* Individual or situational determinants of well-being:
Summary: Stiglbaner, Selenko, Batinic, Jodbaner (2012) study investigates whether work involvement moderates negative effect of job insecurity on general well-being, and if reduced general well-being moderately explains why job insecurity is associated with increased turnover intentions. The researchers participants were 178 members of an online panel who gave information about their job insecurity, work involvement and two measures of general Well-being (cognitive and affective), 52% of their participants were female. Some of the questions this study addresses is; whether work involvement buffers the negative effect of job insecurity on well-being, and if reduced well-being explains why job insecurity is associated with increased turnover intentions. Their aim was to answer two questions (1) whether work involvement is able to buffer the negative effect of job insecurity on Well-being, (2) whether reduced well-being partially can explain why job insecurity is associated with increased turnover intentions.
In the method, researchers study was part of a comprehensive multiwave online research project on the meaning of work and psychological health. Their data was collected on a German online survey panel and data analyzed refer to the third and fourth wave at an interval of six months intervention at (time 1 and time two) when measures of job insecurity were added to the online questionnaire. Thus this showing that the research design is appropriate for the hypothesis they intend to test. Also, 557 individuals were excluded from the original sample as they did not meet the criteria because they were unemployed or never finished the questionnaires or specify their occupation. This narrowed their study down to 178 subjects, although this is a small sample to generalize, it gave an adequate answer to the hypothesis. In addition the individuals from the final sample were older then the excluded from the analysis. Researchers measures for reliability was good at both time, thus indicating the appropriateness and adequacy of this study. *
Their results used a cross-sectional and longitudinal correlation and this indicated that findings were in the predicted direction, which supported previous research. As expected there results showed that work involvement buffered the negative effect of job insecurity on Well-being, although the buffering effect was significant only for the cross-sectional effect of job insecurity on cognitive well-being, whereas the longitudinal effect was partially mediated by affective well-being only. They also concluded that work involvement is what buffers the relationship between job insecurity and Well-being. Thus, proving that ones views or significance of their job is what eliminates the effect of ones job insecurity on Well-being. This is useful for practitioners and researchers to look into and may be looked the mediators or reasons as to why this occurred. It would also be useful information for organizations to take into consideration when it comes to Well-being in organizations. Researchers discuss these results in depth, which is beneficial for other researchers to read and even organizations what to better the life style and Well-being of their employees.
Their limitations suggest that the time data was collected might constitute to an important contextual factor, although the relationship between variables were inline with previous studies which means their findings could be generalized. Although the researchers do point out that the final sample was not overly large and there was a two-wave longitudinal design, which limits the generalizability of this study. Another main limitation of this study is that it cannot be termed as a longitudinal accountably because it was conducted at one time point. However their cross-sectional results were stable and their sample achieved adequate power for their...