Coping With Employment Uncertainty - Semantic Scholar

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2005, Vol. 10, No. 3, 200 –209

Copyright 2005 by the Educational Publishing Foundation 1076-8998/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1076-8998.10.3.200

Coping With Employment Uncertainty: A Comparison of Employed and Unemployed Workers Janet Mantler, Amanda Matejicek, Kimberly Matheson, and Hymie Anisman Carleton University This study examined coping with stress associated with employment uncertainty for comparable samples of laid-off and employed high-technology workers. It was expected that different coping strategies would be associated with perceived stress for employed vs. unemployed people. Although unemployed participants reported higher levels of stress compared with employed participants, employment uncertainty mediated the association between employment status and perceived stress. Emotion-focused coping strategies were related to higher perceived stress, whereas problem-focused coping strategies were related to lower perceived stress. The use of emotional avoidance as a strategy moderated the effect of employment uncertainty on perceived stress, such that a greater propensity to endorse avoidance coping strategies was associated with higher levels of stress particularly under low uncertainty conditions.

gren, Sverke, & Isaksson, 1999). By contrast, the concept of employment uncertainty may be more inclusive because it extends beyond threats to current employment to include threats to the possibility of future employment for people seeking jobs in a company, industry, or nation that is experiencing economic difficulty or high unemployment (Hartley et al., 1991; Mohr, 2000). Accordingly, employment uncertainty can be stressful for both employed people who cannot predict if, or when, they may be laid off (Dunlap, 1994) and unemployed people who cannot foresee if, or when, they will regain employment. Employment uncertainty is a subjective experience reflecting the discrepancy between one’s preferred level of certainty and one’s perceptions regarding current employment opportunities (Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995). People exposed to the same level of risk or unpredictability regarding the future of their employment may have different interpretations of the potential negative consequences (Heaney, Israel, & House, 1994; Sverke, Hellgren, & Na¨swall, 2002). Depending on their appraisal, they may feel differentially able to manage the situation, which may in turn affect their health and well-being. It was the goal of the present investigation to examine the association of appraisal, coping strategies, and psychological well-being for individuals who were employed or looking for work in an industry during a period of extensive cutbacks and layoffs.

In recent years, many organizations have downsized and restructured their workforces with the belief that such actions would increase organizational effectiveness and the ability to survive difficult economic times (Morris, Cascio, & Young, 1999). One consequence of downsizing as an organizational survival strategy, however, is that it increases uncertainty regarding the future of the jobs of individuals who work for the organization and for people who hope to gain employment in a particular industry (Hartley, Jacobson, Klandermans, & van Vuuren, 1991). Typically, job insecurity is defined as the threat of imminent or potential job loss that may also include threats to valued job features, deterioration of working conditions, or loss of career opportunities (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984). As such, job insecurity affects employed people who believe their jobs or job functions are at risk because of anticipated but unannounced layoffs (Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Hell-

Janet Mantler, Amanda Matejicek, Kimberly Matheson, and Hymie Anisman, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Amanda Matejicek is now at the University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. An earlier version of this article was presented at the Fifth Interdisciplinary Conference on Occupational Stress and Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, in March 2003. We thank Charlene Dodd and Kirsten Watson for their assistance with the data collection. This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Janet Mantler, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

Employment Uncertainty and Health

200

Employment uncertainty is associated with an array of adverse mental and physical health outcomes.

EMPLOYMENT UNCERTAINTY

Employed people who feel insecure in their jobs often experience increased psychological distress, anxiety, depression, emotional and physical exhaustion, and psychosomatic complaints that may continue for an extended period (Barling & Kelloway, 1996; Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; De Witte, 1999; Hellgren et al., 1999; Mak & Mueller, 2000; Mohr, 2000; Noer, 1993; Orpen, 1993; Roskies, LouisGuerin, & Fournier, 1993; Sverke et al., 2002; van Vuuren, Klandermans, Jacobson, & Hartley, 1991). Compared with securely employed people, unemployed people experience greater distress (Feather & O’Brien, 1986; Gilbar & Ben-Zur, 2002; Hamilton, Hoffman, Broman, & Rauma, 1993; Kokko & Pulkkinen, 1998; Winefield & Tiggemmann, 1990) possibly because they have reduced access to the manifest and latent benefits that jobs provide, including secure incomes, social contact, social status, regular activity, and structured time (Jahoda, 1982). Indeed, as financial resources decrease, there is a corresponding decline in subjective well-being (Creed & Macintyre, 2001; Kokko & Pulkkinen, 1998; R. H. Price, Choi, & Vinokur, 2002). People who have lost their jobs and who are looking for work often experience increased hostility, depression, anxiety, stress, and negative physical health outcomes such as headaches and sleep problems (Feather, 1990; Hanisch, 1999; Sverke & Hellgren, 2002; Vinokur, Price, & Caplan, 1996). Few studies have compared the health of unemployed and insecurely employed people. Although it is often assumed that unemployment is more stressful than job insecurity, similar levels of distress were reported by plant workers who were dealing with job insecurity and a comparison sample of short-term unemployed people who were looking for jobs (De Witte, 1999). These findings correspond with the longitudinal research of Cobb and Kasl (1977), who reported that anticipation of unemployment was as psychologically harmful as unemployment itself. It is interesting to note that a 2-month follow-up of a small sample of workers in the public transportation sector indicated that people who remained employed but uncertain of their job futures continued to report high levels of distress and burnout, whereas those who had been laid off or temporarily redeployed reported significantly reduced levels of distress (Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995). Thus, unemployed individuals may have reduced uncertainty when their jobs are terminated, and hence experience less short-term stress than those who are insecurely employed. However, if their reemployment prospects

201

become increasingly uncertain, stress levels may be exacerbated. The findings of De Witte (1999), Cobb and Kasl (1977), and Dekker and Schaufeli (1995) indicate that employment uncertainty may have detrimental effects for people who are employed or unemployed, depending on their appraisal regarding their job prospects. The importance of such appraisal processes is consistent with the transactional model of stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) that suggests that the anticipation of threat can be a source of equal or greater anxiety than the actual negative event. When external or internal demands exceed individuals’ coping resources, the ability to adapt to the situation is undermined, thereby rendering people vulnerable to greater stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Employment Uncertainty and Coping During periods of employment uncertainty, it is possible that the nature of the stressors endured by employed and unemployed people is qualitatively different and may require different strategies to effectively manage the situation (Lazarus, 1991). On the one hand, workers who remain employed must live with the anticipation of potential layoffs and balance the need to contribute to the viability of their employer with the consideration of looking for alternative employment. On the other hand, laid-off individuals have at least some (unpleasant) certainty regarding the concrete reality of finding new employment, but they have experienced a serious disruption to their lives and must reestablish stability (Kaplan, 1996; Lazarus, 1991; Sverke et al., 2002). Therefore, it is likely that each group would benefit from using different coping strategies to deal with their differing circumstances. In general, coping research has focused on broad categories involving problem-focused efforts (planning, seeking information, taking action) and emotion-focused strategies (emotional expression, emotional containment, self- or other-blame, denial; Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Problem-focused efforts are typically considered to be more adaptive than are emotion-focused approaches given that the latter are more closely aligned with depressive mood states (Matheson & Anisman, 2003). It is possible, however, that some emotion-focused strategies could be as effective as problem solving if these strategies help individuals to reevaluate the importance of the threat or engage in constructive, distracting activities that are

202

MANTLER, MATEJICEK, MATHESON, AND ANISMAN

unrelated to the stressful situation (Endler & Parker, 1994). In evaluating the coping strategies related to economic deprivation in times of employment uncertainty, Waters and Moore (2002) observed that unemployed, continuously employed, and recently reemployed people were equally likely to engage in emotion-focused coping strategies; however, individuals who were continuously employed were more likely to engage in problem-focused coping strategies than people in the continuously unemployed group. By contrast, people in the reemployed group were more likely than people in either of the other groups to engage in personally meaningful leisure activities. Although these findings partially support the hypothesis that employed and unemployed people may use different coping strategies to deal with these stressors, it should be underscored that these data focused on coping with financial concerns rather than coping with overall employment uncertainty. There is some evidence to suggest that among those individuals who were anticipating unemployment, proactive coping strategies were associated with lower distress (Armstrong-Stassen, 1997), but it has yet to be determined whether different coping strategies are predictive of the well-being of employed versus unemployed individuals under conditions of uncertainty.

Purpose The present research focused on evaluating the association of preferred coping strategies and perceived stress for employed and unemployed individuals facing employment uncertainty. To date, research findings in this domain (e.g., Cobb & Kasl, 1977; Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; De Witte, 1999) have suggested that in times of uncertainty, employed individuals experience similar or greater levels of stress than those who are unemployed, but these studies have involved participants from nonequivalent samples (e.g., plant workers vs. unemployed people from a broad community sample), securely employed people who were not directly threatened with job loss, or people looking for work in good economic conditions when there was a relatively strong likelihood of finding employment. Moreover, the well-being of their participants was assessed relatively soon after the job loss. It is likely that stress increases and well-being decreases as financial resources decline and the likelihood of reemployment is low. The key contribution of the present investigation was that the impact of employment uncertainty was evaluated using comparable groups of

employed and unemployed people in a given sector under persistent conditions of threat to current and future employment. Furthermore, in addition to objective employment status, the role of threat appraisal in terms of employment uncertainty was examined in relation to coping strategy preference and perceived stress. Specifically, we surveyed employed and unemployed workers from the high-technology industry during a time of considerable employment uncertainty. Following a period of high employment, the North American high-technology industry suffered a sudden downturn in 2001. Over the following 2 years, some large companies had laid off over 50% of their employees, and many other organizations had shut down completely, leaving relatively few job possibilities for people who had lost jobs or who were looking for jobs with greater security. Throughout the industry, those who had survived the layoffs to date continued to face the threat of job loss. People who had lost their jobs were finding it difficult to obtain reemployment because of the sustained economic decline and increased competition for the few available jobs. Under these conditions, we expected the following: Hypothesis 1. Unemployed participants would report higher levels of stress than employed participants. This relation, however, would be mediated by employment uncertainty, such that unemployment would be more strongly associated with increased uncertainty, which in turn would account for the elevated stress among the unemployed people. Hypothesis 2. Because they are dealing with qualitatively different aspects of employment uncertainty, employed and unemployed people would have different patterns of endorsed coping strategies. Hypothesis 3. In accordance with the transactional model of stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), coping strategies would moderate the association between appraisal of employment uncertainty and perceived stress.

Method Participants and Procedure Employed and unemployed high-technology workers across Canada were recruited through media advertising and private electronic mailing lists to which only people in the

EMPLOYMENT UNCERTAINTY high-technology industry belonged. Respondents included 140 employed and 206 laid-off Canadian high-technology workers (68% men, 32% women). Employed and unemployed respondents did not differ significantly on any measured demographic characteristics. Participants ranged in age from 23 to 61 years (M ⫽ 38.80, SD ⫽ 8.90). Most respondents (71%) were married or in long-term relationships, and 42% had children. The majority (84%) indicated that English was their first language. Employed participants reported working an average of 44 hr per week (SD ⫽ 9.61) and had a mean job tenure of 3.01 years (SD ⫽ 3.95). Participants were or had been employed by at least 70 different organizations. including startup and midsize companies, government, banks, consulting firms, and telecom giants. The occupations of participants reflected the broad spectrum of high-technology careers, including programmers, systems engineers, software engineers, developers, designers, project managers, technical writers, sales, consultants, managers, administrative support, and senior executives. Participants were asked to respond to an anonymous Web-based survey that took 20 min to complete. Their responses were forwarded via e-mail to the principal investigator after a third-party server removed personal identifiers. After the responses were submitted, participants were automatically directed to a Web page that provided more details regarding the purpose of the research.

Measures Employment uncertainty. For both employed and unemployed participants, employment uncertainty was assessed with a three-item Perceived Job Alternatives index. Employed participants were asked to compare their perceived alternatives with their present job. Unemployed participants were asked to compare their alternatives with their previous job. One item (“All things considered, how good are your alternatives to this [your previous] job?”) was modified from Rusbult and Farrell (1983), and two items (“How difficult or easy would it be for you to find a job [with another employer]?” and “How difficult or easy would it be for you to find a job as good as the one you have now [had with your previous employer]?”) were modified from J. L. Price and Mueller (1981). Responses were made on 5-point (1 to 5) scales. Higher scores indicated higher levels of employment uncertainty. Perceived stress. The level of participants’ stress was measured by the 10-item short form of the Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen & Williamson, 1988). Responses ranged from 0 (never) to 4 (very often) and were summed to create a single index, whereby higher scores indicated higher perceived stress. Coping. Coping strategies were assessed with a 42-item short form index (SCOPE; Matheson & Anisman, 2003) adapted from the Coping Strategies Scale (Beckham & Adams, 1984). The index assessed a broad spectrum of cognitive– behavioral and socioemotional responses to stressors. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they used each activity in the previous weeks on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (always). The SCOPE comprises 12 subscales: problem solving, cognitive restructuring, active distraction, cognitive distraction, rumination, humor, seeking social support, emotional expres-

203

sion, other-blame, self-blame, emotional containment, and passive resignation. For the purpose of data reduction, the 12 subscales were subjected to a principal-components analysis (varimax rotation; eigenvalues ⬎1.0). The resulting three-factor structure (see Table 1) revealed a Problem-Solving factor comprising problem solving, seeking social support, cognitive restructuring, active distraction, and humor; an Emotional Expression factor comprising emotional expression, rumination, other-blame, and self-blame; and an Emotional Avoidance factor comprising emotional containment, cognitive distraction, and passive resignation. This secondorder factor structure was used in the subsequent analyses. For each composite scale, the scores from the individual items from each subscale associated with the coping factor were summed such that higher scores indicated stronger endorsement of the coping behaviors (see Table 2 for the means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, and the intercorrelations of the composite coping scales).

Results Stress and Employment Uncertainty As expected, unemployed participants (M ⫽ 12.05, SD ⫽ 2.04) indicated significantly greater levels of employment uncertainty as compared with employed participants (M ⫽ 9.80, SD ⫽ 2.56), t(343) ⫽ ⫺9.07, p ⬍ .001. In addition, employment status was associated with differences in reported stress in that employed respondents reported lower levels of stress (M ⫽ 17.08, SD ⫽ 7.72) than did the

Table 1 Principal-Components Analysis of Coping Subscales Factor loading Factor and subscale Problem Solving 1. Problem solving 2. Seeking social support 3. Cognitive restructuring 4. Active distraction 5. Humor Emotional Expression 6. Emotional expression 7. Rumination 8. Other-blame 9. Self-blame Emotional Avoidance 10. Cognitive distraction 11. Passive resignation 12. Emotional containment Eigenvalues Variance explained

1

2

3

.77 .75 .73 .57 .55 .79 .77 .68 .59

3.45 28.72%

1.90 15.84%

.77 .52 .51 1.07 8.90%

204


Table 2 Descriptive Statistics, Internal Consistency Coefficients, and Intercorrelations of Study Variables Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Employment uncertainty Perceived stress Problem solving Emotional expression Emotional avoidance Employment status Age Gender M SD

1

2

3

(.76) .31*** ⫺.22*** .14* .27** ⫺.44*** .24*** ⫺.09 11.14 2.52

4

(.91) ⫺.41*** .65*** .42*** ⫺.17** ⫺.02 .11* 18.60 7.42

(.88) ⫺.24*** ⫺.33*** .01 ⫺.13* .09 27.47 8.78

5

(.84) .42*** ⫺.03 ⫺.09 .11* 10.63 5.66

(.72) ⫺.10 .17** .01 11.40 4.05

6

— ⫺.10 .03

7

8

— .04 38.80 8.90

—

Note. Internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s ␣) are indicated in parentheses along the diagonal. Employment status: 0 ⫽ unemployed; 1 ⫽ employed. Gender: 0 ⫽ men; 1 ⫽ women. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.

unemployed respondents (M ⫽ 19.61, SD ⫽ 7.05), t(340) ⫽ ⫺3.13, p ⬍ .01. To determine whether appraisals of employment uncertainty mediated the relation between employment status and perceived stress, we regressed perceived stress on employment status (0 ⫽ unemployed; 1 ⫽ employed) and employment uncertainty, R2 ⫽ .10, F(2, 338) ⫽ 18.52, p ⬍ .001 (see Table 3). When employment uncertainty was taken into consideration, employment status no longer accounted for unique variance in reported stress levels. Hence, employment uncertainty appeared to mediate (Baron & Kenny, 1986) the association between employment status and perceived stress, in that unemploy-

ment was associated with greater uncertainty and it was the appraisal of uncertainty that was associated with reports of greater stress. These results supported the first hypothesis that employment uncertainty would mediate the association between employment status and perceived stress.

Coping With Employment Uncertainty Because the aspects of employment uncertainty may be qualitatively different for employed and unemployed people, it was expected that employed and unemployed people engaged in different patterns of coping. Contrary to Hypothesis 2, however, a multi-

Table 3 Hierarchical Regression of Perceived Stress on Employment Status, Employment Uncertainty, and Coping Strategies Variable and measure

Step 1

Step 2

⌬R2 Employment status (␤) Employment uncertainty (␤) Coping strategies Problem solving (␤) Emotional expression (␤) Emotional avoidance (␤) Interactions Employment Uncertainty ⫻ Problem Solving (␤) Employment Uncertainty ⫻ Emotional Expression (␤) Employment Uncertainty ⫻ Emotional Avoidance (␤) Overall R2 F values

.03** ⫺.17**

.07*** ⫺.04 .30***

.03 9.99a

Note. N ⫽ 338. Employment status: unemployed ⫽ 0; employed ⫽ 1. a df ⫽ 1, 337. b df ⫽ 2, 336. c df ⫽ 5, 333. d df ⫽ 8, 330. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.

.10 18.72b

Step 3

Step 4

.44*** ⫺.08* .13**

.02** ⫺.08 .12**

⫺.22*** .55*** .07

⫺.22*** .54*** .09*

.54 76.82c

.02 .05 ⫺.14** .56 50.97d


variate analysis of variance assessing differences in the three coping strategies (problem solving, emotional expression, and emotional avoidance) as a function of employment status indicated that employed and unemployed people were equally likely to endorse the same coping strategies, Wilks’s ␭ ⫽ .99, F(3, 337) ⫽ 1.25, ns. To determine whether particular coping strategies were differentially effective in ameliorating the stress related to employment uncertainty, as suggested in Hypothesis 3, we regressed perceived stress on employment uncertainty, the three coping strategies, and the interaction of each of the coping strategies with employment uncertainty. To ensure equal variances in the contribution of variables to the interaction terms, we standardized scores for employment uncertainty and the endorsements of the three coping strategies prior to calculating their cross-products (interaction terms; Aiken & West, 1992). Although employment status was not related to preferred coping strategies, it was included in the first step of the hierarchical regression as a control variable because of its association with perceived stress. As indicated in Table 3, perceived stress was associated with problem solving and emotional expres-

205

sion, over and above respondents’ subjective appraisals of employment uncertainty. Specifically, lower stress was associated with engaging in more problem solving and fewer emotionally expressive strategies (including rumination, emotional expression, selfand other-blame). The employment uncertainty by coping strategy interactions (see Table 3) made a further significant contribution to the model (⌬R2 ⫽ .020, p ⬍ .01). This effect appeared to be solely due to the significant interaction between employment uncertainty and emotional avoidance; neither problem solving nor emotional expression appeared to moderate the influence of employment uncertainty on reported stress. To follow up the interaction, we conducted a simple slope analysis using scores at the midpoint (0) and at one standard deviation above and below the mean of the standardized employment uncertainty scores (Aiken & West, 1991). As indicated in Figure 1, when respondents highly endorsed emotional avoidance coping strategies, stress levels were high, irrespective of their appraisals of employment uncertainty. However, when emotional avoidance strategies were not likely to be used, lower levels of uncertainty were associated with less perceived

Figure 1. Simple slope analysis of the relation between perceived stress and employment uncertainty as a function of emotional avoidance coping strategies.

206


stress. Thus, there was partial support for Hypothesis 3 in that emotional avoidance strategies may have exacerbated stress among those who were not experiencing uncertainty. Even so, appraisals of uncertainty continued to predict unique variance in perceived stress, suggesting that factors associated with appraisal played an additive role.

Discussion Employment uncertainty may affect both employed people who believe their jobs may be in jeopardy and unemployed people who are seeking work during a period of high unemployment and, subsequently, have low expectations for reemployment. The present study examined the role of subjective appraisals of employment uncertainty and coping strategies in relation to the perceived stress experienced by similar groups of employed and unemployed people involved in the high-technology industry during a period of sectorwide economic difficulties. Compared with employed high-technology workers, unemployed workers reported significantly greater stress and were more likely to appraise their situation as uncertain, believing that there were fewer jobs available to them. Appraisals of uncertainty mediated the relation between employment status and perceived stress. Thus, to the extent that employed participants were more likely to maintain a degree of optimism regarding their job prospects, the less likely they were to experience the same degree of stress as that reported by the unemployed participants. The present results contrast with past research that reported that employed and unemployed individuals experience equivalent levels of distress (Cobb & Kasl, 1977; Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; De Witte, 1999). These previous studies surveyed either nonequivalent groups of employed and unemployed people or unemployed people who had only recently been laid off or who had been laid off during a period of high employment rates. In such cases, individuals may have been experiencing the immediate sense of relief that comes when one aspect of uncertainty has been resolved but still had unemployment benefits on which they could rely, or had greater hope for reemployment given the general economic conditions, thus reducing the potential impact of the threat appraisal of employment uncertainty. Our findings, however, are based on comparable groups of employed and unemployed people in the same industry at a time of pervasive employment uncertainty. It is likely that as the length of time between layoffs and reemployment increases, people become more aware

of, and may be more affected by, employment uncertainty (Creed & Macintyre, 2001; Kokko & Pulkkinen, 1998). People who are employed continue to face layoffs but retain an income. By contrast, people who have been laid off and are looking for work are reminded constantly that there are few, if any, job opportunities. Thus, the continuing economic difficulties in the technology sector may have exacerbated the uncertainty appraisals of the unemployed participants.

Coping Strategies and Employment Uncertainty In the present investigation, employed and unemployed people both faced uncertainty regarding future employment, but each group was dealing with somewhat different circumstances. The employed people had to cope with the potential threat of declining working conditions, loss of financial resources, and loss of career opportunities (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Sverke et al., 2002). By contrast, the unemployed people had to look for new jobs in a depressed industry, at the same time as coping with the loss of tangible and nontangible benefits that jobs provide, including secure incomes, social contact with people outside one’s family, social status, and structured time and activity (Jahoda, 1982; Sverke et al., 2002). It is interesting that, despite their different circumstances, employment status did not directly affect choice of coping strategies. Rather, both employed and unemployed people derived benefits from engaging in proactive coping strategies, such as problem solving, and refraining from emotion-based responses, in particular, inappropriate forms of emotional expression (e.g., blame). This pattern of coping was found to be directly associated with lower perceived stress irrespective of levels of employment uncertainty. In addition, the relation between employment uncertainty and stress was moderated by the extent to which individuals endorsed emotional avoidance coping strategies. Specifically, when such strategies predominated, individuals reported high levels of stress, no matter how certain or uncertain they felt about their employment prospects. However, when emotional avoidance was not endorsed, under conditions of perceived high employment uncertainty, stress levels were high, and under conditions of low employment uncertainty, stress levels were low. Thus, although emotional avoidance may not have


further compromised well-being when the situation was concurrently appraised as highly stressful (high employment uncertainty), such a strategy appeared to be associated with elevated distress when the individual had, in fact, appraised the situation to be nonthreatening. It is recognized that these data are correlational in nature. Appraisal and coping efforts may have reduced perceived stress, but it is also possible that people with lower levels of stress may have felt more empowered to manage the situation through active coping. Moreover, the present study did not test the possibility that appraisals of job availability may be affected by other variables including personal dispositions such as optimism or positive affectivity. Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) suggested that such individual differences could play an important role in relation to job insecurity. In this regard, Armstrong-Stassen (1994) found that layoff survivors who were high in optimism were more likely to use problem-focused rather than emotion-focused coping strategies. Longitudinal research is necessary to provide insight into the interaction of individual differences and choice of coping strategies when faced with employment uncertainty. Consistent with the need for longitudinal research is the view that coping is a process that involves individuals endorsing different strategies over time (Lazarus, 1991). For example, immediately after layoffs are announced, individuals may need to gain information and make plans for the possibility of job loss. If the layoffs are set for some point in the future, rumination may increase distress, whereas active distraction may reduce distress by refocusing one’s attention until the appropriate time to engage in active problem solving. Cognitive restructuring may be most helpful relatively soon after a layoff as it may help people to change careers or make other positive changes in their lives (Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1993). Indeed, those who use positive coping strategies may find that they have the opportunity to take a new direction in their lives or careers that they had previously been unable to pursue (Hanisch, 1999). Thus, although the findings of the present investigation may serve to distinguish stress and coping in relation to employment uncertainty at a single point, ultimately it will be necessary to identify the temporal changes in coping that occur in response to these stressors and to determine how the strategies relate to functional outcomes, including physical well-being and job performance.

207

Sampling Limitations In the present study we sampled workers from a single industry during a period of high unemployment. To access a broad group of people from a variety of companies, we recruited participants from across Canada via e-mail and media advertising, resulting in a self-selected sample that may not be representative of all people working in the hightechnology industry. Although there were no demographic differences between the employed and unemployed groups, it is reasonable to believe that people who were highly stressed or very depressed would not have chosen to respond. The method of data collection also excluded people who were not registered with the high-technology electronic mailing lists or who did not read the newspapers in which the survey was promoted. Although it is difficult to survey employees through the organization during a period of downsizing and economic uncertainty, doing so would certainly strengthen future research.

Conclusions Employment uncertainty affects both those who are employed and are expected to continue to work despite their feelings of threat and those who are unemployed and are dealing with loss and an uncertain financial future while they look for work. Our findings suggest that people facing employment uncertainty may benefit from training in effective coping strategies such as cognitive restructuring, problem solving, and realistic evaluation of the situation. This would be consistent with the recommendations of others who suggest that engaging in appropriate coping strategies may improve mental and physical health and allow unemployed individuals to find meaning in their job loss, create opportunities for positive outcomes such as changing their careers, and gain reemployment sooner (Hanisch, 1999; Latack & Dozier, 1986). Although our data indicate that some people who remained employed in an unstable sector were relatively unscathed, for others, long-term employment uncertainty may wear down their mental and physical health and impair their ability to choose appropriate and effective coping strategies (Hartley et al., 1991; Sverke et al., 2002). The economic downturn of the high-technology sector was sudden and dramatic. The long-term consequences to the entire labor force may not have been fully felt at the time of this study. As it continues, the detrimental consequences on workers may become more evident.

208


References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage. Armstrong-Stassen, M. (1994). Coping with transition: A study of layoff survivors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 597– 621. Armstrong-Stassen, M. (1997). The effect of repeated management downsizing and surplus designation on remaining managers: An exploratory study. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 10, 377–384. Barling, J., & Kelloway, K. E. (1996). Job insecurity and health: The moderating role of work-place control. Stress Medicine, 12, 253–259. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator– mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. Beckham, E. E., & Adams, R. L. (1984). Coping behavior in depression: Report on a new scale. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 22, 71–75. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 73– 81. Cobb, S., & Kasl, S. (1977). Termination: The consequences of job loss. Cincinnati, OH: National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In S. Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The social psychology of health (pp. 31– 67). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Creed, P. A., & Macintyre, S. R. (2001). The relative effects of deprivation of the latent and manifest benefits of employment on the well-being of unemployed people. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 324 –331. Dekker, S., & Schaufeli, W. (1995). The effects of job insecurity on psychological health and withdrawal: A longitudinal study. Australian Psychologist, 30, 57– 63. De Witte, H. (1999). Job insecurity and psychological wellbeing: Review of the literature and exploration of some unresolved issues. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 155–177. Dunlap, J. C. (1994). Surviving layoffs: A qualitative study of factors affecting retained employees after downsizing. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(4), 89 –113. Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1994). Assessment of multidimensional coping: Task, emotion, and avoidance strategies. Psychological Assessment, 6, 50 – 60. Feather, N. (1990). The psychological impact of unemployment. New York: Springer-Verlag. Feather, N. T., & O’Brien, G. E. (1986). A longitudinal study of the effects of employment and unemployment on school leavers. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 121–144. Gilbar, O., & Ben-Zur, H. (2002). Adult Israeli community norms for the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). International Journal of Stress Management, 9, 1–10. Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review, 9, 438 – 448. Hamilton, V. L., Hoffman, W. S., Broman, C. L., & Rauma,

D. (1993). Unemployment, distress, and coping: A panel study of autoworkers. Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 65, 234 –247. Hanisch, K. A. (1999). Job loss and unemployment research from 1994 to 1998: A review and recommendations for research and intervention. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 188 –220. Hartley, J., Jacobson, D., Klandermans, B., & van Vuuren, T. (1991). Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk. London: Sage. Heaney, C. A., Israel, B. A., & House, J. S. (1994). Chronic job insecurity among automobile workers: Effects on job satisfaction and health. Social Science and Medicine, 38, 1431–1437. Hellgren, J., Sverke, M., & Isaksson, K. (1999). A twodimensional approach to job insecurity: Consequences for employee attitudes and well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 179 –195. Jahoda, M. (1982). Employment and unemployment: A social psychological analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, H. B. (1996). Perspectives on psychosocial stress. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Psychosocial stress (pp. 3–28). San Diego CA: Academic Press. Kokko, K., & Pulkkinen, L. (1998). Unemployment and psychological distress: Mediator effects. Journal of Adult Development, 5, 205–217. Latack, J. C., & Dozier, J. B. (1986). After the axe falls: Job loss on a career transition. Academy of Management Review, 11, 375–392. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Psychological stress in the workplace: Handbook on job stress [Special issue]. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(7), 1–13. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer. Mak, A. S., & Mueller, J. (2000). Job insecurity, coping resources and personality dispositions in occupational strain. Work & Stress, 14, 312–328. Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2003). Systems of coping associated with psychological distress: A multivariate profile perspective. Unpublished manuscript. Mohr, G. B. (2000). The changing significance of different stressors after the announcement of bankruptcy: A longitudinal investigation with special emphasis on job insecurity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 337– 359. Morris, J. R., Cascio, W. F., & Young, C. E. (1999). Downsizing after all these years: Questions and answers about who did it, how many did it, and who benefited from it. Organizational Dynamics, 27, 78 – 87. Noer, D. (1993). Healing the wounds: Overcoming the trauma of layoffs and revitalizing downsized organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Morrow, J. (1993). Effects of rumination and distraction on naturally occurring depressed mood. Cognition and Emotion, 7, 561–570. Orpen, C. (1993). Correlations between job insecurity and psychological well-being among White and Black employees in South Africa. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 885– 886. Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1981). Causal model of turnover intention for nurses. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 543–565. Price, R. H., Choi, J. N., & Vinokur, A. D. (2002). Links in

EMPLOYMENT UNCERTAINTY the chain of adversity following job loss: How financial strain and loss of personal control lead to depression, impaired functioning, and poor health. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 302–312. Roskies, E., Louis-Guerin, C., & Fournier, C. (1993). Coping with job insecurity: How does personality make a difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 617– 630. Rusbult, C. E., & Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact of job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 429 – 438. Sverke, M., & Hellgren, J. (2002). The nature of job insecurity: Understanding employment uncertainty on the brink of a new millennium. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 23– 42. Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Na¨swall, K. (2002). No security: A meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 242–264. van Vuuren, T., Klandermans, B., Jacobson, D., & Hartley,

209

J. (1991). Employees’ reactions to job insecurity. In J. Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans, & T. van Vuuren (Eds.), Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk (pp. 79 –103). London: Sage. Vinokur, A. D., Price, R. H., & Caplan, R. D. (1996). Hard times and hurtful partners: How financial strain affects depression and relationship satisfaction of unemployed persons and their spouses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 166 –179. Waters, L. E., & Moore, K. A. (2002). Self-esteem, appraisal and coping: A comparison of unemployed and re-employed people. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 593– 604. Winefield, A. H., & Tiggemann, M. (1990). Employment status and psychological well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology 75, 455– 459.

Received July 29, 2003 Revision received May 6, 2004 Accepted July 31, 2004 y