Jou nal o Wo k and
O ganiza ional Psychology
Jou nal o Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology (2023) 39(1) 7-12
Ci e his a icle as: Lado, M., Alonso, P., Cuad ado, D., O e o, I., & Ma ínez, A. (2023). Economic s ess, employee commi men , and subjec i e well-being.
Jou nal o Wo k and
O ganiza ional Psychology, 39
(1), 7-12. h ps://doi.o g/10.5093/jwop2023a2
ISSN:1576-5962/© 2023 Colegio O icial de la Psicología de Mad id. This is an open access a icle unde he CC BY-NC-ND license (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Economic S ess, Employee Commi men , and Subjec i e Well-Being
Ma io Lado, Pamela Alonso, Dama is Cuad ado, Inmaculada O e o, and Alexand a Ma ínez
Uni e si y o San iago de Compos ela, Spain
h ps://jou nals.copmad id.o g/jwop
Funding: This esea ch was pa ially suppo ed by g an s PID114984GB-I00 and PID116409GB-I00 om he Spanish Minis y o Science and Inno a ion.
Co espondence: [email p o ec ed] (M. Lado).
ARTICLE INFO
A icle his o y:
Recei ed 2 Decembe 2022
Accep ed 21 Decembe 2022
A ailable online 14 Ma ch 2023
Keywo ds:
COVID-19
Economic s ess
Psychological well-being
Employee commi men
Posi i e a ec
Nega i e a ec
ABSTRACT
COVID-19 pandemic has c ea ed unp eceden ed heal h and economic c ises ac oss he wo ld. Millions o businesses ha e
been obliged o shu down, and millions o jobs ha e been los . These e ec s ha e c ea ed a e y se e e economic- ela ed
s ess le el, which can ha e consequences on psychological well-being (PWB) and economic commi men (EC). This s udy
examined he ela ionships be ween objec i e and subjec i e indica o s o income- ela ed s ess and employmen - ela ed
s ess and PWB and EC. The 697 pa icipan s we e con ac ed du ing he peak o he COVID-19 pandemic. The sample
includes p i a e-sec o employees, ci il se ice employees, sel -employed, u loughed employees, and unemployed.
Resul s show ha he economic s ess p oduced by COVID-19, as es ima ed by a compound o objec i e and subjec i e
income-and employmen - ela ed s ess, p oduced a nega i e e ec on PWB (
= .21, p < .001) and EC (
= .29,
p
< .001).
Mul iple eg ession showed ha subjec i e income- ela ed s ess was he main p edic o o PWB, posi i e a ec , and
nega i e a ec and ha economic dep i a ion and objec i e employmen - ela ed s ess we e he p edic o s o EC and i s
h ee componen s, a ec i e, no ma i e, and con inui y. Finally, he con ibu ion and some p ac ical implica ions o he
indings a e discussed.
El es és económico, el comp omiso del empleado y el bienes a subje i o
RESUMEN
La pandemia de COVID-19 ha c eado c isis económicas y de salud sin p eceden es en odo el mundo. Millones de emp esas se
han is o obligadas a ce a y se han pe dido millones de pues os de abajo. Es os e ec os han dado luga a un ni el de es és
económico muy ele ado, que puede ene consecuencias sob e el bienes a psicológico (BP) y el comp omiso económico
(CE). El es udio examina las elaciones en e los indicado es obje i os y subje i os del es és y los ing esos y el es és
asociado al empleo, el BP y el CE. Se omó con ac o con los 697 pa icipan es du an e el pico de la pandemia de COVID-19.
La mues a cub e empleados del sec o p i ado y de la adminis ación pública, abajado es po cuen a p opia, empleados
con pe miso empo al y desempleados. Los esul ados mues an que el es és económico p oducido po COVID-19, calculado
como un compues o de es és obje i o y subje i o asociado a los ing esos y al empleo, eje ce un e ec o nega i o en el BP (
=
.21,
p
< .001) y el CE (
= .29,
p
< .001). La eg esión múl iple mues a que el es és subje i o elacionado con los ing esos ue
el p incipal p edic o del BP y del a ec o posi i o y nega i o y que la p i ación económica y el es és obje i o inculado al
empleo p edicen el CE y sus es componen es, a ec i o, no ma i o y de con inuidad. Finalmen e, se discu e la con ibución
y algunas implicaciones p ác icas de los esul ados.
Palab as cla e:
COVID-19
Es és económico
Bienes a psicológico
Comp omiso de los empleados
A ec o posi i o
A ec o nega i o
Because o he numbe o in ec ed people and dea hs in a sho
pe iod o ime, he apid sp ead o he con agion, he absence o a
accine, he numbe o coun ies s uggling o cope wi h he in ec ion,
he lockdowns imposed by go e nmen s, and he shu down o whole
sec o s o limi social con ac o con ol he sp ead, he COVID-19
pandemic and he subsequen heal h, economic, and employmen
c ises ha e no pa allel in he his o y o humankind. Economis s say
ha he economy is now in he equi alen o a medically induced
coma (K ugman, 2020).
Business shu down is causing se e e ha dships o wo ke s and
o ganiza ions, wi h millions o jobs los in a ew weeks and millions o
businesses closed ac oss he wo ld. Some wo ke s can wo k emo ely,
bu many o he s a e con ined a home, o en in ex emely di icul
condi ions (e.g., educed space, lack o income, home o e c owding,
lack o medical ca e, lack o wa e , among o he s). Wo king ou ines
ha e been al e ed, wi h bo h sho and long- e m e ec s. Clea ly,
he COVID-19 pandemic has changed many aspec s o ou wo king
and nonwo king li es. As a con ibu ion o I/O psychology o he
8
M. Lado e al. / Jou nal o Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology (2023) 39(1) 7-12
unde s anding o how COVID-19 has a ec ed employees and
o ganiza ions, he aim o his s udy is o examine he impac o
COVID-19 income- ela ed and employmen - ela ed s esso s on
psychological well-being (PWB) and employee commi men (EC).
PWB has also been e e ed o as subjec i e well-being and
happiness (see, o ins ance, Gómez-Bo ges e al., 2022; Ma ínez-
Tu e al., 2022; Moscoso & Salgado, 2021; Salgado & Moscoso,
2022). Conce ning employees’ PWB, P obs e al. (2018, see also,
P obs e al., 2017) examined he impac o he economic c isis o
2007-2008 on PWB. P obs e al. (2018) dis inguished be ween wo
ypes o economic- ela ed s esso s. On he one hand, hey iden i ied
employmen - ela ed s esso s, bo h objec i e and subjec i e,
e.g., job insecu i y (subjec i e s esso ), unde employmen , and
unemploymen (objec i e s esso s). On he o he hand, he e
a e income- ela ed s esso s, such as pe cei ed inal inadequacy
(subjec i e s esso ) and economic dep i a ion (objec i e s esso ).
P obs e al. (2018), using wo la ge na ionally ep esen a i e
samples ob ained du ing he las economic c isis, ound ha PWB
co ela ed nega i ely wi h income- ela ed s ess (-.46 and -.51) and
wi h employmen - ela ed s ess (-.18 and -.14). Since he COVID-19
pandemic esul ed in a combina ion o a heal h c isis and an economic
c isis, hei e ec s could ha e e en mo e d ama ic consequences o
he PWB o employed and unemployed indi iduals. Based on hese
indings, he i s wo hypo heses a e he ollowing:
Hypo hesis 1:
Income- ela ed s ess co ela es nega i ely wi h
PWB as measu ed by he balance be ween posi i e and nega i e
emo ions.
Hypo hesis 2:
Employmen - ela ed s ess co ela es nega i ely
wi h PWB as measu ed by he balance be ween posi i e and nega i e
emo ions.
EC e e s o an employee’s psychological a achmen o he
o ganiza ion (Gu buz e al., 2022; Kuok, 2022). A p esen , Meye
e al.'s (1993) h ee-componen model o EC has achie ed he
la ges consensus among esea che s. Acco ding o Meye and
Allen 1991; Meye e al., 1993; and Meye e al., 2000, EC consis s
o h ee di e en -bu - ela ed aspec s: a ec i e (AFC), no ma i e
(NOC), and con inui y (COC). They p edic in en ion o lea e and
u no e , based-on-job beha io (e.g., job pe o mance, leade ship,
and a endance), and employee heal h and well-being (e.g., wo k
s ess, job insecu i y). Me a-analy ic esea ch by Ma hieu and Zajac
(1990) ound ha EC co ela ed posi i ely wi h age, sala y, job
pe o mance, job sa is ac ion, and job in ol emen , and nega i ely
wi h s ess, in en ion o lea e, u no e , among o he s. The me a-
analysis o Meye e al. (2002) ound ha AFC and NOC co ela ed
posi i ely wi h age, ans o ma ional leade ship, job in ol emen , job
sa is ac ion, pe o mance, and ci izenship beha io s, and nega i ely
wi h u no e . Fu he mo e, AFC co ela ed nega i ely wi h s ess,
while COC co ela ed posi i ely wi h age and s ess and nega i ely
wi h ans o ma ional leade ship and u no e . Mo eo e , Meye e
al. (2013) sugges ed ha employees’ le el o commi men may make
hem mo e eligible o ecei e bo h ex insic ewa ds (e.g., wages and
bene i s) and psychological ewa ds (e.g., in insic job sa is ac ion
and inc eased job secu i y).
These indings, pe se, suppo he impo ance o examining EC in
he con ex o an economic c isis. None heless, addi ional esea ch is
e en mo e necessa y because, al hough a g ea deal o esea ch has
been de o ed o in es iga ing he an eceden s, consequences, and
co ela es o EC, less is known abou he e ec s o economic c ises
on EC. To he bes o ou knowledge, only wo s udies ha e examined
he e ec s o economic c ises on EC. The i s one was conduc ed by
Ma ko i s e al. (2014), who assessed EC in samples collec ed be o e
and du ing he G eek economic c isis o 2011-2012. Ma ko i s e al.
(2014) ound lowe le els o bo h AFC and NOC du ing he c isis han
be o e, bu CC le els did no di e ac oss he wo ime pe iods. The
second s udy has been ecen ly ca ied ou by Meye e al. (2018), who
used da a collec ed be o e and du ing he Tu kish economic c isis o
2001. Con a y o he indings o Ma ko i s e al. (2014), Meye e al.
(2018) ound ha AFC and NOC le els we e no lowe ollowing he
c isis han be o e. Mo eo e , Meye e al. (2018) ound ha he le el o
CC was highe a e he c isis, while Ma ko i s e al. (2014) ound no
di e ences in he le el o CC be o e and a e he c isis. Thus, he wo
s udies a i ed a di e en conclusions. Mo eo e , nei he o hem
examined he e ec s o income- ela ed and employmen - ela ed
s ess on EC and i s componen s. Consequen ly, i is an open ques ion
as o whe he economic c ises ha e e ec s on EC. In his ega d,
he COVID-19 pandemic o e s a unique oppo uni y o examine
whe he he mos se e e heal h and economic c isis we ha e known
has immedia e consequences on EC. Based on p e ious indings and
a ionale, he nex h ee hypo heses o he s udy a e he ollowing:
Hypo hesis 3:
Income- ela ed s ess co ela es nega i ely wi h
o e all EC and i s h ee componen s.
Hypo hesis 4:
Employmen - ela ed s ess co ela es nega i ely
wi h o e all EC and i s h ee componen s.
Hypo hesis 5:
A ec i e commi men co ela es posi i ely wi h
psychological well-being as de ined by he balance be ween posi i-
e and nega i e emo ions.
Me hod
Pa icipan s
The e we e 941 pa icipan s (381 men and 560 women),
collec ed h ough he con ac s o he au ho s (e.g., colleagues) using
a snowball p ocedu e ac oss all he Spanish egions and p o inces.
By occupa ion, 46.0% we e employees in he p i a e sec o , 23.0%
we e ci il se an s, 12.5% we e sel -employed, 13.9 u loughed, and
4.6% unemployed. The mon hly ne sala y/income was dis ibu ed
as ollows: no income (4.2%), less han €1,000 (13.6%), €1,000 o
€1,500 (28.9%), €1,501 o €2,000 (19.2%), €2,001 o €2,500 (13.2%),
€2,501 o €3,500 (14.9%), €3,501 o €4,500 (4.4%), €4,501 o €6,000
(1.4%), mo e han €6,000 (0.3%).
Measu es
Cogni i e Well-being (CWB)
The Sa is ac ion wi h Li e Scale (SWLS; Diene e al., 1985)
assesses he cogni i e componen o subjec i e well-being. The
Sa is ac ion wi h Li e Scale scale consis s o i e i ems ha e alua e
he pe cep ion o one’s li e sa is ac ion. Examples o i ems a e “In
mos ways, my li e is close o my ideal” and “The condi ions o
my li e a e excellen ”. The SWLS uses a se en-poin Like o ma .
The SWLS is p obably one o he mos equen ly used scales o
measu ing happiness, and a la ge numbe o s udies ha e examined
i s psychome ic p ope ies. Pa o and Diene (1993) e ised he
e idence on i s in e nal consis ency and empo al s abili y and
epo ed alpha coe icien s anging om .79 o .89, and es - e es
coe icien s anging om .84 o .54 o in e als om 1 mon h o
4 yea s. This scale has been alida ed wi h Spanish samples and
no ma i e da a a e a ailable. The mean and
SD
o he no ma i e
Spanish sample o cu en ly employed adul s (
n
= 1,807) we e
24.33 and 5.63, espec i ely. The eliabili y (C onbach’s alpha) o
he SWLS in he cu en sample was .89.
A ec i e Well-being
To measu e he emo ional componen o he SWB, we used he
se en posi i e adjec i e and se en nega i e adjec i es o he Scale o
Posi i e and Nega i e Expe ience (SPANE; Diene & Biswas-Diene ,
2008; Diene e al., 2009; Li e al., 2013; Sil a & Cae ano, 2013).
Examples o he posi i e and nega i e adjec i es we e deligh ed,
9
Economic S ess, Commi men , and Subjec i e Well-being
happy, joy ul, nega i e, s essed, sad, and dep essed. Responden s
indica ed how o en hey had expe ienced hese eelings du ing he
p e ious ou weeks using a 5-poin Like scale (1 =
e y a ely
o ne e
, 5 =
e y o en o always
). The sum o he a ings o he
se en posi i e adjec i es se ed o c ea e a posi i e a ec (PA)
compound, and he sum o he se en nega i e adjec i es se ed o
c ea e a nega i e a ec (NA) compound. A sco e o a ec i e well-
being (AWB) (emo ional balance) was ob ained sub ac ing he NA
sco e om he PA sco e. The po en ial ange o he PWB sco e is -28
o +28. The alpha coe icien was .91 o AWB, .90 o PA, and .83
o NA. Fo ins ance, Diene e al. (2009) epo ed a co ela ion o
-.62 be ween he wo scales, and es - e es eliabili ies o .62 and
.63 o posi i e and nega i e emo ions, espec i ely. The co ec ed
co ela ion is .62/(.62 + .63)1/2 = .97. Simila co ela ions be ween
posi i e and nega i e emo ions we e epo ed in li e a u e (e.g., Li
e al., 2013; Rahm e al., 2017; Sil a & Cae ano, 2013; Tele , 2015)
and iden ical o la ge es - e es eliabili ies (Rahm e al., 2017;
Tele , 2015) depending on he in e al wid h. Addi ionally, la ge
co ela ions be ween SWLS and SPANE ha e been ound (e.g., Li
e al., 2013; Rahm e al., 2017; Sil a & Cae ano, 2013; Tele , 2015).
The esponden s indica ed how much hey had expe ienced hese
eelings du ing he ou weeks p e ious o he es ing session. I ems
in he SPANE a e esponded by using a 5-poin Like scale (1 =
e y
a ely o ne e ,
5 =
e y o en o always
). The alpha coe icien was
.91 in his sample.
Objec i e Indica o s o Employmen - ela ed and Income-
ela ed S ess
Objec i e employmen - ela ed s ess (OES) was es ima ed
using wo i ems: pa icipan s’ employmen ype (i.e., ull- ime
employed, sel -employed, pa - ime, u loughed, unemployed),
and pa icipan s’ con ac ype (i.e., empo a y s. pe manen ). The
combina ion o hese wo i ems p oduces i e ca ego ies o OES
( om lowe o highe ): 0 =
ull- ime pe manen employee,
1 =
sel -
employed,
2 =
pa - ime and empo a y employees,
3 =
u loughed
employees,
and 4 =
unemployed.
Two indica o s o objec i e income- ela ed s ess we e used.
The i s one was mon hly ne income, which was coded as ollows:
1 = no income; 2 = less han €1,000; 3 = €1,000 o €1,500; 4 = €1,501
o €2,000; 5 = €2,001 o €2,500; 6 = €2,501 o €3,500; 7 = €3,501
o €4,500; 8 = €4,501 o €6,000; 9 = mo e han €6,000). The second
objec i e indica o was economic dep i a ion (ECD). Following
P obs e al. (2018), ECD was es ima ed as he pe capi a household
income by aking he sel - epo ed pa icipan income ange
di ided by he o al o one (i.e., he esponden ) plus he numbe o
dependen s. To be consis en wi h he hypo heses, he sign o he
ECD co ela ions was e e sed, so ha he highe he ECD he mo e
he nega i e e ec s.
Subjec i e Indica o o Income- ela ed and Employmen -
ela ed S ess
Fi e i ems assessed pa icipan s’ pe cep ions o he e ec s o he
COVID-19 c isis on hei income-and-employmen si ua ions. Th ee
i ems se ed as an indica o o subjec i e income- ela ed s ess
(SIS): “Wha e ec has COVID-19 c isis had on you employmen
con ac ?”, “Wha e ec has COVID-19 c isis had on you sala y/
income in he las ou weeks?”, “Wha e ec has COVID-19
c isis had on you wo kday in he las ou weeks?”. Pa icipan s
answe ed using he ollowing 5-poin scales: 1 =
posi i ely a ec ed,
5 =
nega i ely a ec ed
(i em 1), 1 =
e y much inc eased,
5 =
e y
much educed
(i ems 2 and 3). Thus, a lowe sco e means mo e
SIS. The alpha coe icien was .79. Two i ems se ed o c ea e an
indica o o he subjec i e employmen - ela ed s ess (SES): “Do
you conside ha he cu en economic si ua ion a you home is
be e o wo se han six mon hs ago?”, “Do you conside ha he
si ua ion o you home wi hin six mon hs will be be e o wo se
han a p esen ?”. Pa icipan s could answe each i em on a 5-poin
scale we e 1 =
much wo se
, and 5 =
much be e
. The e o e, a lowe
sco e means mo e SES. The alpha coe icien was .73.
O ganiza ional Commi men
The s udy used a Spanish e sion o he well-known scale by
Meye and Allen (1993) o assessing a ec i e, no ma i e, and
con inui y commi men . The AFC scale consis s o 6 i ems, he NOC
scale was assessed wi h eigh i ems, and he COC scale was assessed
wi h six i ems, all o which we e esponded o on a 5-poin scale.
The alpha coe icien s we e .90, .83, and .91, o AFC, NOC, and COC
espec i ely. The alpha coe icien was .91 o he whole scale in
his sample.
Job Pe o mance (JP)
This was assessed by using he ins umen de eloped by Black
and Po e (1991). This scale asks he pa icipan s o hink back
o he las pe o mance app aisal in hei cu en job. Nex , he
pa icipan s speci y whe e he sco e would place hem ela i e
o hei colleagues on a pe cen age basis. The scale con ains i e
dimensions: (1) o e all pe o mance, (2) abili y o ge along wi h
o he s, (3) comple ing asks on ime, (4) quali y (as opposed o
quan i y) o pe o mance, and (5) achie emen o wo k goals. The
coe icien Alpha was .86 in his s udy.
P ocedu e
A su ey con aining he scales was dis ibu ed h ough he
au ho ’s con ac s. The esponse o he su ey was anonymous, as no
iden i ica ion clues we e eco ded. The su ey was answe ed on-
line, and no IP add esses we e eco ded. The sample is no a andom
one, bu i is ep esen a i e o he Spanish wo king popula ion in
e ms o age, income, and occupa ions. The su ey con ained ou
sec ions ha eques ed he ollowing in o ma ion: (1) backg ound
in o ma ion (e.g., sex, age, occupa ion ype, con ac ype, income),
(2) income- ela ed and economic- ela ed s ess, (3) psychological
well-being scale, and (4) employmen commi men scales. The
esponses we e collec ed be ween Ap il 13 h and Ap il 18 h, 2020,
wo weeks a e he peak o he dea hs epo ed by he COVID-19
pandemic in Spain.
Resul s
Ze o-o de Co ela ion Analysis
Table 1 epo s he co ela ions among he a iables. Conce ning
Hypo hesis 1 abou he nega i e ela ionship be ween he es ima es
o income- ela ed s ess and PWB, income co ela ed -.19 (
p
<
.001) wi h PWB, .23 (
p
< .001) wi h NA, and -.11 (
p
< .01) wi h PA.
Economic dep i a ion co ela ed posi i ely wi h NA (.11,
p
< .01) and
ma ginally-and-nega i ely wi h PWB (-.07,
p
< .07). SIS co ela ed
-.21 (
p
< .001) wi h PWB, .24 (
p
< .001) wi h NA, and -.14 (
p
< .001)
wi h PA. The e o e, Hypo hesis 1 was gene ally suppo ed. Rega ding
Hypo hesis 2, OES co ela ed -.10 (
p
< .01) wi h PWB and .14 (
p
< .001)
wi h NA. The subjec i e es ima e o employmen - ela ed s ess (SES)
co ela ed signi ican ly wi h PWB (-.09,
p
< .02) and NA (.12,
p
< .001).
Thus, he esul s also suppo ed Hypo hesis 2. Rega ding Hypo hesis
3, income co ela ed wi h he h ee componen s o commi men
and wi h o e all employmen commi men . The co ela ions we e
-.31, -.20, -.14, and -.28 o AFC, NOC, COC, and OEC, espec i ely (all
10
M. Lado e al. / Jou nal o Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology (2023) 39(1) 7-12
signi ican a
p
< .001). Economic dep i a ion co ela ed signi ican ly
wi h AFC (-.11,
p
< .01), NOC (-.08,
p
< .01), and OEC (-.10,
p
< .01), bu
i did no co ela e signi ican ly wi h COC. The subjec i e measu e
o income- ela ed s ess (SIS) co ela ed signi ican ly wi h AFC
(-.16,
p
< .001), NOC (-.09,
p
< .02), and OEC (-.14,
p
< .001). The
co ela ion wi h COC was ma ginally signi ican (-.07,
p
< .07). So,
he esul s also suppo ed Hypo hesis 3. Rega ding Hypo hesis 4,
he ou es ima es o commi men co ela ed signi ican ly wi h
OES. The co ela ions we e -.23, -.16, -.12, and -.21 wi h AFC,
NOC, COC, and OES, espec i ely (all signi ican a
p
< .001). The
ou es ima es o commi men also co ela ed wi h SES, wi h
co ela ions o -.20, -.12, -.11, and -.19, o AFC, NOC, COC, and OEC,
espec i ely (all signi ican a
p
< .001). The e o e, he esul s also
suppo ed Hypo hesis 4. Finally, AFC co ela ed .24 wi h PA, -.18
wi h NA, and .23 wi h PWB. Consequen ly, hese esul s suppo ed
Hypo hesis 5.
Al hough no hypo heses ha e been ad anced, i mus be no ed
ha sex (male = 0, emale = 1) co ela ed -.12 (
p
< .001) wi h AFC,
.09 (
p
< .02) wi h OEC, .23 (
p
< .001) wi h NA, and -.17 (
p
< .001)
wi h PWB. Age co ela ed wi h AFC, OEC, NA, and PWB, wi h
co ela ions o .17, .14, -,19, and .10, espec i ely (all signi ican
p
<
.01). Wo k expe ience co ela ed signi ican ly wi h AFC, OES, NA,
and PWB (.17, .15, -.17, and .09, espec i ely). Finally, he numbe
o dependen s co ela ed signi ican ly wi h all he commi men
es ima es and psychological well-being es ima es.
Finally, an indica o o economic- ela ed s ess (IES)
was c ea ed using he i e indica o s o income- ela ed and
employmen - ela ed s ess. The co ela ions be ween IES and PA,
NA, and PWB, co ec ed o measu emen e o X and Y, we e -.11,
.27, and -.21, espec i ely, and he co ec ed co ela ions be ween
IES and AFC, NOC, COC, and OEC we e -.31, -.24, -.15, and -.29,
espec i ely (
p
< .001).
In conclusion, he ze o-o de co ela ion analysis p o ides
suppo o he i e hypo heses. Besides, i is impo an o ema k
ha he hypo heses we e gene ally suppo ed o bo h he objec i e
and subjec i e es ima es o income- ela ed and employmen -
ela ed s ess. I is also in e es ing o men ion ha objec i e
income- ela ed es ima es and employmen - ela ed s ess showed
highe co ela ions wi h commi men han subjec i e es ima es.
This was no he case wi h PWB as bo h objec i e and subjec i e
income- ela ed and employmen - ela ed es ima es showed e y
simila co ela ions. Finally, he economic- ela ed s ess indica o
Table 1. Desc ip i e S a is ics and Co ela ions Among he Socio-demog aphic, Income and Employmen -Rela ed S ess, Commi men , and Psychological Well-being
Va iable
MSD
Sex Age JEX ND INC OES ECD SIS SES WRS AFC NOC COC OEC PA NA PWB
Sex 0.59 0.49 -----
Age 43.29 10.32 -.23 -----
JEP 18.04 10.62 -.26 .90 -----
ND 1.23 1.29 -.18 .35 .35 -----
INC 4.08 1.74 -.32 .42 .46 .26 -----
OES 1.02 1.29 .13 -.34 -.31 -.12 -.44 -----
ECD 1080.36 805.66 -.12 .07 .10 -.48 .59 -.25 -----
SIS 0.00 1.00 -.21 .23 .22 .06 .57 -.37 .38 -----
SES 0.00 1.00 -.11 .27 .22 .09 .42 -.77 .25 .47 -----
WRS 0.00 1.00 -.14 .26 .22 .07 .48 -.68 .31 .69 .93 -----
AFC 21.05 6.40 -.12 .17 .17 .15 .31 -.23 .11 .16 .20 .17 -----
NOC 26.80 5.40 -.04 .05 .05 .08 .20 -.16 .08 .09 .12 .10 .56 -----
COC 18.92 6.31 .01 .05 .06 .09 .14 -.12 .04 .07 .11 .10 .59 .55 -----
OEC 61.02 17.29 -.09 .14 .15 .15 .28 -.21 .10 .14 .19 .16 .96 .62 .80 -----
PA 14.18 3.23 -.08 -.01 -.01 .12 .11 -.05 .01 .14 .05 .07 .24 .18 .09 .21 -----
NA 10.48 3.56 .23 -.19 -.17 -.08 -.23 .14 -.11 -.24 -.12 -.17 -.18 -.04 -.04 -.15 -.71 -----
PWS 3.70 6.28 -.17 .10 .09 .11 .19 -.10 .07 .21 .09 .13 .23 .08 .06 .19 .92 -.93 ----
No e. N
= 697; JEX = job expe ience yea s; ND = numbe o dependen ; INC = mon hly ne income; OES = objec i e employmen - ela ed s ess; ECD = economic dep i a ion; SIS =
subjec i e income- ela ed s ess; SES = subjec i e employmen - ela ed s ess; WRS = wo king- ela ed s ess; AFC = a ec i e commi men ; NOC = no ma i e commi men ; COC =
con inui y commi men ; OEC = o e all employee commi men ; PA = posi i e a ec ; NA = nega i e a ec ; PWS = psychological well-being.
Co ela ions o .08,
p
< .05; co ela ion o .09,
p
< .02; co ela ion o .10 and highe ,
p
< .01.
Table 2. Mul iple Reg ession Analyses o Socio-demog aphics and Income-and-Employmen Rela ed S ess on Commi men Componen s
AFC NOC COC OEC
Va iable β
p
β
p
β
p
β
p
Sex -.034 .384 .001 .978 .052 .192 -.006 .879
Age -.008 .926 -.018 .842 -.058 .509 -.027 .752
Job Expe ience .044 .610 -.037 .673 .033 .711 .044 .608
NOD .191 .000 .137 .007 .147 .004 .195 .000
ECD .154 .002 .114 .026 .094 .068 .149 .003
OES -.112 .056 -.148 .014 -.053 .386 -.102 .084
SIS .008 .850 .011 .818 -.002 .960 .005 .904
SES .044 .464 -.031 .615 .051 .004 .051 .398
R
.304 .193 .169 .280
R
2.092 .037 .029 .078
p
.000 .001 .010 .000
No e. N
= 697; OES = objec i e employmen - ela ed s ess; ECD = economic dep i a ion; SIS = subjec i e income- ela ed s ess; SES = subjec i e employmen - ela ed s ess; AFC
= a ec i e commi men ; NOC = no ma i e commi men ; COC = con inui y commi men ; OEC = o e all employee commi men .
11
Economic S ess, Commi men , and Subjec i e Well-being
co ela ed signi ican ly wi h he h ee PWB es ima es and wi h
he ou EC es ima es.
Mul iple Reg ession Analyses
Table 2 epo s he esul s o he mul iple eg ession analyses
ca ied ou using he ou es ima es o employee commi men as
dependen a iables and he backg ound measu es, and he income-
ela ed and employmen - ela ed s ess es ima es as independen
a iables. Table 3 p esen s he esul s o he mul iple eg ession
analyses o he psychological well-being es ima es.
As can be seen in Table 2, when all he independen a iables
we e en e ed in o he analyses, he mul iple
R
was .304, .193, .169,
and .280 o AFC, NOC, COC, and OEC, espec i ely. In he case o
AFC, only he numbe o dependen s, economic dep i a ion, and
OES we e signi ican p edic o s. The same h ee a iables p edic ed
NOC signi ican ly. The numbe o dependen s and economic
dep i a ion p edic ed COC, and he numbe o dependen s, economic
dep i a ion, and OES p edic ed OEC. As a summa y, hen, employmen
commi men is solely p edic ed by employmen - ela ed s ess.
Nei he backg ound a iables no income- ela ed a iables we e
p edic o s o employee commi men . The e o e, he employmen -
ela ed s ess induced by he COVID-19 c isis is he only ac o which
explains he a ia ions on commi men sco es.
Table 3 shows ha mul iple
R
s we e .204, .327, and .26 o
PA, NA, and PWB, espec i ely. These esul s mean ha NA was
be e p edic ed han PA and PWB. Conce ning p edic o s o he
psychological well-being measu es, he subjec i e income- ela ed
s ess consis en ly p edic ed PA, NA, and PWB. Mo eo e , he numbe
o dependen s p edic ed PA and PWB signi ican ly. Sex p edic ed NA
and PWB and age p edic ed NA. The e o e, income- ela ed s ess
bu no employmen - ela ed s ess explained he a ia ions in he
psychological well-being measu es.
In summa y, he mul iple eg ession analyses showed ha he
COVID-19 induced s ess has e ec s on bo h psychological well-being
and employee commi men , bu he sou ces o he s ess in luence a e
di e en . Employmen - ela ed s ess a ec s employee commi men ,
while income- ela ed s ess a ec s psychological well-being.
Mo eo e , employee commi men is no a ec ed by sex, age, wo k
expe ience, and he numbe o dependen s. Sex, age, and numbe o
dependen s ha e a ole in he e ec s o psychological well-being.
Discussion
This s udy has some unique ea u es. Fi s , no p e ious s udy
had in es iga ed he e ec s o simul aneously occu ing heal h
and economic c ises on psychological well-being and employee
commi men . Second, he da ase has been collec ed du ing he
wo s momen s o he COVID-19 pandemic. Thi d, compa ed o
p e ious esea ch, he cu en s udy included bo h objec i e and
subjec i e indica o s o income- ela ed and employmen - ela ed
s ess and bo h an o e all es ima e o PWB and measu es o posi i e
a ec and nega i e a ec . Fo ins ance, P obs e al.’s (2018) s udy
did no include objec i e and subjec i e indica o s o employmen -
ela ed s ess and did no dis inguish be ween posi i e and nega i e
componen s o a ec .
These s udy indings suppo p e ious indings by P obs e
al. (2018) on he ole o economic- ela ed s ess (income- ela ed
and employmen - ela ed s ess), as bo h objec i e and subjec i e
es ima o s o economic- ela ed s ess co ela ed wi h PWB in he
hypo hesized di ec ion. Fu he mo e, his s udy showed ha he
ela ionship o economic- ela ed s ess wi h NA is ema kably highe
han i is wi h PA (.27 s. .11) and ha he co ela ions o objec i e and
subjec i e economic- ela ed s ess indica o s wi h PWB, PA, and NA
showed simila sizes. These ela ionships ha e no been esea ched
be o e.
Rega ding EC, he indings showed a nega i e ela ionship be ween
economic- ela ed s ess indica o s and EC and i s componen s.
Nine een ou o 20 co ela ions we e s a is ically signi ican .
Economic- ela ed s ess, conside ed as a whole, showed signi ican
co ela ions wi h he h ee componen s o EC and wi h he o e all
EC, sugges ing ha he cu en economic c isis plays a c i ical ole
in lowe ing he le el o all EC componen s. In his sense, he cu en
indings concu wi h he indings o Ma ko i s e al. (2014) and
con adic he esul s o Meye e al. (2018).
This s udy has made se e al unique con ibu ions. Fi s , he s udy
did no only examine whe he economic c ises a ec EC and i s
componen s bu also e ealed he speci ic mechanisms (an eceden s)
by which an economic c isis a ec s EC and i s componen s. In his
ega d, EC is mo e a ec ed by employmen - ela ed s ess han
by income- ela ed s ess. The second unique con ibu ion is ha
he s udy showed he speci ic ela ionship be ween objec i e and
subjec i e es ima es o income- ela ed and employmen - ela ed
s ess and psychological well-being, posi i e a ec , and nega i e
a ec . The hi d unique con ibu ion has been o show ha , among
he c isis- ela ed a iables, only a ew we e signi ican p edic o s
o employee commi men and well-being and ha hey a e no he
same o psychological well-being and employee commi men .
The indings o his s udy sugges some a enues o main aining
o e en inc easing employee commi men and psychological well-
being. In he case o EC, he indings sugges ha o ganiza ions
should concen a e hei e o s on employmen - ela ed s ess by
educing he unce ain y and insecu i y o employees abou hei
Table 3. Mul iple Reg ession Analyses o Socio-demog aphics and Income-and Employmen - ela ed S ess on Well-being Componen s
PA NA PWB
Va iable β
p
β
p
β
p
Sex -.042 .287 .168 .000 -.117 .003
Age -.087 .324 -.209 .014 .074 .395
Job Expe ience -.032 .718 .116 .173 -.082 .345
NOD .159 .002 -.021 .661 .094 .059
ECD .041 .424 -.033 .507 .040 .432
OES -.047 .438 .048 .413 -.051 .390
SIS .134 .003 -.176 .000 .169 .000
SES -.051 .406 .058 .330 -.059 .329
R
.204 .327 .260
R
2.042 .107 .067
p
.000 .000 .000
No e. N
= 697; OES = objec i e employmen - ela ed s ess; ECD = economic dep i a ion; SIS = subjec i e income- ela ed s ess; SES = subjec i e employmen - ela ed s ess; PA =
posi i e a ec ; NA = nega i e a ec ; PWB = psychological well-being.
12
M. Lado e al. / Jou nal o Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology (2023) 39(1) 7-12
jobs. In connec ion wi h EC, employees a e mo e s essed abou he
possibili y o losing hei jobs han hey a e abou hei incomes.
Rega ding psychological well-being, companies should concen a e
hei e o s on educing he subjec i e income- ela ed s ess, helping
hei employees o de elop ealis ic expec a ions abou u u e
income, and managing hei inancial esou ces. Some companies a e
al eady doing excellen wo k on his issue. Fo example, he Spanish
mul ina ional clo hing company Indi ex, he bigges ashion g oup in
he wo ld, ea ly in Ma ch in o med hei employees ha he company
would y o main ain hei cu en le el o employmen o he nex
ew mon hs. Undoub edly, his news has been e y welcome o hei
o e 162,000 employees wo ldwide. O cou se, no all companies can
do he same.
A limi a ion o his s udy should be men ioned. This c oss-
sec ional s udy does no pe mi he es ablishmen o causal links
be ween economic ela ed-s ess and PWB and EC. Ne e heless,
because he da a was collec ed in he p ecise momen o he
c isis and ha he sample con ains indi iduals who a e employed,
unemployed, and u loughed, he causal e ec s o EIC can be
assumed.
Con lic o In e es
The au ho s o his a icle decla e no con lic o in e es .
Re e ences
Black, J.S., & Po e , L.W. (1991). Manage ial beha io s and job pe o mance:
a success ul manage in Los Angeles may no succeed in Hong Kong.
Jou nal o In e na ional Business S udies, 22
(1), 99-113. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1057/palg a e.jibs.8490294
Diene , E., Emmons, R. A., La sen, R. J., & G i in, S. (1985). The sa is ac ion
wi h li e scale.
Jou nal o Pe sonali y Assessmen , 49
(1), 71-75. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Diene , E., & Biswas-Diene , R. (2008).
Happiness: Unlocking he mys e ies
o psychological weal h
. Blackwell.
Diene , E., Emmons, R. A., La sen, R. J., & G i in, S. (1985). The sa is ac ion
wi h li e scale.
Jou nal o Pe sonali y Assessmen , 49
, 71-75. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Diene , E., Wi z, D., To , W., Kim-P ie o, C., Choi. D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-
Diene , R. (2009). New well-being measu es: Sho scales o assess
lou ishing and posi i e and nega i e eelings.
Social Indica o s
Resea ch, 39
, 247-266. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y
Gómez-Bo ges, A., Peláez Zube bühle , J., Ma ínez, I. M., & Salano a, M.
(2022). Sel -ca e a wo k ma e s: How job and pe sonal esou ces
media e be ween sel -ca e and psychological well-being.
Jou nal o
Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology, 38
(3), 231-239. h ps://doi.
o g/10.5093/jwop2022a15
Gu buz, S., Cos igan, R., & Ma asli, F. (2022). Disen angling he linkage
be ween pe sonali y and commi men : A mode a ed media ion
model o co e sel -e alua ions and a ec i i y
. Jou nal o Wo k and
O ganiza ional Psychology, 38
(3), 249-258. h ps://doi.o g/10.5093/
jwop2022a17
K ugman, P. (2020, Ap il 17). S a e he beas , eed he dep ession.
New
Yo k Times,
Sec ion A, p. 27.
Kuok, A. C. H. (2022). Emo ional in elligence, wo k sa is ac ion, and a ec i e
commi men : An occupa ional heal h s udy o social wo ke s.
Jou nal
o Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology, 38
(3), 223-230. h ps://doi.
o g/10.5093/jwop2022a14
Li, F., Bai, X., & Wang, Y. (2013). The scale o posi i e and nega i e
expe ience (SPANE): Psychome ic p ope ies and no ma i e da a in
a la ge Chinese sample.
PLOS One, 8
(4), 1-9. h ps://doi.o g/10.1371/
jou nal.pone.0061137
Ma ko i s, Y., Boe , D., & an Dick, R. (2014). Economic c isis and he
employee: E ec s o economic c isis on employee job sa is ac ion,
commi men , and sel - egula ion.
Eu opean Jou nal o Managemen ,
32
(3), 413-422. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.emj.2013.09.005
Ma ínez-Tu , V., Es ede , Y., Tomás, I., Mo eno, F., Mañas-Rod íguez, M.
A., & Díaz-Fúnez, P. A. (2022). No e e y day is monday o employees
con ined due o COVID-19: An icipa o y happiness ma e
s. Jou nal
o Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology, 38
(3), 201-211. h ps://doi.
o g/10.5093/jwop2022a12
Ma hieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A e iew and me a-analysis o
he an eceden s, co ela es, and consequences o o ganiza ional
commi men .
Psychological Bulle in, 108
(2), 171-1994. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.171
Meye , J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A h ee-componen concep ualiza ion o
o ganiza ional commi men .
Human Resou ce Managemen Re iew,
1
(1), 61-89. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
Meye , J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smi h, C. A. (1993). Commi men o o ganiza ions
and occupa ions: Ex ension and es o a h ee-componen
concep ualiza ion.
Jou nal o Applied Psychology, 78
(4), 538-551.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538
Meye , J. P., Mo in, A. J. S., & Was i, A. (2018). Employee commi men
be o e and a e an economic c isis: A s ingen es o p o ile
simila i y.
Human Rela ions, 71
(9), 1204-1233. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1177/0018726717739097
Meye , J. P., & Smi h, C. A. (2000). HRM p ac ices and o ganiza ional
commi men : Tes o a media ion model.
Canadian
Jou nal o Adminis a i e Sciences/Re ue canadienne des
sciences de l'adminis a ion, 17
(4), 319-331. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1111/j.1936-4490.2000. b00231.x
Meye , J. P., S anley, D. J., He sco i ch, L., & Topolny sky, L. (2002). A ec i e,
con inuance, and no ma i e commi men o he o ganiza ion: A
me a-analysis o an eceden s, co ela es, and consequences.
Jou nal
o Voca ional Beha io , 61
(1), 20-52. h ps://doi.o g/10.1006/
j be.2001.1842
Meye , J. P., S anley, L. J., & Vandenbe g, R. J. (2013). A pe son-cen e ed
app oach o he s udy o commi men
. Human Resou ce Managemen
Re iew, 23
(2), 190-202. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.h m .2012.07.007
Moscoso, S., & Salgado, J.F. (2021). Me a-analy ic examina ion o a
supp esso e ec on subjec i e well-being and job pe o mance
ela ionship.
Jou nal o Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology, 37
(2),
119-131. h ps://doi.o g/10.5093/jwop2021a13
Pa o , W., & Diene , E. (1993). Re iew o he sa is ac ion wi h
li e scale.
Psychological Assessmen , 5,
164-172. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1037/10403590.5.2.164
P obs , T. M., Sinclai , R. R., & Cheung, J. (2017). Economic s esso s and
well-being: Mul ile el conside a ions. In C. Coope & M. Lei e (Eds.),
Rou ledge companion o wellbeing a wo k
(pp. 121-134). Rou ledge.
P obs , T. M., Sinclai , R. R., Sea , L. E., Gailey, N. J., Black, K. J., & Cheung,
J. H. (2018). Economic s ess and well-being: Does popula ion heal h
con ex ma e ?
Jou nal o Applied Psychology, 103
(9), 959-979.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/apl0000309
Rahm, T., Heise, E., & Schuld , M. (2017). Measu ing he equency o
emo ions- alida ion o he scale o posi i e and nega i e expe ience
(SPANE) in Ge many.
PLOS One, 12
(2), e0171288. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1371/jou nal.pone.0171288
Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2021). C oss-cul u al e idence o he
ela ionship be ween subjec i e well-being and job pe o mance: A
me a-analysis.
Jou nal o Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology, 38
(1),
27-42. h ps://doi.o g/10.5093/jwop2022a3
Sil a, A. J., & Cae ano, A. (2013). Valida ion o he lou ishing scale and
scale o posi i e and nega i e expe ience in Po ugal.
Social Indica o s
Resea ch, 110
, 469-478. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11205-011-9938-y
Tele , B. B. (2015). The posi i e and nega i e expe ience scale adap a ion
o Tu kish uni e si y s uden s.
Eu opean Scien i ic Jou nal, 11
, 49-59.
h ps://doi.o g/10.13140/RG.2.1.3987.3124
