
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, United States
c
Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Chile

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Job insecurity is a psychosocial risk that can present significant problems for organizational performance
Received 2 September 2016 and employees’ health and well-being. The purpose of the current research was to investigate the curvi-
Received in revised form 31 January 2017 linear relationship between employee job insecurity and three types of job performance: in-role task per-
Accepted 5 February 2017
formance, organizational citizenship behaviors directed to the organization (OCB-O), and organizational
Available online xxxx
citizenship behaviors directed toward individuals (OCB-I). Additionally, we tested whether a higher order
construct, Psychological Capital, consisting of hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism would moder-
Keywords:
ate the relationships between job insecurity and performance. Using a 3-wave design, anonymous survey
Job insecurity
Performance
data were collected online from a sample of 300 employees via Amazon Mechanical Turk. Time 1 job inse-
Organizational citizenship behaviors curity was curvilinearly related to Time 2 and Time 3 measures of job performance. In addition, these
Psychological capital curvilinear relationships were largely attenuated among employees with higher levels of PsyCap.
These results are discussed in light of rising job insecurity and the need for psychosocial interventions
to attenuate its adverse effects.
Ó 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction Job insecurity (i.e., subjective perceptions that one’s job is

unstable or at risk, and the associated fears and anxiety that often
Organizations today face rapidly changing workforce demo- accompany those perceptions) is a psychosocial risk that can pre-
graphics, increasing globalization, and shifting governmental poli- sent significant problems for organizations and their employees’
cies regarding work and labor relations. These forces, coupled with health and well-being. Meta-analyses of the consequences of job
intermittent financial crises such as the Great Recession of 2007– insecurity (Sverke et al., 2002; Cheng and Chan, 2008) have found
2009 and its ensuing global economic instability, have led organi- that job insecurity is significantly negatively correlated with job
zations to increasingly engage in restructuring, acquisitions, merg- satisfaction (rc =
0.41), job involvement (rc =
0.37), organiza-
ers, and downsizing to remain competitive (Hirsch and De Soucey, tional commitment (rc =
0.41), trust (rc =
0.50), and physical
2006). Kalleberg (2013) argued that together these factors have led (rc =
0.16) and mental health (rc =
0.24), and positively associ-
to fundamental shifts in the nature of work characterized by ated with turnover intentions (rc = 0.28). A more recent meta-
greater income inequality and less secure employment systems analysis (Virtanen et al., 2013) found that experiencing high job
compared to those faced by earlier generations of workers. Not sur- insecurity increased the odds of developing heart disease by 32%
prisingly, surveys suggest that increasingly high levels of job inse- compared to employees with secure position.
curity among today’s workers are the result – notably, worries Despite the clear evidence that job insecurity is a potent stres-
about work and income rank among the top concerns of respon- sor facing many of today’s employees, unfortunately little research
dents (e.g., American Psychological Association surveys of Stress has examined potential developable personality characteristics
in America, 2013, 2015). Another recent U.S. survey of financial that might resist these negative workplace outcomes. Rather, much
well-being (PwC’s Employee Financial Wellness Survey, 2016) research at the individual-level has focused on variables such as
found that being laid off from work was the top concern of 20% coping styles (Probst and Jiang, 2016; Richter et al., 2013) and
of respondents. locus of control (Orpen, 1994; Näswall et al., 2005), or more stable
personality traits, such as emotional intelligence (Cheng et al.,
⇑ Corresponding author. 2012; Jordan et al., 2002). Therefore, in line with this Special Issue
E-mail address: probst@vancouver.wsu.edu (T.M. Probst). focus on ways to develop a healthier psychosocial work environ-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
0925-7535/Ó 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance.
Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
2 T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

ment, the purpose of our study was to test whether Psychological toward the organization itself (OCB-O; e.g., providing advance
Capital (PsyCap), a malleable set of psychological resources, has the notice prior to an absence).
potential to significantly enhance successful coping with job inse- Thus, we expect to replicate and extend Selenko et al.’s work by
curity. Below we begin by discussing the link between job insecu- hypothesizing that job insecurity will have a U-shaped relationship
rity and in-role and extra-role aspects of job performance (the with in-role and extra-role job performance, such that low and
primary dependent variables of interest in this study). We next dis- high levels of job insecurity will be associated with higher levels
cuss in greater detail the construct of PsyCap and develop the the- of performance, whereas moderate levels of job insecurity will be
oretical foundation for its hypothesized buffering effect on the associated with lower levels of performance. Specifically, we pre-
relationship between job insecurity and performance. dict that:

Hypothesis 1. Job insecurity will have a U-shaped relationship

1.1. Job insecurity and performance with self-reported in-role behaviors (H1a), organizational citizen-
ship behaviors directed to the organization (H1b), and organiza-
As noted earlier, research has consistently linked job insecurity tional citizenship behaviors directed toward individuals (H1c).
to a variety of adverse negative work-related attitudes, behaviors,
and employee health (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Sverke et al.,
2002). However, less attention has been paid to the relationship 1.2. Psychological capital: A developable resource for employees
between job insecurity and job performance (Sverke et al., 2010).
While some studies have indicated a negative relationship As noted above, the empirical results found by Selenko et al.
between job insecurity and performance (Cheng and Chan, 2008; (2013) suggest that the relationship between job insecurity and
Gilboa et al., 2008), others have found no relationship or even a performance might be curvilinear. However, an alternative expla-
positive relationship (Probst, 2002; Probst et al., 2007; Sverke nation is that moderator variables could be influencing the associ-
et al., 2002). Researchers have posited that these mixed findings ation of job insecurity with job performance (or, indeed, both
are perhaps due to methodological artifacts, including a lack of curvilinear and interaction effects could be co-occurring). Although
consistency in how performance has been operationalized Selenko and colleagues tested the moderating effects of optimism
(Sverke et al., 2002; Probst et al., 2007). Moreover, whereas effects and supervisor support, they did not find support for either of
of job insecurity on job attitudes and satisfaction tend to occur rel- these moderating effects. Yet, these null results do not rule out
atively quickly, adverse effects on other outcomes such as job per- the effect of other moderating variables.
formance and organizational citizenship may accumulate over the According to Conservation of Resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989),
long-term. Thus, longitudinal data collection is needed to more employees strive to obtain, build and protect a variety of resources.
fully explore these relationships. Moreover, stress occurs when such resources are lost, threatened
Researchers have also suggested that inconsistent performance with loss, or when individuals fail to gain expected resources.
findings might instead be the result of non-linearity in the relation- These resources can take on many different forms, including phys-
ship between job insecurity and performance (Selenko et al., 2013). ical possessions (e.g., a car), energies (e.g., time), conditions (e.g.,
Specifically, Selenko and colleagues argue that job insecurity cre- friends and social support), as well as personal characteristics
ates strain and reduced vigor and motivation among employees. (e.g., personality). Based on COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), one would
Thus, with increasing levels of job insecurity one can expect to expect that individuals who have access to and can draw upon a
see performance decrements. However, they also argue that indi- deeper well of resources would be better cope with the stress
viduals with extremely high levels of job insecurity may be more and uncertainty of job insecurity. Thus, these resources might
resilient and persistent in the face of such insecurity, as evidenced serve as a moderating variable when examining the relationship
by their decision to remain with the organization despite their high between job insecurity and job performance.
levels of job insecurity. As noted earlier, meta-analyses have found In the current study, we examined the influence of PsyCap as
that high levels of insecurity are associated with higher turnover one such resource. PsyCap is a multifaceted construct that consists
intentions (Cheng and Chan, 2008). Thus, individuals who elect of four positive personality strengths: self-efficacy, hope, resili-
to remain with an organization despite their high job insecurity ence, and optimism (Luthans et al., 2010); moreover, the psycho-
may be more adaptive and persistent in the face of this stressor. logical capacity generated by the interaction of these four
In support of this, in a longitudinal study of Finnish university constructs is argued to be synergistically greater than would be
employees, Selenko et al. (2013) found that the relationship predicted by each construct alone (Luthans et al., 2007) and forms
between job insecurity and performance (operationalized as self- a higher order construct known as psychological capital (see
rated task proficiency) was U-shaped in nature. In other words, Luthans et al., 2007, for psychometric evidence of the posited
self-assessments of task proficiency decreased under moderate higher order factor structure).
levels of job insecurity but then increased again under high levels We focused on this construct in particular because researchers
of job insecurity. have argued that it is malleable trait; moreover, research has
In the current study, we sought to extend Selenko et al.’s shown that training interventions can increase employee levels
research by considering multiple forms of job performance, includ- of PsyCap (Luthans et al., 2014, 2006, 2010, 2008). Additionally,
ing in-role and extra-role aspects of job performance. Akin to once developed, PsyCap resources tend to persist over time
Selenko et al.’s (2013) focus on task proficiency, in-role job behav- (Peterson et al., 2011). Compared to other personality constructs
iors include completion of tasks and responsibilities that are for- (e.g., conscientiousness), this balance between stability and poten-
mal requirements of one’s job (Williams and Anderson, 1991). On tial for further development suggests that a focus on PsyCap might
the other hand, extra-role behaviors (Katz, 1964) are discretionary offer more promise as potential mechanism for intervention to bet-
organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) that, while not explic- ter assist individuals with coping with job insecurity.
itly or formally recognized by the reward system of an organiza- PsyCap has important implications for organizations because it
tion, nonetheless contribute to the overall effectiveness of an directly relates to the way in which employees act and think
organization (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2009). Such discre- within their organization. This, in turn, impacts the effectiveness
tionary behaviors can be directed at other individuals within the of employees within their roles and how successful they can con-
company (OCB-I; e.g., helping others with their work tasks) or tribute to their organization. Avey et al. (2008) proposed that Psy-

Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance.
Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
 T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx 3

Cap increases positive emotions which then affects employee atti- among participants who reported low self-efficacy. However, they
tudes and behaviors. For example, employees who possess high also acknowledged that causality could run in the opposite direc-
levels of PsyCap are able to experience more positive emotions tion, such that among low self-efficacy individuals, poor mental
within their organization, even when they are faced with stressful health might be associated with less confidence in obtaining a
situations (e.g. job insecurity). The positive emotions that these job in the future.
employees possess can assist them in navigating stressful circum- Resilience is the positive psychological capacity to ‘‘rebound or
stances with their organization. This is accomplished through pos- bounce back from adversity, conflict, and failure or even positive
itive expectations for achieving their goals (optimism) and events, progress, and increased responsibility” (Luthans, 2002a, p.
successful coping strategies where they experience positive feeling 702). Resilience in the face of economic stress would primarily
of confidence (efficacy). These positive emotions are then used to be expected to operate as a reactive aid to coping, rather than influ-
increase their ability to create multiple pathways to deal with sit- encing the primary appraisal of the stressor itself. However, like
uations (hope) and if workplace adversity arises then they will the other sub-facets of PsyCap, resilience has been demonstrated
have the ability to bounce back and use an alternative path (resili- to be developable (Masten, 2001; Masten et al., 2009) and there-
ence; Avey et al., 2008). fore, would be a potential target for intervention. Resilience may
allow employees to better deal with the threats of job insecurity
1.3. Psychological capital as a moderator of the job insecurity- as resilient employees are likely to be open to new experiences,
performance link flexible in the face of changing demands, and have demonstrated
more emotional stability when faced with adversity (Tugade and
The statistics noted earlier indicate that job insecurity is preva- Fredrickson, 2004).
lent in today’s workplace. Given that individuals with high PsyCap Optimism consists of a generalized expectation of positive out-
tend to form positive appraisals of past, present, and future events, comes (Carver et al., 2009) coupled with an attributional style
we explore the buffering effect of PsyCap on the U-shaped relation- (Seligman, 1998) whereby individuals view adversity as an
ship between job insecurity and in-role and extra-role behaviors. externally-driven, challenging, and temporary setback. Because
Preliminary research on PsyCap appears to provide some support. optimists tend to view obstacles to goal accomplishment as resolv-
For example, the finding that individuals with higher PsyCap able and use differential avoidance coping strategies (Scheier et al.,
reported fewer symptoms of job stress (Avey et al., 2009) supports 1986), optimism may help attenuate the impact of stress. For
the contention that PsyCap partially operates by influencing the example, Scheier et al. (1986) found that optimists are more likely
primary appraisal of potential stressors. PsyCap also appears to to use problem-focused coping, seek social support, and emphasize
predict adaptive behaviors in the face of stress such as increased positive aspects of the stressful situation, whereas pessimists are
preparatory and active job search behaviors following job loss more likely to use avoidance coping strategies such as denial and
(Cheng et al., 2012; Oglensky, 2014). In line with COR theory’s distancing, emphasize one’s stressful feelings, and disengage from
focus on the importance of resources, Millard (2011) proposed that goal attainment. Like the other PsyCap constructs, one can learn
the psychological resources provided by PsyCap might offset so- and develop optimism through training (Seligman, 1998). Evidence
called ‘‘psychological debt” (including job insecurity and job stress) suggests that optimism may operate as a moderator of reactions to
resulting in a certain level of psychological net worth. Because very economic stress. During and following a major organizational
little research to date has been focused on the higher-order con- downsizing, Armstrong-Stassen and Schlosser (2008) conducted a
struct of PsyCap in relation to job insecurity specifically, we con- longitudinal study among managers and found that optimism
sider below the empirical evidence for each of these constructs measured 18 months prior to the downsizing was predictive of
separately. higher managerial cognitions, attitudes, job performance, and
Hope has been defined as ‘‘a positive motivational state that is self-reported coping effectiveness 12 months following the
based on an interactively derived sense of successful (1) agency downsizing.
(goal-directed energy) and (2) pathways (planning to meet goals)” Based on COR theory and the empirical evidence reviewed
(Snyder et al., 1991, p. 287), including both willpower (i.e. determi- above, we propose that psychological capital will serve as a valu-
nation to achieve one’s goals) and ‘‘waypower” (i.e., planned path- able resource allowing employees to more effectively cope with
ways to meet one’s goals). Because those with hope tend to the stressor of job insecurity. Thus, we predict that:
proactively deal with obstacles and engage in contingency plan-
ning, hope promotes goal achievement (Snyder, 2000). Conse- Hypothesis 2. Psychological capital will moderate the quadratic
quently, hope might be an effective aid to coping with the threat relationship between job insecurity and self-reported in-role
and/or experience of losing one’s job in that high-hope employees behaviors (H2a), OCB-Os (H2b), and OCB-Is (H2c).
tend to proactively make contingency plans for the potential job
loss.
Self-efficacy is defined as the belief in one’s ability to success- 2. Method
fully ‘‘organize and execute courses of action required to attain
designated types of performance” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). As with 2.1. Participants and procedure
other PsyCap variables, Bandura (1997) proposes that self-efficacy
can be developed via mastery experiences, vicarious learning/mod- In order to test the proposed hypotheses, an online survey was
eling, social persuasion, and physiological and psychological arou- administered via Qualtrics at three different time-points (baseline,
sal. COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989) posits self-efficacy as an important one-month, and two-months) to workers throughout the U.S. using
personal resource in coping with stress by influencing how people the online service, Amazon Mechanical Turk. A power analysis con-
react when faced with potential resource loss. Specifically, high ducted using G⁄Power (Faul et al., 2009) identified a minimum
self-efficacy may buffer the negative effect of job insecurity on per- sample of 264 to have 80% power (with an a = 0.05) to detect a
formance, since individuals high in self-efficacy may perceive that small effect size of 3% variance explained due to the hypothesized
they have the capacity to successfully cope with the potential chal- three-way interaction between the polynomial term and job inse-
lenges of job loss. Indeed, Lau and Knardahl (2008) found that job curity. Therefore, we collected anonymous T1 survey data from
insecurity (measured as confidence in having a good job in 2 years) 300 participants; of those, 226 participants completed the T2 sur-
predicted one’s mental distress and that this effect was strongest vey and 184 completed all three waves. Ten participants failed 3 of

Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance.
Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
4 T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

3 attention checks embedded within the survey (e.g., ‘‘Select non-missing participants on either independent variable of inter-
‘agree’ if you are reading this question”); therefore, their data were est (JI or PsyCap) measured at Time 1 as determined by a multivari-
discarded from further analysis. ate test, F(2, 284) = 0.194, p = 0.824. Similarly, individuals who
The sample was predominantly male (54%). The average age of were missing at Time 3 were not significantly different on either
respondents was 37.3 years, with a range from 19 to 67. The vast independent variable of interest measured at T1, F(2, 284)
majority (94%) held a permanent position within their organiza- = 0.656, p = 0.520. Additional exploratory chi-square analyses and
tion. Over half (51.1%) had been with their current employer for multivariate F-tests indicated missing vs. non-missing participants
5 or more years (14.3% indicated one year or less). at Time 2 and Time 3 did not differ based on gender, race, perma-
nent/temporary status, managerial status, or years in their posi-
2.2. Measures tion. Finally, missing participants at Time 3 did not differ in their
Time 2 levels of IRBs, OCB-Os or OCB-Is, F(3, 219) = 0.698,
2.2.1. Job insecurity p = 0.554. Taken together, these analyses suggest the missing data
Job insecurity was measured using the 9-item Job Security Sat- were completely at random, in which case listwise deletion will
isfaction scale (Probst, 2003), a measure of affective job insecurity not introduce meaningful bias (Allison, 2009, 2014). Therefore,
(Cronbach’s a = 0.94). Respondents indicated on a 3-point scale we next proceeded to test the assumptions of our regression anal-
(yes, ?, no) the extent to which a series of phrases describes their ysis concerning normality of residuals and homoscedasticity before
affective responses to their perceived level of job security. Sample continuing with the main analyses.
phrases include ‘‘never been more secure” (reverse coded), ‘‘upset- The Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests of normality were all significant
ting how little job security I have,” and ‘‘nerve-wracking.” Using a (K-S statistics ranging from 0.082 to 0.105). Given that non-
scoring system recommended by Hanisch (1992), item responses normality of residuals can arise due to non-linearity, this supports
were scored as follows. Agreement with negatively worded items our decision to explore curvilinear effects. More importantly, based
(i.e., ‘‘nerve-wracking”) was scored 3. Agreement with positively on an inspection of the standardized residual plots, the variance in
worded items (i.e., ‘‘never been more secure”) was scored 0. errors was equal across all values of the independent variables,
Finally, ‘‘?” responses were scored 2, based on prior analyses sug- suggesting support for the assumption of homoscedasticity.
gesting that endorsement of the ‘‘?” anchor is psychometrically Finally, Durbin-Watson statistics ranged from 1.89 to 2.13, indicat-
closer to a negative response than a positive one. Thus, responses ing support for the independence of errors assumption.
were coded such that higher scores on the scale from 0 to 3 indi-
cate greater job insecurity. 3.2. Descriptive statistics

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations

2.2.2. Psychological capital
among the study variables at the three time points. As can be seen,
Psychological capital was measured using the 24-item scale
PsyCap (measured at T1) was consistently positively related to all
developed by Luthans et al. (2007) (Cronbach’s a = 0.95). Each of
of the performance measures at T2 and T3 with correlations rang-
the four lower-order constructs was measured by 6 items that par-
ing from 0.421 to 0.465. Moreover, employees with higher levels of
ticipants responded to using a 6-point Likert scale ranging from
PsyCap reported significantly lower affective job insecurity
1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. Sample items include:
(r =
0.463, p < 0.001). Finally, job insecurity at T1 was signifi-
‘‘There are lots of ways around any problem” (hope); ‘‘I feel confi-
cantly negatively correlated with in-role behaviors at T2 and T3
dent analyzing a long-term problem to find a solution” (efficacy);
(r =
0.164, p = 0.015 and r =
0.148, p = 0.046, respectively) and
‘‘When I have a setback at work, I have trouble recovering from
OCB-Is (r =
0.136, p = 0.045 and r = -0.157, p = 0.035, respec-
it, moving on” (resilience; reverse coded); and, ‘‘I always look on
tively); however, there was no significant relationship with OCB-
the bright side of things regarding my job” (optimism). Responses
Os. Of course, these zero-order correlations do not indicate
were coded such that higher numbers reflect higher levels of Psy-
whether a curvilinear relationship might be present.
Cap and averaged to create a single aggregate PsyCap score.

3.3. Hypothesis tests

2.2.3. Job performance
To assess performance, we used three different measures devel- We tested our hypotheses using hierarchical multiple regres-
oped by Williams and Anderson (1991). In-role behaviors (IRB) sion analysis. In order to facilitate the interpretation of the interac-
were measured using seven items (Cronbach’s a = 0.84) using a tion effects, job insecurity and PsyCap were first standardized. Two
Likert response scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = always. A sample analyses were conducted for each measure of performance, the
item is: ‘‘I met formal performance requirements of my job.” OCB’s first predicting job performance at T2 and another predicting per-
were measured using seven items (a = 0.90) targeting the individ- formance at T3, while using baseline T1 measures for affective job
ual (e.g., ‘‘Helps others who have been absent”) and six items insecurity and psychological capital. This provided a within-study
(a = 0.78) targeting the organization (e.g., ‘‘Attendance at work is opportunity to replicate our hypothesis tests at two different sub-
above the norm”). All OCB items used a response scale ranging sequent points in time, and to evaluate whether any observed
from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree and were coded such effects persist over time.
that higher numbers reflect better performance. In order to control for Type I error, we first conducted a multi-
variate multiple regression analysis with the 6 dependent vari-
3. Results ables. The multivariate test provided preliminary support for our
hypotheses. The main effect of the quadratic job insecurity term
3.1. Missing data analysis and tests of regression assumptions (i.e., JI2) was significant, F(6, 171) = 2.357, p = 0.033, partial
g2 = 0.076, suggesting support for H1. The interaction between
At Time 1, there was very little missing data (.003% for the Psy- PsyCap and the quadratic term was also significant, F(6, 171)
Cap measure and 1% for the job insecurity measure). At Time 2 and = 3.348, p = 0.004, partial g2 = 0.105, providing initial support for
Time 3, due to subject attrition, we had 23% and 37% missing data H2. Therefore, we proceeded with the individual hierarchical mul-
respectively. Encouragingly, analyses indicated that individuals tiple regression analyses (see Tables 2–4). For each dependent vari-
who were missing at Time 2 were not significantly different from able, in step 1, we entered the main effects of job insecurity and

Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance.
Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
 T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx 5

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and scale intercorrelations.

Variable M SD N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Job Insecurity 0.80 0.98 287
2. PsyCap 4.62 0.77 289
0.46**
3. IRB T2 4.53 0.53 223
0.16* 0.45**
4. IRB T3 4.54 0.48 184
0.15* 0.42** 0.65**
5. OCB-I T2 5.44 1.06 223
0.14* 0.42** 0.25** 0.26**
6. OCB-I T3 5.49 1.04 184
0.16* 0.45** 0.24** 0.35** 0.77**
7. OCB-O T2 5.81 0.95 223
0.06 0.43** 0.60** 0.51** 0.31** 0.26**
8. OCB-O T3 5.86 0.90 184
0.11 0.47** 0.57** 0.60** 0.40** 0.41** 0.69**

Note: PsyCap = Psychological Capital; IRB = In-role behavior; OCB-I = Organizational citizenship behavior targeting individuals; OCB-O = Organizational citizenship behavior
targeting the organization.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.

Table 2
Hierarchical multiple regression results for in-role performance.

Variable IRB T2 IRB T3

B SE t B SE t
Step 1
JI 0.007 0.036 0.187 0.012 0.035 0.346
PsyCap 0.253 0.037 6.904** 0.214 0.036 5.949**
DF(2, 217) = 27.476 DR = 0.202
** 2
DF(2, 179) = 20.090 DR = 0.183
** 2

Step 2
JI2 0.158 0.044 3.608** 0.180 0.043 4.177**
JI  PsyCap
0.016 0.032
0.502
0.016 0.030
0.52
DF(2, 215) = 7.188** DR2 = 0.050 DF(2, 177) = 9.547** DR2 = 0.080
Step 3
JI2  PsyCap
0.138 0.046
3.012**
0.125 0.044
2.870**
DF(1, 214) = 9.070** DR2 = 0.030 DF(1, 176) = 8.240** DR2 = 0.033

Notes: JI = Job Insecurity; PsyCap = Psychological Capital; JI2 = the quadratic JI term.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.

Table 3
Hierarchical multiple regression results for OCB-O.

Variable OCB-O T2 OCB-O T3

B SE t B SE t
Step 1
JI 0.125 0.063 1.980* 0.082 0.065 1.270
PsyCap 0.476 0.065 7.327** 0.462 0.066 6.990**
DF(2, 217) = 27.280 DR = 0.201
** 2
DF(2, 179) = 25.759 DR = 0.223
** 2

Step 2
JI2 0.218 0.078 2.787** 0.211 0.082 2.582*
JI  PsyCap
0.101 0.056
1.796y
0.046 0.058
0.800
DF(2, 215) = 6.601** DR2 = 0.046 DF(2, 177) = 4.154* DR2 = 0.035
Step 3
JI2  PsyCap
0.263 0.082
3.229**
0.151 0.084
1.810y
DF(1, 214) = 10.425** DR2 = 0.035 DF(1, 176) = 3.276y DR2 = 0.014

Notes: JI = Job Insecurity; PsyCap = Psychological Capital; JI2 = the quadratic JI term.
y
p < 0.10.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.

PsyCap. Next, in step 2, we entered the polynomial quadratic term p = 0.003), OCB-O (b =
0.263, SE = 0.082, p = 0.001), and a mar-
for job insecurity and the lower order interaction between job inse- ginal effect on OCB-I (b =
0.187, SE = 0.096, p = 0.053). In order
curity and PsyCap. Finally, in step 3, we entered the three way to evaluate the form of the interactions, we used the Excel plotting
interaction (i.e., the interaction between the quadratic job insecu- program developed by Dawson (2014). In all three interactions (see
rity term and PsyCap). Figs. 1–3), the relationship between job insecurity and perfor-
In support of our hypotheses, we observed a quadratic relation- mance demonstrated the expected U-shaped form but only for
ship between affective job insecurity and T2 IRB (b = 0.158, those individuals with low PsyCap. On the other hand, high PsyCap
SE = 0.044, p < 0.001), and OCB-O (b = 0.218, SE = 0.078, p = 0.006), individuals maintained high performance regardless of their job
but not OCB-I (b = 0.103, SE = 0.091, p = 0.258). Furthermore, we insecurity.
found a significant interaction effect between the quadratic job These effects were largely replicated for our T3 measures of per-
insecurity term and PsyCap on T2 IRB (b = -0.138, SE = 0.046, formance. Specifically, we observed a quadratic relationship

Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance.
Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
6 T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Table 4
Hierarchical multiple regression results for OCB-I.

Variable OCB-I T2 OCB-I T3

B SE t B SE t
Step 1
JI 0.036 0.072 0.500 0.029 0.076 0.389
PsyCap 0.483 0.074 6.531** 0.498 0.077 6.443**
DF(2, 217) = 23.756 DR = 0.180
** 2
DF(2, 179) = 23.529 DR = 0.208
** 2

Step 2
JI2 0.103 0.091 1.134 0.059 0.098 0.602
JI  PsyCap
0.096 0.066
1.460
0.033 0.069
0.481
DF(2, 215) = 2.070 DR2 = 0.016 DF(2, 177) = 0.360 DR2 = 0.003
Step 3
JI2  PsyCap
0.187 0.096
1.942y
0.151 0.100
1.501
DF(1, 214) = 3.773y DR2 = 0.014 DF(1, 176) = 2.252 DR2 = 0.010

Notes: JI = Job Insecurity; PsyCap = Psychological Capital; JI2 = the quadratic JI term.
*
p < 0.05.
y
p < 0.06.
**
p < 0.01.

7 7
Low PsyCap
6 High PsyCap 6
In Role Behaviors Time 2

5 5
OCB-I Time 2

4 4

3 3

2 2 Low PsyCap
High PsyCap

1 1
Low Insecurity High Insecurity Low Insecurity High Insecurity

Fig. 1. Moderating effect of psychological capital on the relationship between T1 Fig. 3. Moderating effect of psychological capital on the relationship between T1
job insecurity and T2 in-role behaviors. job insecurity and T2 OCB-I.

7 term and PsyCap on T3 IRB (b =
0.125, SE = 0.044, p = 0.005), a

marginal effect on OCB-O (b =
0.151, SE = 0.084, p = 0.072), and
a non-significant effect on OCB-I (b =
0.151, SE = 0.100,
6 p = 0.135). Despite the fewer significant effects with the T3 mea-
sures, this seems to be due to a loss of sample size from T2 to T3
5 rather than a diminishing effect, since the direction and size of
OCB-O Time 2

the regression coefficients was very similar across the two time-
points (Figs. 4 and 5).
4

3 4. Discussion

Low PsyCap The purpose of this study was to replicate and extend the earlier
2
findings by Selenko et al. (2013) by investigating the U-shaped
High PsyCap
relationship with additional measures of extra-role performance
1 (i.e. OCB-O and OCB-I) as well as testing the moderating effect of
Low Insecurity High Insecurity PsyCap. As expected and comporting with Selenko et al.’s (2013)
findings, there was a U-shaped relationship between job insecurity
Fig. 2. Moderating effect of psychological capital on the relationship between T1
and in-role performance. This same relationship was also found for
job insecurity and T2 OCB-O.
the measures of extra-role performance. Thus, employees with
moderate levels of job insecurity reported lower levels of in-role
and extra-role performance compared to employees with very
between affective job insecurity and T3 IRB (b = 0.180, SE = 0.043, low levels of insecurity or extremely high levels of insecurity.
p < 0.001) and OCB-O (b = 0.211, SE = 0.082, p = 0.011), but not Interestingly, employees with high PsyCap performed at high
OCB-I (b = 0.059, SE = 0.098, p = 0.548). Furthermore, we found a levels regardless of their perceived level of job insecurity. Below
significant interaction effect between the quadratic job insecurity we discuss these findings in greater detail.

Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance.
Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
 T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx 7

7 ers who perceive that their employment is at risk may not feel a
high level of obligation toward the organization, compared to
employees who perceive their job to be secure, and thus, may exhi-
6 bit a lower level of performance.
In Role Behaviors Time 3

Social exchange theory would explain the left-hand section of

5 the U-shaped plots (i.e., negative relationship) between job insecu-
rity and our measures of performance. Yet, our data also indicate
that at very high levels of insecurity, OCBs and in-role task perfor-
4 mance begin to increase (i.e., the right-hand section showing a
slightly positive relationship between job insecurity and perfor-
3 mance). This comports with Selenko et al.’s (2013) argument that
employees with very high levels of job insecurity who have
decided to remain with their organization may in fact be less sus-
2 Low PsyCap ceptible to the otherwise observed negative effects of job
High PsyCap insecurity.
1
4.2. Psychological capital as a valuable psychosocial resource
Low Insecurity High Insecurity

Fig. 4. Moderating effect of psychological capital on the relationship between T1 As noted earlier, fundamental changes in the psychosocial work
job insecurity and T3 in-role behaviors. environment are occurring due to systemic factors such as eco-
nomic crisis, market recessions, privatization and technological
innovation (Cascio, 1993; Coile and Levine, 2011; Datta et al.,
7 2010; Gandolfi, 2010). In order to achieve greater efficiency, pro-
ductivity and competitiveness, organizations increasingly utilize
6 strategies such as mergers and workforce reductions, which have
generated a pervasive sense of job insecurity among workers today
(Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt, 1984). Thus, it is imperative for schol-
5
OCB-O Time 3

ars and organizations to identify mechanisms of countering the

frequently seen adverse effects of such job insecurity.
4 As a result, perhaps the larger contribution of the current study
is the support found for the hypothesized moderating effect of Psy-
Cap on the curvilinear longitudinal relationships between job inse-
3 curity and the three measures of job performance. Specifically, our
results suggest that the aforementioned U-shaped relationship
2 Low PsyCap might only be found for individuals with low levels of PsyCap,
whereas high PsyCap employees appear to maintain positive per-
High PsyCap
formance levels with respect to in-role and extra-role behaviors
1 regardless of their perceived job insecurity. Notably, these results
Low Insecurity High Insecurity were largely replicated at one month and two months after the ini-
tial measurement of job insecurity. These findings significantly
Fig. 5. Moderating effect of psychological capital on the relationship between T1
job insecurity and T3 OCB-O. contribute to the extant organizational literature by demonstrating
that enhancing employee levels of positive psychological resources
may be used as a mechanism to buffer the negative consequences
4.1. Explaining the curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance of job insecurity.
Not only do individuals with higher levels of PsyCap appear to
While in-role job performance reflects proficiency with the fare better in the face of job insecurity, prior research has found
required elements of one’s job (and is clearly related to overall that PsyCap is a developable resource (Luthans et al., 2006,
organizational performance), extra-role behaviors such as OCBs 2008). Thus, even employees who may not initially have high
directed toward individuals or the organization itself are also levels of PsyCap can be trained to develop these capacities. For
important valued behaviors. Although such discretionary acts example, Luthans et al. (2006) found that a trainer-facilitated
may not be directly recognized by the reward system, meta- face-to-face PsyCap intervention significantly increased participant
analyses indicate that employee engagement in OCBs is associated levels of PsyCap. Similarly effective results were found with a short
with improved organizational performance (Podsakoff et al., 2009). trainer-facilitated intervention conducted online (Luthans et al.,
Thus, it is important to understand psychosocial factors operating 2008). Although trainer-facilitated interventions can be costly,
within organizations that can adversely affect employee perfor- logistically difficult, and require an expert trainer, Gailey (2016)
mance, both in terms of in-role and extra-role behaviors. recently found that even a self-guided online PsyCap intervention
According to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, resulted in significant improvements in PsyCap one-week post-
1960), the norm of reciprocity stimulates a feeling of obligation training compared to a control group of participants who were
toward others. Organizations that treat their employees in a posi- exposed to a decision making intervention.
tive fashion may in turn see their employees respond in the same
positive manner toward the institution (Coyle-Shapiro, 2002; 4.3. Limitations and future directions
Turnley et al., 2003). By contrast, employees may decrease their
level of performance when the organization violates this exchange While our current findings suggest that PsyCap is a moderator
relationship (De Cuyper and De Witte, 2006; Robinson and of the relationship between job insecurity and performance, future
Morrison, 1995). Social exchange theory might then predict a neg- research should implement an intervention (such as the ones
ative relationship between job insecurity and performance. Work- described above) to determine whether such training might assist

Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance.
Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
8 T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

employees and their organizations with coping with the increas- Cheng, T., Huang, G.H., Lee, C., Ren, X., 2012. Longitudinal effects of job insecurity on
employee outcomes: The moderating role of emotional intelligence and the
ingly pervasive workplace stressor of job insecurity while main-
leader-member exchange. Asia Pacific J. Manage. 29 (3), 709–728.
taining high levels of workplace performance. Coile, C.C., Levine, P.B., 2011. The market crash and mass layoffs: How the current
Future research should also be conducted to test the boundary economic crisis may affect retirement. BE J. Econ. Anal. Policy 11 (1).
conditions of the current results. For example, although the current Coyle-Shapiro, J.A., 2002. A psychological contract perspective on organizational
citizenship behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 23 (8), 927–946.
study indicates a curvilinear relationship between job insecurity Datta, D.K., Guthrie, J.P., Basuil, D., Pandey, A., 2010. Causes and effects of employee
and in-role and extra-role measures of performance, it would be downsizing: A review and synthesis. J. Manage. 36, 281–348.
useful to generalize this to other important measures of perfor- Dawson, J.F., 2014. Moderation in management research: What, why, when and
how. J. Bus. Psychol. 29, 1–19.
mance, namely workplace safety behavior and subsequent injuries De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., 2006. The impact of job insecurity and contract type on
and accidents. attitudes, well-being and behavioral reports: A psychological contract
While a strength of the current study was its utilization of lon- perspective. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 79 (3), 395–409.
Duckworth, A.L., Quinn, P.D., 2009. Development and validation of the Short Grit
gitudinal data to explore our primary hypotheses, all of our mea- Scale (Grit-S). J. Pers. Assess. 91, 166–174.
sures of performance were nonetheless self-report in nature. Emmons, R.A., McCullough, M.E., 2003. Counting blessings versus burdens: An
Thus, it would be helpful to complement the current findings with experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. J.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84, 377–389.
objective measures of performance that could be obtained from Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., Lang, A.-G., 2009. Statistical power analyses using
supervisors or archival organizational records (e.g., injury data). G⁄Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav. Res. Methods
Finally, although our results suggest the promise of PsyCap as a 41, 1149–1160.
Gailey, N.J., 2016. Creation and Validation of a Self-Guided Positive Psychological
valuable employee resource, future research should consider other
Capital Intervention Training Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Washington State
developable positive psychological resources that might also atten- University, Pullman, WA.
uate the negative effects of job insecurity. These might include Gandolfi, F., 2010. New developments in reduction-in-force. J. Manage. Res. 10 (1),
constructs such as grit (Duckworth and Quinn, 2009), gratitude 3–14.
Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., Cooper, C., 2008. A meta-analysis of work demand
(Emmons and McCullough, 2003), or hardiness (Parkes, 1994; stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects. Pers.
Parkes and Rendell, 1988). Psychol. 61 (2), 227–271.
Gouldner, A.W., 1960. The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am. Sociol.
Rev. 25 (2), 161–178.
Greenhalgh, L., Rosenblatt, Z., 1984. Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Acad.
5. Conclusion Manage. Rev. 9 (3), 438–448.
Hanisch, K.A., 1992. The job descriptive index revisited: questions about the
Job insecurity is a pervasive psychosocial stressor in today’s question mark. J. Appl. Psychol. 77 (3), 377–382.
Hirsch, P.M., De Soucey, M., 2006. Organizational restructuring and its
workplace with documented negative effects on employee health
consequences: Rhetorical and structural. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 32, 171–189.
and well-being. This study demonstrated that there are curvilinear Hobfoll, S.E., 1989. Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing
longitudinal relationships between job insecurity and three mea- stress. Am. Psychol. 44 (3), 513.
Jordan, P.J., Ashkanasy, N.M., Hartel, C.E.J., 2002. Emotional intelligence as a
sures of job performance: in-role task performance, organizational
moderator of emotional and behavioral reactions to job insecurity. Acad.
citizenship behaviors directed toward others in the workplace, and Manage. Rev. 27, 61–372.
OCBs directed to the organization itself. Moreover, our findings Kalleberg, A.L., 2013. Good Jobs, Bad Jobs: The Rise of Polarized and Precarious
indicate that a set of developable psychological resources, known Employment Systems in the United States, 1970s to 2000s. Russell Sage
Foundation, New York, NY.
as PsyCap, can attenuate those curvilinear effects such that high Katz, D., 1964. The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behav. Sci. 9, 131–
levels of performance are observed regardless of employee percep- 133.
tions of job insecurity. Lau, B., Knardahl, S., 2008. Perceived job insecurity, job predictability, personality,
and health. J. Occup. Environ. Med./Am. Coll. Occup. Environ. Med. 50 (2), 172–
181.
Luthans, F., 2002. The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. J.
Acknowledgements Organ. Behav. 23, 695–706.
Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Avolio, B.J., Norman, S.M., Combs, G.M., 2006. Psychological
This research was partially funded by an Edward R. Meyer capital development: Toward a micro intervention. J. Organ. Behav. 27, 387–
393.
Distinguished Professorship awarded to the first author by Wash- Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Avey, J.B., Norman, S.M., 2007. Positive psychological capital:
ington State University. Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Pers.
Psychol. 60, 541–572.
Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Patera, J.L., 2008. Experimental analysis of a web-based
References training intervention to develop positive psychological capital. Acad. Manage.
Learn. Educ. 7 (2), 209–221.
Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Avolio, B.J., Peterson, S.J., 2010. The development and
Allison, P., 2009. Missing data. In: Milsap, R.E., Maydeu-Olivares, A. (Eds.), The Sage
resulting performance impact of positive psychological capital. Human Resour.
Handbook of Quantitative Methods on Psychology. Sage Publications, London,
Dev. Quart. 21 (1), 41–67.
UK, pp. 73–90.
Luthans, B.C., Luthans, K.W., Avey, J.B., 2014. Building the leaders of tomorrow: the
Allison, P., 2014, June 13. Listwise deletion: It’s NOT evil. Retrieved from: <http://
development of academic psychological capital. J. Leadership Organ. Stud. 21
statisticalhorizons.com/listwise-deletion-its-not-evil>.
(2), 191–199.
Armstrong-Stassen, M., Schlosser, F., 2008. Taking a positive approach to
Masten, A.S., 2001. Ordinary magic: resilience processes in development. Am.
organizational downsizing. Can. J. Admin. Sci. 25, 93–106.
Psychol. 56, 227–239.
Avey, J.B., Wernsing, T.S., Luthans, F., 2008. Can positive employees help positive
Masten, A.S., Cutuli, J.J., Herbers, J.E., Reed, M.-G.J., 2009. Resilience in development.
organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on
In: Snyder, C.R., Lopez, S.J. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology.
relevant attitudes and behaviors. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 44 (1), 48–70.
second ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Avey, J.B., Luthans, F., Jensen, S.M., 2009. Psychological capital: a positive resource
Millard, M.L., 2011. Psychological net worth: finding the balance between
for combating employee stress and turnover. Human Resour. Manage. 48 (5),
psychological capital and psychological debt. Theses, Dissertations, & Student
677–693.
Scholarship: Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication Department.
Bandura, A., 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: a Social Cognitive
Paper 29. Retrieved from: <http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecdiss/29>.
Theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Näswall, K., Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., 2005. The moderating role of personality
Bandura, A., 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W.H. Freeman, New York.
characteristics on the relationship between job insecurity and strain. Work
Blau, P., 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. Wiley, New York, NY.
Stress 19 (1), 37–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678370500057850.
Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., Miller, C.J., Fulford, D., 2009. Optimism. In: Lopez, S.J.,
Oglensky, M.I., 2014. A quantitative study of the correlational impact of
Snyder, C.R. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology. second ed. Oxford
psychological capital on job search intensity as measured by job search
University Press, Oxford, pp. 303–311.
behaviors. (Order No. AAI3588173, Dissertation Abstracts International
Cascio, W., 1993. Downsizing: What do we know? What have we learned? Acad.
Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences. Retrieved from: <http://search.
Manage. Execut. 7, 95–104.
proquest.com/docview/1539478148?accountid=14902>. (1539478148; 2014-
Cheng, G.H.L., Chan, D.K.S., 2008. Who suffers more from job insecurity? A meta-
99111-125).
analytic review. Appl. Psychol. 57 (2), 272–303.

Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance.
Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
 T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx 9

Organ, D.W., 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Robinson, S.L., Morrison, E., 1995. Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of
Syndrome. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 16 (3), 289–298.
Orpen, C., 1994. The effects of self-esteem and personal control on the relationship Scheier, M.F., Weintraub, J.K., Carver, C.S., 1986. Coping with stress: divergent
between job insecurity and psychological well-being. Soc. Behav. Personal.: Int. strategies of optimists and pessimists. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 1257–1264.
J. 22 (1), 53–55. Selenko, E., Mäkikangas, A., Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., 2013. How does job insecurity
Parkes, K.R., 1994. Personality and coping as moderators of work stress process: relate to self-reported job performance? Analysing curvilinear associations in a
Models, methods and measures. Work Stress 8 (2), 110–129. longitudinal sample. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 86 (4), 522–542.
Parkes, K.R., Rendell, D., 1988. The hardy personality and its relationship to Seligman, M.E.P., 1998. Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life.
extraversion and neuroticism. Person Ind. Diff. 9 (4), 785–790. Pocket Books, New York.
Peterson, S.J., Luthans, F., Avolio, B., Walumbwa, F., Zhang, Z., 2011. Psychological Snyder, C.R., 2000. The past and possible futures of hope. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 19,
capital and employee performance: a latent growth modeling approach. Pers. 11–28.
Psychol. 64, 427–450. Snyder, C.R., Irving, L., Anderson, J.R., 1991. Hope and health: measuring the will and
Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M., Blume, B.D., 2009. Individual- and the ways. In: Snyder, C.R., Forsyth, D.R. (Eds.), Handbook of Social and Clinical
organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A Psychology: The Health Perspective. Pergamon Press, Elmsford, New York.
meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 122–141. Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., Naswall, K., 2002. No security: A meta-analysis and review
Probst, T.M., 2002. Layoffs and tradeoffs: Production, quality, and safety demands of job insecurity and its consequences. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 7 (3), 242–264.
under the threat of job loss. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 7, 211–220. Sverke, M., De Witte, H., Naswall, K., Hellgren, J., 2010. European perspectives on job
Probst, T.M., 2003. Development and validation of the job security index and the job insecurity: Editorial introduction. Econ. Ind. Democracy 31, 175–178.
security satisfaction scale: A classical test theory and IRT approach. J. Occup. Tugade, M.M., Fredrickson, B.L., 2004. Resilient individuals use positive emotions to
Organ. Psychol. 76, 451–467. bounce back from negative emotional experiences. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 86 (2),
Probst, T.M., Jiang, L., 2016. Mitigating physiological responses to layoff threat: an 320–333.
experimental test of the efficacy of two coping interventions. Special issue on Turnley, W.H., Bolino, M.C., Lester, S.W., Bloodgood, J.M., 2003. The impact of
Occupational Stress, Human Health and Wellbeing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and
Health 13, 338. organizational citizenship behaviors. J. Manage. 29 (2), 187–206.
Probst, T.M., Stewart, S.M., Gruys, M.L., Tierney, B.W., 2007. Productivity, counter Virtanen, M., Nyberg, S.T., Batty, G.D., Jokela, M., Heikkilä, K., Fransson, E.I.,
productivity and creativity: The ups and downs of job insecurity. J. Occup. Alfredsson, L., Bjorner, J.B., Borritz, M., Burr, H., Casini, A., 2013. Perceived job
Organ. Psychol. 80, 479–497. insecurity as a risk factor for incident coronary heart disease: systematic review
Richter, A., Näswall, K., De Cuyper, N., Sverke, M., De Witte, H., Hellgren, J., 2013. and meta-analysis. BMJ 347.
Coping with job insecurity: Exploring effects on perceived health and Williams, L.J., Anderson, S.E., 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment
organizational attitudes. Career Dev. Int. 18 (5), 484–502. as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. J. Manage. 17
(3), 601–617.

Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance.
Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002