RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Job flexibilisation has increased interest in job insecurity and its consequences. Job insecurity, understood as a fear of losing employment, is linked to a deterioration of mental health, social relations or job satisfaction. Its study has been developed primarily in Europe, in the absence of validated psychometric scales in the Latin American context. To bridge this knowledge gap, the aim of this study is to cross-culturally adapt the Job Insecurity Scale (JIS) in Brazil, and secondly, to establish a cross-national analysis between people employed in Brazil and Spain. METHODS: As criteria for the sample, people with formally established employment in Brazil and Spain were selected. For the scale adaptation process, a sequence of EFA, CFA and validity tests are carried out, as well as a multigroup invariance according to the gender variable. The cross-national comparison compares the effect sizes of affective and cognitive job insecurity on the mental health variable measured with the GHQ-28 scale in both countries. RESULTS: 1165 employed people participate in the study, of whom 573 reside in Brazil and 592 in Spain. The results of the scale adaptation show that the JIS is suitable for use in the Brazilian employment context. The scale offers a factorialisation in two dimensions (affective and cognitive) (CFI = 0.993; TLI = 0.987; RMSEA = 0.04; SRMR = 0.049; GFI = 0.999; NFI = 0.980) with good reliability (ω > 0.84). The cross-national comparison shows that job insecurity has a greater weight in explaining the mental health of the employed population in Brazil than in Spain, which is related to higher indicators of job insecurity in the Brazilian context. CONCLUSIONS: With this validation we now have a validated scale of job insecurity validated for the Brazilian context. The comparison between countries shows the need to establish these analyses, since the behaviour of the phenomenon is different in the contexts studied.
Asunto(s)
Comparación Transcultural , Empleo , Humanos , España , Brasil , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Empleo/psicología , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
Past research attests to the pivotal role of subjective job insecurity (JI) as a major stressor within the workplace. However, most of this research has used a variable-centered approach to evaluate the relative importance of one (or more) JI facets in explaining employee physical and psychological well-being. Relatively few studies have adopted a person-centered approach to investigate how different appraisals of JI co-occur within employees and how these might lead to the emergence of distinct latent profiles of JI, and, moreover, how those profiles might covary with well-being, personal resources, and performance. Using conservation of resources (COR) theory as our overarching theoretical framework and latent profile analysis as our methodological approach, we sought to fill this gap. To evaluate the external validity of our study results, we used employee sample data from two different countries (Italy and the USA) with, respectively, n = 743 and n = 494 employees. Results suggested the emergence of three profiles (i.e., the "secure", the "average type", and the "insecure") in both country samples. The "secure" group systematically displayed a less vulnerable profile in terms of physical and psychological well-being, self-rated job performance, positive orientation, and self-efficacy beliefs than the "insecure" group, while the "average" type position on the outcomes' continua was narrower. Theoretically, this supports COR's notion of loss spirals by suggesting that differing forms of JI appraisals tend to covary within-person. Practical implications in light of labor market trends and the COVID-19 pandemic are discussed.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Empleo , Humanos , Empleo/psicología , Satisfacción en el Trabajo , Pandemias , Lugar de TrabajoRESUMEN
Adopting the information processing perspective, the current study aims to investigate the differential effects of affective and cognitive ruminations on individuals' affective states and learning behavior, and to further explore their differential mediating roles in transmitting effects of challenge and hindrance stressors on affect and behavior. A two-wave survey, in which stressors and ruminations were measured in the first wave and affective states and learning behavior were measured in the second, was conducted to obtain responses from 410 employees. As expected, affective and cognitive ruminations were differently associated with challenge stressors (i.e., cognitive job insecurity) and hindrance stressors (i.e., interpersonal conflict), and yielded different effects in terms of positive affect, negative affect, and learning behavior. Specifically, the results showed that: (a) cognitive job insecurity was significantly and positively related to cognitive rumination, while interpersonal conflict was significantly and positively related to affective rumination; (b) affective and cognitive ruminations were significantly associated with positive or negative affect, but in the exact opposite direction; (c) cognitive rumination, but not affective rumination, was significantly related to learning behavior; and (d) cognitive rumination mediated the effect of cognitive job insecurity on positive affect and learning behavior, while affective rumination mediated the effect of interpersonal conflict on negative affect. The current study contributes to the literature on rumination by introducing a new perspective, and sheds new light on the understanding of how and why affective and cognitive ruminations may lead to different affective states and behaviors.