Hyun Jung Lee

Adopting a life course perspective, we examined how prior experiences of unemployment might affect reactions to later experiences of job insecurity. In doing so, we applied a strong inference approach and pitted two theoretically derived predictions against each other, namely the stress sensitization and stress inoculation perspectives. According to the stress sensitization perspective, prior experience with unemployment would amplify negative reactions to job insecurity. In contrast, the stress inoculation perspective suggests that individuals with prior unemployment experiences might exhibit attenuated negative reactions to job insecurity. This is because such episodes are appraised as more normative throughout one’s career and are seen as an obstacle that can be successfully overcome. We tested our assumptions using four different archival datasets (total N = 1638) from the US and Germany, while considering self-evaluative, affective, attitudinal, performance, and health-related outcomes. Studies 1 to 3 found stronger support for the stress inoculation hypothesis, whereby individuals with prior unemployment experiences reacted less negatively to current job insecurity. In a comparison of explanatory mediating mechanisms in study 4, results indicated that the form of the interaction might depend on what is being triggered by perceived job insecurity (i.e., exacerbated feelings of frustration as reflecting the stress sensitization mechanism vs. attenuated relative deprivation as reflecting the stress inoculation mechanism). By adding a life course perspective to the study of job insecurity, our research broadens the investigation of boundary conditions. We discuss the role of country-level social security and time of data collection to explain the pattern of findings.

As more businesses have newly adopted or expanded flexible work arrangements (FWA) due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the current study aimed to investigate whether flexibility backlash (e.g., workers’ negative perceptions of promotion opportunities and work-to-life conflict) occurs in response to the use of FWA. Moreover, we tested if perceptions of flexibility backlash vary across subgroups of employees (i.e., as a function of gender, family responsibilities, and race), as well as their intersection. Using a lagged dataset of N = 414 currently employed U.S. workers collected at three-time points during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, we found that FWA use was not significantly associated with the subsequent perception of career opportunities, and no group differences were found in this relationship. Similarly, no main effect of FWA use on work-to-life conflict was found. However, among workers with more family care responsibilities, greater FWA usage was associated with more work-to-life conflict. Further, intersectionality analyses revealed men with greater family responsibilities and men who are racial minorities perceived more work-to-life conflict as they used more FWA than their counterparts. We discuss these findings through the lens of diversity in light of the ongoing need to reduce the backlash associated with the use of FWA.

While technological advancements have proliferated in our daily lives, they also pose threats to the job security of employees. Despite these growing concerns about technology-related job insecurity, little research has been carried out on the antecedents and outcomes of tech-related job insecurity. Using a cross-sectional, nationally representative survey sample of 28,989 Korean workers drawn from the Korean Working Conditions Survey, we examined the impacts of technology advancements on employee perceptions of technology-related qualitative job insecurity (i.e., perceived technology-related threat to the continued existence of valued job features) and subsequent effects on employees’ work (i.e., work engagement, job satisfaction), health (i.e., sleep), and life (i.e., work-to-family conflict) outcomes. Furthermore, we investigated the extent to which employer-provided (versus self-funded) training buffers the adverse impacts of technology advancements and associated job insecurity. The path analysis results showed more technology changes were associated with higher job insecurity, which subsequently related to adverse outcomes. While employer-provided training helped workers to reduce the negative impacts of tech changes on job insecurity, workers who paid for their training reported more adverse outcomes in face of job insecurity. We discuss these results in light of the job demands–resources theory and practical implications to buffer the adverse impacts of technology advancements.

Institutional trust plays a crucial role when a nation is facing mega crises (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic) and has implications for employee work experiences and well-being. To date, researchers largely consider how institutional trust or trust in government may predict variables of interest in isolation. However, this variable-centered perspective ignores the possibility that there are subpopulations of employees who may differ in their trust in different institutions (i.e., the state government, the federal government). To address this, we examined institutional trust with two foci (i.e., trust in state government and trust in federal government) from a person-centered perspective. Using latent profile analysis and data from 492 U.S.-based employees, we identified five trust profiles: high trustors, federal trustors, state trustors, the ambivalent, and distrusters, and found that these profiles differentially predicted attitudes towards and behavioral compliance with CDC recommended COVID-19 prevention practices, job insecurity, affective commitment, helping behavior, and psychological well-being.

Since the unfolding of the novel coronavirus global pandemic, public health research has increasingly suggested that certain groups of individuals may be more exposed to the virus. The aim of this contribution was to investigate whether workers grouped into several latent classes, based on two perceived economic stressors, would report different levels of enactment of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommended behaviors to prevent the spread of such virus. We also tested propositions regarding the potential differential predictors of compliance behavior, differentiating between cognitive (i.e., attitudes toward the CDC guidelines) and affective (i.e., COVID-specific worry) predictors. Using a longitudinal dataset of 419 U.S. workers, we did not find significant differences among the levels of CDC guidelines enactment across three latent classes, representing a range of economic vulnerability. We found that cognitive attitudes were a significantly stronger predictor of compliance with CDC guidelines for workers in the most economically secure class, whereas worry was a significantly stronger predictor of compliance for the most vulnerable counterpart. We discuss these findings in light of the Conservation of Resources theory and other health behavior theories, being mindful of the need to further understand the differential impact of this health and economic crisis on employees facing economic stressors.

In order to combat the spread of the novel coronavirus, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed a list of recommended preventative health behaviors for Americans to enact, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and limiting nonessential trips from home. Drawing upon scarcity theory, the purpose of this study was to examine whether the economic stressors of perceived job insecurity and perceived financial insecurity are related to employee self-reports of enacting such behaviors. Moreover, we tested propositions regarding the impact of two state-level contextual variables that may moderate those relationships: the generosity of unemployment insurance benefits and extensiveness of statewide COVID-19-related restrictions. Using a multilevel data set of N = 745 currently employed U.S. workers nested within 43 states, we found that both job insecurity and financial insecurity were negatively related to the enactment of the CDC-recommended guidelines. However, the state-level variables acted as cross-level moderators, such that the negative relationship between job insecurity and compliance with the CDC guidelines was attenuated within states that have a more robust unemployment system. However, working in a state with more extensive COVID-19 restrictions seemed to primarily benefit more financially secure workers. When statewide policies were more restrictive, employees reporting more financial security were more likely to enact the CDC-recommended guidelines compared to their financially insecure counterparts. We discuss these findings in light of the continuing need to develop policies to address the public health crisis while also protecting employees facing economic stressors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).