Microsoft Word ji job Pres Preprint docx

FOOTNOTES 
1 
The time spent on surveys was used as an indicator of attention. We used 5 minutes (i.e., 300 
seconds) as the cutoff, since it was around the 5th percentile in our sample, and dropped 
participants who completed each of three surveys in less than 5 minutes.
2 
In supplementary analyses, controlling for method factor did not change the results of structural 
models for either Study 1 or Study 2.
3 
They also suggest that research utilizing supervisor-ratings of job performance may want to 
control for potential self-presentation effects.  
 

---

JOB INSECURITY AND JOB PRESERVATION 42
TABLES 
Table 1 
A Framework of Job Preservation Behaviors 
Resource Investment Target 
Task-Oriented Resource 
Investment 
Social-Oriented 
Resource Investment 
Job 
Preservation 
Strategy 
Promotive 
Performance 
Self-presentation 
Ingratiatory Behaviors 
Protective 
Avoiding 
Counterproductive Work 
Behavior 
Evasive Knowledge 
Hiding 

---

JOB INSECURITY AND JOB PRESERVATION
43
Table 2
Means (SDs) and Correlations Among Study Variables of Study 1
Mean (SD) 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
1.Job Insecurity1 
2.77(1.21) 
(.88) 
2.Job Insecurity2 
2.47(1.10) 
.63** 
(.84) 
3.Job Insecurity3 
2.76(1.12) 
.54** 
.43** 
(.84) 
4.Counterproductive 
Work Behavior1 
2.83(1.08) 
.68** 
.60** 
.45** 
(.96) 
5.Counterproductive 
Work Behavior2 
2.67(1.00) 
.70** 
.62** 
.41** 
.80** 
(.95) 
6.Counterproductive 
Work Behavior3 
2.50(1.01) 
.78** 
.71** 
.57** 
.76** 
.83** 
(.95) 
7.Knowledge 
Hiding1 
4.42(1.44) 
.43** 
.31** 
.36** 
.64** 
.54** 
.46** 
(.89) 
8.Knowledge 
Hiding2 
3.83(1.4) 
.50** 
.45** 
.20** 
.66** 
.76** 
.57** 
.61** 
(.87) 
9.Knowledge 
Hiding3 
3.55(1.51) 
.57** 
.56** 
.29** 
.70** 
.83** 
.74** 
.53** 
.84** 
(.90) 
10.Self-
Presentation1 
3.54(.79) 
.38** 
.31** 
.39** 
.45** 
.35** 
.32** 
.55** 
.24** 
.22** 
(.73) 
11.Self-
Presentation2 
3.37(.72) 
.24** 
.22** 
.35** 
.22** 
.22** 
.24** 
.32** 
.18** 
.12* 
.50** 
(.61) 
12.Self-
Presentation3 
3.20(.69) 
.32** 
.19** 
.40** 
.14** 
.13* 
.33** 
.17** 
-.01 
.09 
.40** 
.36** 
(.60) 
13.Performance1 
6.76(1.15) 
-.43** 
-.28** 
-.37** 
-.43** 
-.45** 
-.54** 
-.37** 
-.31** 
-.40** 
-.19** 
-.14** 
-.14* 
(.87) 
14.Performance2 
6.61(1.12) 
-.40** 
-.21** 
-.26** 
-.44** 
-.49** 
-.47** 
-.39** 
-.41** 
-.46** 
-.16** 
-.20** 
-.10 
.71** 
(.82) 
15.Performance3 
6.76(.91) 
-.32** 
-.24** 
-.43** 
-.42** 
-.40** 
-.38** 
-.51** 
-.36** 
-.38** 
-.20** 
-.17** 
-.08 
.66** 
.65** 
(.77) 
Note. Diagonal values are Cronbach’s alphas.
* p < .05, ** p < .01. 

---

JOB INSECURITY AND JOB PRESERVATION 44
Table 3 
Fits of CFA Models with Different Number of Factors – Study 1 
BIC 
χ
2
df 
CFI 
RMSEA SRMR 
3-Factor Model 
57119.73 
6593.20 
1479 
0.69 
0.097 
0.116 
6-Factor Model 
56284.88 
5687.51 
1467 
0.74 
0.089 
0.114 
12-Factor Model 
54833.00 
3934.60 
1416 
0.85 
0.070 
0.072 
15-Factor Model 
Free factor loadings 
53834.52 
2705.91 
1377 
0.92 
0.051 
0.055 
Longitudinal 
constraints on loadings 
53744.14 
2780.81 
1405 
0.92 
0.052 
0.061 
Note. The 15-factor model (JI, performance, counterproductive work behavior, evasive 
knowledge hiding, and self-presentation ingratiatory behavior at three times) was tested against 
three alternative models. The first alternative model (i.e., 3-factor model) placed all the 
indicators of each time into one factor, which ended up with 3 correlated factors (one for each 
time). The second alternative model (i.e., 6-factor model) placed all the JI indicators into one 
factor and all the performance-related outcome indicators into another factor, which ended up 
with 6 correlated factors (two for each time). The third alternative model (i.e., 12-factor model) 
placed indicators of counterproductive work behavior and knowledge hiding into one factor, 
which ended up with 12 correlated factors (four for each time). 

---

JOB INSECURITY AND JOB PRESERVATION 45
Table 4 
Means (SDs) and Correlations Among Study Variables of Study 2 
Mean(SD) 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
1. Job Insecurity 
2.42(1.18) 
(.87) 
2. Job Preservation Motivation 
4.05(0.83) 
.09 
(.90) 
3.Counterproductive Work Behavior 1.47(0.42) 
.12 
-.37** 
(.83) 
4. Knowledge Hiding 
1.56(1.04) 
.12 
-.05 
.29** 
(.92) 
5.Self-Presentation
2.42(0.88) 
.01 
.13* 
.11 
.29** 
(.87) 
6.Performance 
4.37(0.75) 
-.14* 
.32** -.35** -.33** 
-.01 
(.91) 
7.Threat Controllability 
3.34(1.23) -.28** 
.08 
-.05 
.00 
.10 
.06 
(.94) 
8.Threat Proximity 
1.91(1.04) 
.64** 
-.03 
.15* 
.21** 
.04 
-.22** -.38** 
(.96) 
Note. Diagonal values are Cronbach’s alphas.
* p < .05, ** p < .01. 
 
 
 

---

JOB INSECURITY AND JOB PRESERVATION 46
 
Table 5 
Fits of CFA Models with Different Number of Factors – Study 2 
BIC 
χ
2
df 
CFI 
RMSEA SRMR 
5-Factor Model 
18586.13 
2117.39 
395 
0.73 
0.121 
0.128 
6-Factor Model 
18185.23 
1688.04 
390 
0.80 
0.106 
0.083 
7-Factor Model I 
17966.25 
1434.92 
384 
0.84 
0.096 
0.077 
7-Factor Model II 
17678.10 
1146.77 
384 
0.88 
0.082 
0.092 
8-Factor Model 
17277.34 
706.17 
377 
0.95 
0.054 
0.048 
Note. The 8-factor (i.e., JI, job preservation motivation, counterproductive work behavior, self-
presentation ingratiatory behavior, knowledge hiding, job performance, perceived threat 
controllability, and threat proximity) model was tested against four alternative models. The first 
alternative model (i.e., 5-factor model) combined the four outcomes into one factor. The second 
alternative model (i.e., 6-factor model) combined threat controllability, threat proximity, and JI 
indicators into one factor. The third alternative model (i.e., 7-factor model I) combined threat 
controllability and threat proximity into one factor. The fourth alternative model (i.e., 7-factor 
model II) combined counterproductive work behavior and knowledge hiding into one factor. 
 
 

---

JOB INSECURITY AND JOB PRESERVATION 47
Table 6 
Unstandardized Path Coefficients (SEs) of the Latent Moderated Mediation Model of Study 2 
 
 
Job 
Preservation 
Motivation 
Job 
Performance 
CWB 
Self-
Presentation 
Knowledge 
Hiding 
Job Preservation 
Motivation 
0.41 (0.08)** -0.49 (0.08)** 0.16 (0.07)* 
-0.10 (0.07) 
Job Insecurity (JI) 
0.17 (0.10) 
-0.22 (0.08)** 0.22 (0.08)** -0.01 (0.07) 
0.15 (0.07)* 
Threat Proximity
-0.29 (0.12)* 
 
 
 
 
JI*Proximity 
0.25 (0.08)**
 
 
 
Control 
0.01 (0.07) 
 
 
 
 
JI*Control 
0.03 (0.07) 
 
 
 
 
Indirect effect at low 
proximity 
-0.03 [-0.14, 
0.08] 
0.04 [-0.08, 
0.17] 
-0.01 [-0.07, 
0.03] 
0.01 [-0.02, 
0.05] 
Indirect effect at high 
proximity 
0.18* [0.06, 
0.31] 
-0.21* [-0.37, 
-0.07] 
0.07* [0.01, 
0.15] 
-0.04 [-0.12, 
0.02] 
Note. The 95% Monte Carlo bootstrapped confidence intervals (CIs) for conditional indirect 
effects are in square brackets. * p < .05, ** p < .01. Significant indirect effect based on 95% CIs 
excluding zero is marked with *.
 
 
 

---

JOB INSECURITY AND JOB PRESERVATION 48
 
Table 7 
Example Open-Response Descriptions of Job Preservation Behaviors as Matched to the 
Framework of Job Preservation Strategies and Targets. 
Resource Investment Target 
Job 
Preservation 
Strategy 
Task-Oriented Resource 
Investment 
Social-Oriented Resource Investment 
Promotive 
“I started working extra hard 
to prove my job was 
important to keep. I worked 
overtime and at nights to 
show that I was hardworking 
and dedicated.” 
“I have taken on new tasks 
to help management and the 
front desk, so I am trying to 
[...] increase my worth.” 
“Make an extra effort so that 
[my] work product is as 
good as possible, with no 
errors. Accept extra work if 
asked.” 
“Lately, I've been communicating 
weekly with my boss to keep him 
informed on what I've been 
accomplishing and make sure he 
knows about all the areas where I'm 
contributing.” 
“I just try to make sure that my 
manager likes me and go above and 
beyond to try to show my worth.” 
“Promoting oneself modestly is a key 
part of protecting my job.” 
Protective 
“I focus on the things that I 
can control, like showing up 
to work on time. Getting my 
work done. Not creating 
drama in the workplace. 
etc.” 
“Always ensuring I was on 
time, never took long 
lunches and tried my best to 
clock out on time to avoid 
overtime if possible.” 
“I’ve tried to put my head 
down and work. I tried to 
become a ghost and just not 
draw attention to myself.” 
“There are definitely some processes 
that only I know how to do. [...] If I 
were to leave these processes would 
not get done.” 
“They would have trouble replacing 
me in the short term because not 
many others have learned how to 
perform my role yet.” 
“I have made sure I have a set of 
skills that is hard to replace at my 
work. I am one of the few that knows 
all our systems. I learned early on 
pay and job security is not based on 
how hard your [sic] work but on how 
hard it is to replace you.” 

---

JOB INSECURITY AND JOB PRESERVATION 49
FIGURES 
Figure 1 
Unstandardized Path Coefficients of the Latent Cross-Lagged Panel Model of Study 1 
Note. Autoregressive correlations (dash arrows) and cross-lagged coefficients (solid arrows) 
were constrained to be equal across time to test a more parsimonious model. Measurement 
models and synchronous correlations for latent variables were not shown for a cleaner view.
* p < .05, ** p < .01. 

---

JOB INSECURITY AND JOB PRESERVATION 50
Figure 2 
Moderating Effect of Perceived Threat Proximity on the Relationship between JI and Subsequent 
Job Preservation Motivation – Study 2 
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Low JI
High JI
Job P
re
se
rva
ti
on M
ot
iva
ti
on 
High Threat Proximity
Low Threat Proximity
View publication stats