Microsoft Word ji job Pres Preprint docx

Threat controllability. We utilized a three-item scale adapted from Peacock and Wong 
(1990); an example item reads “The future of your job security is under your control.” Items 
were rated on a scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) (
a = .94).
Threat proximity. We developed four items to capture participants’ perceptions 
regarding the proximity of threats to their employment. The prompt reads, “I see threats to my 
job as happening…” and participants responded using a 1-5 scale with the ends labeled, “in the 
distant future … in the near future,” “far away … soon,” “a long way off … any day now,” and 
“in the long term … in the short term” (
a = .96).
Job preservation motivation. We utilized Barrick, Stewart, and Piotrowski’s (2002) 
measure of intensity and persistence work motivation as a foundation for creating our job 
preservation motivation scale. As the outcomes of JI in our model are behavioral (e.g., 
performance) rather than cognitive or emotional, we deemed the intensity and persistence items 
most relevant as opposed to attention or arousal. We created 5 items that adapt Barrick et al.’s 
(2002) items with a focus on motivation to avoid job loss. An example item is “I put a lot of 

---

JOB INSECURITY AND JOB PRESERVATION 21
effort into keeping my job.” Responses were provided on a scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 
(Strongly agree) (
a = .90).
Open-ended question. The Time 3 survey also included an open-ended question about 
individuals’ strategies for job preservation. We randomized two different item wordings to be 
sure that the item wording would not bias towards promotive or protective strategies: “We are 
curious about how people respond when they are worried about losing their jobs (being able to 
keep their jobs). If you’ve been in this situation, please describe the things you’ve done to try to 
avoid losing your job (keep your job).”