Much is known about the general correlates of job insecurity but less about whether the strength of these correlations differs between countries. In order to fill this gap in the literature, the current study explored the correlates of job insecurity as a function of the cultural value of uncertainty avoidance. Specifically, using two samples from countries with very different uncertainty avoidance orientations (Switzerland and the US), we tested whether the relationships of job insecurity with job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and turnover intention are stronger in the Swiss sample. As expected, Swiss respondents scored higher in uncertainty avoidance than their US counterparts. Contrary to expectations, however, the results showed that the relationships between job insecurity and outcomes were stronger in the US than in Switzerland. Substantial differences in the social safety net within the two countries are discussed as a plausible explanation of this finding.
This study extended prior research on consideration of future consequences (CFC) by exploring its influence on quality and quantity aspects of job performance. CFC is an individual-differences variable reflecting the importance a person assigns to the immediate vs. future consequences of his or her actions. We hypothesized that individuals with a high future orientation would produce higher quality work, while low-CFC participants would produce greater quantities. Participants took part in a data-entry task where they were asked to enter as many words as they could (quantity) while maintaining the highest accuracy (quality) possible. Results supported the primary hypothesis. Workplace implications of the findings are discussed, particularly with respect to selection and the design of performance incentive systems.j asp_901 1335..1352
We hypothesized that because Covid-19 (C19) remains an urgent and visible threat, efforts to combat its negative health consequences have become moralized. This moralization of health-based efforts may generate asymmetries in judgement, whereby harmful by-products of those efforts (i.e., instrumental harm) are perceived as more acceptable than harm resulting from non-C19 efforts, such as prioritizing the economy or non-C19 issues. We tested our predictions in two experimental studies. In Study 1, American participants evaluated the same costs (public shaming, deaths and illnesses, and police abuse of power) as more acceptable when they resulted from efforts to minimize C19's health impacts, than when they resulted from non-health C19 efforts (e.g., prioritizing economic costs) or efforts unrelated to C19 (e.g., reducing traffic deaths). In Study 2, New Zealand participants less favorably evaluated the quality of a research proposal empirically questioning
continuing
a C19 elimination strategy in NZ than one questioning
abandoning an elimination
strategy, although both proposals contained the same amount of methodology information. This finding suggests questioning elimination approaches is morally condemned, a similar response to that found when sacred values are questioned. In both studies, condition effects were mediated by lowered moral outrage in response to costs resulting from pursuing health-minded C19 efforts. Follow-up analyses revealed that both heightened personal concern over contracting C19 and liberal ideology were associated with greater asymmetries in human cost evaluation. Altogether, results suggest reducing or eliminating C19 have become moralized, generating asymmetries in evaluations of human suffering.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.