A study of the effects of job insecurity on organizational citizenship behavior based on the chained mediating effects of emotional exhaustion and organizational identification

Jing Zhu; Mingfa Yang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0329976

. 2025 Sep 8;20(9):e0329976. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0329976

A study of the effects of job insecurity on organizational citizenship behavior based on the chained mediating effects of emotional exhaustion and organizational identification

Jing Zhu ^1,^*, Mingfa Yang ²

Editor: Jianpeng Fan,³

PMCID: PMC12416719 PMID: 40920665

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to explore the influence mechanism of job insecurity on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Specifically, it sought to examine the chained mediating role of emotional exhaustion and organizational identification in this relationship.

Methods

A longitudinal time-lagged survey was conducted on 330 employees at two time points. The data were collected using established scales for job insecurity, emotional exhaustion, organizational identification, and OCB. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the hypothesized chained mediation model.

Results

The results confirmed that emotional exhaustion and organizational identification are crucial mediators. Three significant indirect pathways were identified: (1) a simple mediation path through emotional exhaustion; (2) a simple mediation path through organizational identification; and (3) a chained mediation path where job insecurity increased emotional exhaustion, which in turn decreased organizational identification, ultimately leading to lower OCB. Notably, emotional exhaustion emerged as the most dominant mediating mechanism.

Conclusions

This study reveals a complex mechanism through which job insecurity impacts OCB, highlighting a sequential process from emotional strain to cognitive detachment. These findings offer important theoretical insights for job stress models and provide practical guidance for organizations to mitigate the negative effects of job insecurity by addressing both employee well-being and their sense of belonging.

1. Introduction

In an era of increasing global economic uncertainty and rapid organizational change, job insecurity has emerged as a pervasive and critical issue for the modern workforce [1,2]. Defined as an employee’s subjective perception of threat regarding the continuity of their job, this organizational stressor has profound negative consequences for both individuals and organizations [3,4]. For instance, recent data from China indicates a significant decline in employment security, with over 40% of professionals expressing deep concerns about their job stability (China Employment Market Prosperity Report, 2023). This prevailing sense of insecurity is particularly detrimental to Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)—discretionary actions that, while not formally rewarded, are crucial for fostering organizational effectiveness, productivity, and a collaborative atmosphere [5,6]. Given the established importance of OCB for sustainable organizational success, understanding the factors that inhibit it is of paramount importance. Recent empirical evidence has further underscored the critical role of OCB across diverse organizational contexts, demonstrating its enhancement through servant leadership and psychological empowerment [7], its significance in challenging institutional environments [8], and its complex relationship with individual characteristics requiring mediational pathways [9].

To effectively address the adverse impacts of job insecurity, researchers must move beyond simply documenting its negative correlation with OCB and delve into the underlying psychological mechanisms that explain how and why this effect occurs. While previous studies have identified individual mediators, such as emotional exhaustion or organizational identification, they have often examined these pathways in isolation [10,11]. This approach overlooks the complex, sequential nature of employees’ psychological responses to job-related stress.

Consequently, a significant research gap exists in understanding the chained, or sequential, mediating process through which job insecurity translates into reduced OCB. Prior academic works have tended to avoid exploring these multi-step mediational models, often due to methodological complexity or a lack of an integrated theoretical framework [12]. Specifically, the literature has not adequately investigated whether job insecurity first triggers an affective reaction (i.e., emotional exhaustion), which in turn degrades a cognitive-evaluative state (i.e., organizational identification), ultimately leading to a withdrawal of discretionary behaviors like OCB. This study directly critiques this oversight by proposing and testing such a sequential pathway.

Contrasting with past research that predominantly focused on single-mediator models, this study integrates two prominent theories—Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory and Social Identity Theory—to build a more comprehensive model. We posit that the full story cannot be told without considering the sequential interplay between emotional depletion and social identification. Therefore, the primary objectives of this study are: (1) To confirm the negative relationship between job insecurity and OCB; (2) To investigate the mediating roles of emotional exhaustion and organizational identification individually; and (3) To examine the novel chained mediating effect of emotional exhaustion and organizational identification in the relationship between job insecurity and OCB (Fig 1).

This paper contributes to academic literature by introducing and empirically validating a chained mediation model that offers a more nuanced explanation of the job insecurity-OCB link. By connecting the affective consequences (emotional exhaustion) of resource loss to the cognitive-evaluative changes in self-concept (organizational identification), our research provides a deeper, more holistic understanding of how organizational stressors unfold to impact employee behavior.

2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses development

2.1 Job insecurity and organizational citizenship behavior

Job insecurity, conceptualized as a subjective organizational stressor, is characterized by employees’ perceived vulnerability and experience of powerlessness regarding potential job instability [1]. Grounded in Conservation of Resources Theory (COR), individuals confronting resource threats implement defensive strategies to mitigate potential loss [10]. Job insecurity represents a significant resource risk, compelling employees to prioritize personal resource preservation over organizational interests, consequently reducing discretionary work contributions, particularly organizational citizenship behaviors beyond formal job requirements [3].

Social Exchange Theory provides additional theoretical insights: Organizational citizenship behaviors fundamentally rely on reciprocal expectations. Job insecurity undermines the organizational psychological contract, causing employees to perceive the organization’s failure to fulfill job security commitments, thus diminishing their willingness to reciprocate organizational investments [13].

Empirical evidence consistently substantiates these theoretical propositions. Multiple meta-analyses have documented a robust inverse relationship between job insecurity and organizational citizenship behavior [14]. Longitudinal research demonstrates the cumulative nature of this effect, revealing progressively diminished organizational citizenship behaviors as job insecurity persists [15]. Synthesizing theoretical analysis and extant research evidence, this study posits a significant negative correlation between job insecurity and organizational citizenship behavior. Consequently, we propose:

Hypothesis 1: Job insecurity is negatively related to organizational citizenship behavior.

2.2 The mediating role of emotional exhaustion

Emotional exhaustion, a critical dimension of occupational burnout, manifests as the depletion of an individual’s emotional resources, psychological energy, and professional enthusiasm [16]. The link between job insecurity and emotional exhaustion is well-explained by COR theory. Job insecurity represents a persistent threat, compelling employees to persistently allocate cognitive and emotional resources to manage uncertainty, accelerating psychological energy depletion [17]. When resource consumption systematically exceeds resource acquisition, employees enter a resource-loss spiral ultimately culminating in emotional exhaustion [18]. The Job Demands-Resources Model further supports this, conceptualizing job insecurity as a detrimental job demand that weakens psychological resilience by activating energy depletion mechanisms [19]. search has substantiated this theoretical propositi Empirical ren, demonstrating a significant positive correlation between job insecurity and emotional exhaustion [3].

Once emotionally depleted, employees predominantly implement resource-preservation strategies, prioritizing core job responsibilities while simultaneously reducing discretionary organizational citizenship behaviors [20].Emotional resource deprivation fundamentally constrains employees’ capacity to focus on collective organizational needs, consequently diminishing discretionary behaviors such as colleague support and organizational development initiatives [21]. Multiple studies have consistently documented the significant negative relationship between emotional exhaustion and organizational citizenship behaviors, a finding corroborated across diverse organizational contexts [22,23].Therefore, we posit that emotional exhaustion serves as a key mechanism transmitting the negative effect of job insecurity to OCB. Consequently, we propose:

Hypothesis 2: Emotional exhaustion mediates the relationship between job insecurity and organizational citizenship behavior.

2.3 The mediating role of organizational identification

Organizational identification, conceptualized within the framework of Social Identity Theory, represents the degree to which individuals incorporate their self-conceptualization with organizational membership [11]. Social Identity Theory posits that individuals inherently identify with organizations fulfilling their needs for self-perpetuation, self-improvement, and self-differentiation [24]. Job insecurity fundamentally breaches the psychological contract, signaling that the organization cannot provide anticipated security. This erodes the organization’s perceived value and its attractiveness as a source of identity, leading employees to psychologically distance themselves from the organization [25].

Moreover, job insecurity can signal potential marginalization, positioning employees as “outsiders” rather than core members, which weakens the foundational basis for organizational identification [26]. The uncertainty and perceived threat induced by job insecurity compel employees to redirect cognitive resources toward personal preservation, further attenuating their psychological connection with the organization [27]. Conversely, organizational identification functions as a critical psychological mechanism connecting individuals to organizational objectives.

Employees with robust organizational identity conceptualize the organization as an extension of their self-definition, perceiving organizational success as synonymous with personal achievement. Consequently, they demonstrate heightened propensity to engage in discretionary organizational citizenship behaviors that benefit the collective [28,29]. Extensive empirical research has consistently validated organizational identification as a significant predictor of OCB [30]. Considering job insecurity’s inhibitory effect on organizational identity and the latter’s facilitating influence on OCB, organizational identity is expected to function as a mediator.. Consequently, we propose:

Hypothesis 3: Organizational identification mediates the relationship between job insecurity and organizational citizenship behavior.

2.4 The chained mediating effect of emotional exhaustion and organizational identification

Building upon the preceding arguments, we propose a more complex mechanism involving a sequential mediation pathway. We integrate COR theory and Social Identity Theory to theorize this chain effect. From a COR perspective, job insecurity acts as a chronic stressor that depletes employees’ valuable emotional resources, leading to emotional exhaustion [18]. This aligns with Affective Events Theory, which suggests that negative workplace events (job insecurity) trigger negative emotional responses (emotional exhaustion) [31].

The critical link in our proposed chain is the path from emotional exhaustion to organizational identification. Emotional resource depletion constrains the cognitive capacity required to process social information and maintain a positive connection with the organization [27]. When employees are exhausted, their psychological focus narrows from the collective (the organization) to the self (personal survival), making it difficult to maintain a strong sense of oneness with the organization [28]. Empirical research supports this, demonstrating a significant negative relationship between emotional exhaustion and organizational identification [32].

Therefore, the proposed chain-mediated process follows a theoretically substantiated trajectory: job insecurity (a resource threat) leads to emotional exhaustion (resource loss), which in turn weakens organizational identification (eroded social-psychological connection), ultimately resulting in a withdrawal of OCB (reduced discretionary contribution). This mechanism reflects the intricate dynamics of job insecurity’s influence, integrating both affective and cognitive pathways. Consequently, we propose:

Hypothesis 4: Emotional exhaustion and organizational identification sequentially mediate the relationship between job insecurity and organizational citizenship behavior.

3. Methodology

3.1 Participants and procedure

The study employed a convenience sampling approach, collecting 330 valid survey responses. The sample comprised 55.15% male participants and 44.85% female participants, demonstrating a relatively balanced gender representation. Age distribution was predominantly characterized by the 26–35 year old cohort (43.94%), complemented by participants under 25 years (26.36%) and 36–45 years (18.48%), representing a comprehensive age spectrum. The educational attainment profile revealed a concentration of middle to higher education backgrounds, with bachelor’s degree holders constituting 43.03% and specialist degree holders accounting for 28.48%. Professional experience distribution appeared relatively uniform, with 1–3 years, 4–6 years, and 7–10 years of experience representing 26.06%, 22.12%, and 22.12% of respondents, respectively. Organizational characteristics demonstrated significant diversity. Participant roles were primarily composed of entry-level personnel (57.88%) and junior management (26.67%). Industrial sector representation encompassed key domains including IT/Internet (24.24%), Manufacturing (20.91%), service industry (16.97%), and other sectors. Organization size distribution ranged from large enterprises with over 1,000 employees (25.15%) to small and medium-sized organizations, with 75.15% of respondents being full-time employees.

This study employed a time-lagged design approved by the Ethics Committee of Chengdu Institute of Physical Education (Approval No. 202584). The recruitment period for this study ran from March 31, 2025, to April 10, 2025. All participants provided written informed consent before participating in the study. No minors were involved in this research. Data were collected over a five-week period, comprising three measurement phases: T1 (week 1) assessed job insecurity and demographic attributes; T2 (week 3) evaluated emotional exhaustion and organizational identity; and T3 (week 5) measured organizational citizenship behavior. The research team acquired samples through diverse channels, distributing questionnaires in collaboration with the human resources departments of 12 medium-sized enterprises and utilizing a professional research platform (Questionnaire Star) to enhance the sample reach. To guarantee the precision of data linkage across the three time points, participants were instructed to create and use the same unique anonymous identification code (e.g., first letter of name – last four digits of cell phone number) for each survey. The research team subsequently used these codes to manually match the responses. The questionnaire was electronically delivered via email, allowing 48 hours for completion; those who did not complete the questionnaire within this timeframe were sent a reminder email. To ensure data quality, the questionnaire included attention-check questions and we screened for invalid data (e.g., excessively short completion times or logical inconsistencies), resulting in 330 complete matches across the three time points. (Note: This study includes other categorical variables as control variables in the model analysis. The comparison results (see appendix) indicate that the parameter estimates with control variables do not differ significantly from those of the baseline model. Considering data consistency and result clarity, this paper reports the estimation results from the baseline model.)

3.2 Measures

3.2.1 Job insecurity scale.

The study employed the validated Job Insecurity Scale [33] to assess employees’ subjective perceptions of job stability. The measurement instrument comprises five carefully constructed question items, assessed via a 6-point Likert-type response format (1 = never, 6 = always). The scale comprehensively integrates employees’ cognitive appraisals and affective responses, systematically capturing critical dimensions of job insecurity: concerns about job stability, anticipation of potential organizational changes, and apprehension regarding potential dismissal. In the current research context, the scale demonstrated exceptional internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.916.

3.2.2 Emotional exhaustion scale.

The study employed the validated Emotional Exhaustion Scale [34] to evaluate employees’ psychological resource depletion. The measurement instrument comprises three carefully constructed question items, assessed via a 7-point Likert-type response format (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The scale systematically assesses the multidimensional aspects of emotional depletion, mental exhaustion, and workplace-induced fatigue that employees encounter during professional engagement. In the current research context, the scale demonstrated robust psychometric properties, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.842.

3.2.3 Organizational identification scale.

The study employed the validated Organizational Identification Scale [35] to assess employees’ psychological affiliation and organizational embeddedness. The measurement instrument comprises six carefully constructed items, assessed via a 5-point Likert-type response format (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The scale comprehensively examines core manifestations of organizational identification, including individuals’ affective responses in response to organizational achievements or critiques, perceptions of shared organizational accomplishments, and linguistic markers of organizational belonging (e.g., using “we” instead of “they”). In the original study, the internal consistency reliability was.87 across a sample of 297 alumni, demonstrating robust psychometric properties. In the current research context, the Organizational Identification Scale exhibited an exceptional Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.884.

3.2.4 Organizational citizenship behavior scale.

The study employed the validated Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale developed [36], originally revised from Podsakoff et al. [37], to assess employees’ discretionary workplace behaviors. The comprehensive measurement instrument consists of ten items, assessed via a 7-point Likert-type response format (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), encompassing two critical dimensions: prosocial organizational behaviors (items 1–7) and organizational citizenship ethics (items 8–10). The scale has demonstrated robust cross-cultural validity, with internal consistency coefficients of 0.81 and 0.73 for prosocial behaviors and citizenship ethics subscales, respectively, in a comparative study between Chinese and U.S. contexts. In the current research context, the Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale exhibited exceptional psychometric properties, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.952 (Table 1).

Table 1. Research instrument validation.

	Cronbach’s α	KMO value	χ²/df	GFI	RMSEA	RMR	CFI	NFI
Job insecurity	0.916	0.898	1.089	0.994	0.016	0.031	1	0.995
Emotional Exhaustion	0.843	0.726	–	1	0	0.003	1	1
Organizational Iidentification	0.884	0.908	0.639	0.994	0	0.022	1.004	0.994
Organizational Citizenship Behavior	0.952	0.965	1.68	0.967	0.045	0.078	0.991	0.978

Open in a new tab

3.3 Data analysis

The data processing and analysis of this study employed a multi-stage analytical strategy. The raw data were organized and merged using Microsoft Excel, with precise matching achieved through the participant-provided identification codes. Subsequently, the data were imported into SPSS 26.0 for comprehensive analysis, employing Pearson correlation coefficients to assess the bivariate relationships among the study variables and descriptive statistical analysis to delineate sample characteristics and variable distributions. The mediation analysis was grounded in the framework articulated by Hayes (2013), utilizing the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Model 6) to perform a chained mediation analysis and implementing the Bootstrap method (5,000 repetitions, 95% confidence interval) to verify the significance of indirect effects. This method offers robust statistical support for examining how job insecurity influences organizational citizenship behaviors via emotional exhaustion and organizational identity.

4. Findings

4.1 Common method bias test

To proactively mitigate common method bias (CMB), a three-wave, time-lagged research design was employed, which is a key procedural remedy. We further conducted statistical analyses to assess potential remaining bias. Harman’s single-factor test revealed that the first unrotated factor accounted for 49.59% of the variance, falling below the 50% threshold. Additionally, a full collinearity assessment was performed, yielding a maximum variance inflation factor (VIF) of 3.36. While we acknowledge that this VIF value is slightly above the strict 3.3 benchmark suggested by Kock (2015), it remains well within other commonly accepted thresholds (e.g., 5 or 10). Considering our robust time-lagged design as the primary control, coupled with these statistical results, we conclude that common method bias is not a significant concern for this study.

4.2 Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis

To investigate the distributional characteristics of the research variables and their interrelationships, descriptive statistics and correlation analysis were conducted on the primary variables in this study. The results indicated that participants reported a moderately high level of job insecurity (M = 3.58, SD = 1.492), exhibited a high degree of emotional exhaustion (M = 3.888, SD = 1.735), showed a moderate level of organizational identification (M = 3.023, SD = 1.056), and attained a high level of organizational citizenship behavior (M = 3.868, SD = 1.696). Pearson’s correlation analysis revealed that job insecurity exhibited a significant positive correlation with emotional exhaustion (r = 0.627, p < 0.01) and demonstrated a significant negative correlation with organizational identity (r = −0.550, p < 0.01) and organizational citizenship behavior (r = −0.579, p < 0.01). Emotional exhaustion significantly negatively correlated with organizational identity (r = −0.569, p < 0.01), while organizational identity was significantly positively correlated with organizational citizenship behavior (r = 0.548, p < 0.01) (Table 2). These correlations preliminarily support the proposed chain-mediated theoretical model in which job insecurity influences organizational citizenship behavior through emotional exhaustion and organizational identification.

Table 2. Pearson correlation – standard format.

	M	SD	Job Insecurity	Emotional Exhaustion	Organizational Identification	Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Job Insecurity	3.58	1.492	1
Emotional Exhaustion	3.888	1.735	0.627**	1
Organizational Identification	3.023	1.056	−0.550**	−0.569**	1
Organizational Citizenship Behavior	3.868	1.696	−0.579**	−0.662**	0.548**	1

Open in a new tab

* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01.

4.3 Chain mediation effect test

In this study, the data were preprocessed and assessed for covariance before testing mediation effects, and the results indicated that the variance inflation factor for each predictor variable was less than 5, suggesting that the data did not exhibit significant multicollinearity issues and were appropriate for examining complex mediation effects. The study employed the Bootstrap method with 5000 bootstrap samples to test the direct and indirect effects of job insecurity on organizational citizenship behavior through emotional exhaustion and organizational identity. The results of regression analysis indicated that job insecurity exerted a significant positive predictive effect on emotional exhaustion (β = 0.627, p < 0.01) and a significant negative predictive effect on both organizational identity (β = −0.319, p < 0.01) and organizational citizenship behaviors (β = −0.579, p < 0.01). Furthermore, emotional exhaustion significantly negatively impacted organizational identification (β = −0.369, p < 0.01) and also had a significant negative relationship with organizational citizenship behavior (β = −0.421, p < 0.01). In contrast, organizational identity exhibited a significant positive predictive effect on organizational citizenship behavior (β = 0.193, p < 0.01) (Table 3). The regression models demonstrated good fit, with R² values of 0.393, 0.385, 0.336, and 0.506, along with adjusted R² values of 0.391, 0.381, 0.334, and 0.501, and F-tests achieving statistical significance (p < 0.001) (Fig 2).

Table 3. Mediation effects model test (n = 330).

	Emotional Exhaustion		Organizational Identification		Organizational Citizenship Behavior		Organizational Citizenship Behavior
	B	t	B	t	B	t	B	t
Job Insecurity	0.627**	14.579	−0.319**	−5.726	−0.579**	−12.874	−0.209**	−3.989
Emotional Exhaustion			−0.369**	−6.624			−0.421**	−7.902
Organizational Identification							0.193**	3.896
R 2	0.393		0.385		0.336		0.506
Adjustment R 2	0.391		0.381		0.334		0.501
F-value	212.54		102.353		165.745		111.137

Open in a new tab

* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01.

The mediation effect analysis revealed that the aggregate effect of job insecurity on organizational citizenship behavior was −0.579, with a direct effect of −0.209 (95% CI = [−0.312, −0.106]) and a total indirect effect of −0.370 (95% CI = [−0.476, −0.265]), which suggests that the mediation variable played a partial mediating role in this influence mechanism. Further analysis indicated that job insecurity exerts an indirect influence on organizational citizenship behavior through three pathways: (1) job insecurity → emotional exhaustion → organizational citizenship behavior, with an indirect effect value of −0.264 (95% CI = [−0.358, −0.170]); (2) job insecurity → organizational identification → organizational citizenship behavior, with an indirect effect value of −0.062 (95% CI = [−0.128, −0.165]); and (3) job insecurity → organizational identification → organizational citizenship behavior, with an indirect effect value of −0.062 (95% CI = [−0.128, −0.168]). The 95% confidence intervals for all three indirect pathways did not contain 0, indicating that these mediating effects were statistically significant (Table 4).

Table 4. Results of parallel mediation effect test.

Effect path	Effect	Boot SE	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI
Total effect	−0.579	0.045	−0.668	−0.491
Direct effect	−0.209	0.052	−0.312	−0.106
Total indirect effect	−0.37	0.054	−0.476	−0.265
Ind1	−0.264	0.048	−0.358	−0.17
Ind2	−0.062	0.031	−0.128	−0.007
Ind3	−0.045	0.023	−0.093	−0.005
(C1)	−0.202	0.063	−0.323	−0.078
(C2)	−0.219	0.062	−0.335	−0.092
(C3)	−0.017	0.027	−0.074	0.032

Open in a new tab

Ind1:Job Insecurity → Emotional Exhaustion → Organizational Citizenship Behavior.

Ind2:Job Insecurity → Organizational Identity → Organizational Citizenship Behavior.

Ind3:Job Insecurity→Emotional Exhaustion→Organizational Identification→Organizational Citizenship Behavior.

C1: Ind1 vs Ind2.

C2: Ind1 vs Ind3.

C3: Ind2 vs Ind3.

Comparative analyses of the three mediating pathways (C1, C2, C3) further revealed the relative importance of the different mediating mechanisms. The results showed that the single mediation effect of emotional exhaustion was substantially greater than that of organizational identification (C1 = −0.202, 95% CI = [−0.323, −0.078]) and significantly larger than the chain mediation effect (C2 = −0.219, 95% CI = [−0.335, −0.092]); however, the difference between the single mediation effect of organizational identification and the chain mediation effect did not achieve statistical significance (C3 = −0.017, 95% CI = [−0.074, 0.032]). This implies that during the process whereby job insecurity impacts organizational citizenship behavior, the mediating role of emotional exhaustion is the most prominent, explaining 45.60% of the total effect, while the chain mediation effect, although smaller, remains statistically significant, substantiating that job insecurity primarily induces emotional exhaustion in employees, which subsequently reduces organizational identification and ultimately diminishes organizational citizenship behavior. This finding enhances the comprehension of the underlying mechanism through which job insecurity affects organizational behavior and illustrates the pathways of cognitive-emotional linkage.

5. Discussion

Grounded in Conservation of Resources (COR) theory and Affective Events Theory (AET), this study explored the intricate mechanism of job insecurity’s influence on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Via a comprehensive survey of 330 corporate employees and employing rigorous Bootstrap methodology, the research revealed that job insecurity not only directly suppresses the demonstration of organizational citizenship behaviors but also indirectly exerts a negative influence through three distinct pathways: emotional exhaustion as a primary mediator, organizational identification as a single mediator, and a chain mediation involving emotional exhaustion → organizational identification. It is particularly significant that emotional exhaustion plays the most prominent mediating role in this influence process, while the chain mediation effect, though small, remains statistically significant. This investigation reveals the complex cognitive-emotional linkage mechanism through which job insecurity affects organizational citizenship behaviors, thereby extending the theoretical scope of research on job insecurity outcomes.

First, the empirical results show that job insecurity significantly and negatively predicts OCB (β = −0.579, p < 0.01). This finding aligns with a robust body of literature [4,38] demonstrating that job insecurity, as a significant occupational stressor, precipitates the erosion of employees’ psychological resources, consequently reducing their discretionary resource investments in extra-role behaviors [3]. When employees perceive career instability, they prioritize core resource preservation over making additional organizational investments [39]. This perception can also be interpreted as a violation of the psychological contract, undermining reciprocity norms and leading to reduced discretionary workplace contributions [40,41].

Second, our results highlight the critical mediating roles of both emotional exhaustion and organizational identification. Emotional exhaustion emerged as the strongest mediator (mediating effect = −0.264), confirming that job insecurity depletes employees’ emotional resources, leading to burnout and subsequent withdrawal from OCB. This is consistent with the stressor-strain framework, where job insecurity acts as a chronic stressor leading to emotional depletion [23,42]. Concurrently, organizational identification also functions as a significant mediator (mediating effect = −0.062). Job insecurity threatens an employee’s sense of belonging and psychological attachment, weakening their identification with the organization [43]. A diminished organizational identity, in turn, reduces employees’ voluntary behavioral contributions as their self-definition is no longer closely tied to the organization’s fate [15,44].

Third, and most notably, this study substantiated the chain-mediated mechanism (β = −0.045), elucidating a complex “emotion-cognition-behavior” pathway. Job insecurity first triggers an affective reaction (emotional exhaustion), which then influences a cognitive assessment (reduced organizational identification), ultimately resulting in a behavioral outcome (decreased OCB). This finding aligns with the core tenets of COR theory, where initial resource loss (from stress) leads to further resource loss and defensive posturing [45]. It demonstrates that emotional states are not merely endpoints but are crucial antecedents to cognitive reappraisals of the employee-organization relationship [46,47]. This dynamic interaction underscores the complexity of job insecurity’s impact on employee behavior and provides a more nuanced explanation than single-mediator models.

This study offers several theoretical contributions. Primarily, by testing a chained mediation model, it advances the literature by integrating affective (emotional exhaustion) and cognitive (organizational identification) mechanisms to explain the job insecurity-OCB link. This moves beyond prior research that often examined these mediators in isolation [4,23] and empirically validates a more nuanced “stressor →affective reaction → cognitive reappraisal → behavioral outcome” sequence. Furthermore, this research enriches the application of COR theory and AET. It demonstrates how the threat of resource loss (job insecurity) initiates a loss spiral, starting with emotional resources and extending to cognitive resources (identity), which aligns with COR principles. It also provides clear support for AET by showing how a negative work event (perceived insecurity) triggers emotional responses that subsequently shape work-related attitudes and behaviors [48,49].

From a practical standpoint, our findings provide managers with targeted intervention strategies. The strong mediating effect of emotional exhaustion underscores the urgent need for organizations to implement resource-replenishing initiatives, such as stress management programs, mental health support (e.g., EAPs), and promoting a healthy work-life balance, to buffer the initial impact of job insecurity. Moreover, the significant role of organizational identification highlights the importance of reinforcing the employee-organization bond during uncertain times. Managers can achieve this through transparent communication about organizational changes, clarifying employees’ roles and future prospects, and fostering a culture of belonging. The chained mediation pathway suggests that a dual-pronged approach—simultaneously managing emotional distress and strengthening cognitive attachment—will be most effective in preserving OCB.

Although this study investigated the psychological mechanisms of job insecurity’s impact on organizational citizenship behavior using a three-time longitudinal design, the research relies solely on employee self-reported assessments, lacking corroborative evidence from supervisor evaluations or objective behavioral indicators. Additionally, the study was predominantly drawn from enterprises within specific geographical contexts, potentially constraining the findings’ external validity. Moreover, the research insufficiently explored the moderating influences of individual dispositional characteristics (e.g., core self-evaluation, psychological resilience) and organizational contextual factors (e.g., organizational support perceptions, leadership styles) on the proposed model. Future research could address these limitations by (1) introducing multi-rater data, such as supervisor-evaluated OCB; (2) expanding the sample to diverse geographical and industrial contexts; (3) developing a moderated mediation framework to explore key boundary conditions. and (4) regarding our control for common method bias (CMB), a limitation exists in our VIF values, which slightly exceeded the stricter 3.3 benchmark. To build upon our findings, future research could incorporate more advanced diagnostics, such as the marker-variable test [50], for a more rigorous assessment.

6. Conclusion

This study confirms that job insecurity negatively impacts organizational citizenship behavior, both directly and indirectly. Our findings reveal three indirect pathways: through emotional exhaustion, through organizational identification, and via a chain mediation where job insecurity fosters emotional exhaustion, which in turn diminishes organizational identification, ultimately reducing OCB. Emotional exhaustion was identified as the most dominant mediating mechanism. These results illuminate a complex psychological process driven by an interplay of affective and cognitive reactions to job uncertainty. For organizations, this highlights the critical need to manage employee emotional well-being and strengthen their sense of organizational belonging to mitigate the damaging effects of job insecurity on crucial discretionary behaviors.

Supporting information

S1 File. Appendix (Supplementary Data Analysis).

(DOCX)

pone.0329976.s001.docx^{(21.8KB, docx)}

S2 File. Questionnaire.

(DOCX)

pone.0329976.s002.docx^{(15.2KB, docx)}

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their gratitude to the participating organizations and employees who generously contributed their time and insights to this research. Special thanks to the research assistants who aided in data collection and preliminary analysis.

Data Availability

The original data of this study has been uploaded to the Figshare platform under the title “A Study of the Effects of Job Insecurity on Organizational Citizenship Behavior Based on the Chained Mediating Effects of Emotional Exhaustion and Organizational Identification” and can be accessed via https://figshare.com/s/9785664550acc6c076c5.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

1.Greenhalgh L, Rosenblatt Z. Job insecurity: toward conceptual clarity. Acad Manag Rev. 1984;9(3):438. doi: 10.2307/258284 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
2.Shoss MK, Vancouver JB. A dynamic, computational model of job insecurity and job performance. J Appl Psychol. 2024;109(2):222–37. doi: 10.1037/apl0001142 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.De witte H, Pienaar J, De cuyper N. Review of 30 years of longitudinal studies on the association between job insecurity and health and well‐being: is there causal evidence? Aust Psychol. 2016;51(1):18–31. doi: 10.1111/ap.12176 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
4.Lee C, Huang G-H, Ashford SJ. Job insecurity and the changing workplace: recent developments and the future trends in job insecurity research. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav. 2018;5(1):335–59. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104651 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
5.Anderson N, Potočnik K, Zhou J. Innovation and creativity in organizations: a state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. J Manag. 2014;40(5):1297–333. [Google Scholar]
6.Podsakoff NP, Whiting SW, Podsakoff PM, Blume BD. Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2009;94(1):122–41. doi: 10.1037/a0013079 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Kamil NLM, Abukhalifa AMS, Eliyana A, Pratama AS. Unlocking organisational citizenship and innovation: a servant leadership approach for psychological empowerment. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2025;46(1):23–40. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-08-2023-0433 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
8.Gunawan DR, Eliyana A, Anggraini RD, Pratama AS, Pranindy JSA, Febrianto Z, et al. Organizational citizenship behavior in correctional institutions: Does meaning of work matter? Kybernetes. 2024. doi: 10.1108/k-04-2024-1049 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
9.Sridadi AR, Pratama AS, Eliyana A, Gunawan DR, Yazid Z. Fostering organizational citizenship behavior: the role of proactive personality, job satisfaction, and affective commitment. SAGE Open. 2024;14(3). doi: 10.1177/21582440241268848 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
10.Xiyuan L, Gang X. The impact of job insecurity on citizenship behavior - and the moderating role of personality traits. Stud Pract. 2014;10:113–21. [Google Scholar]
11.Ashforth BE, Mael F. Social identity theory and the organization. Acad Manage Rev. 1989;14(1):20. doi: 10.2307/258189 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
12.Lam CF, Liang J, Ashford SJ, Lee C. Job insecurity and organizational citizenship behavior: exploring curvilinear and moderated relationships. J Appl Psychol. 2015;100(2):499–510. doi: 10.1037/a0038659 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Niesen W, Van Hootegem A, Vander Elst T, Battistelli A, De Witte H. Job insecurity and innovative work behaviour: a psychological contract perspective. Psychol Belg. 2018;57(4):174–89. doi: 10.5334/pb.381 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Sverke M, Hellgren J, Näswall K. No security: a meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences. J Occup Health Psychol. 2002;7(3):242–64. doi: 10.1037//1076-8998.7.3.242 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Piccoli B, Callea A, Urbini F, Chirumbolo A, Ingusci E, De Witte H. Job insecurity and performance: the mediating role of organizational identification. PR. 2017;46(8):1508–22. doi: 10.1108/pr-05-2016-0120 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
16.Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Schaufeli WB. Validation of the maslach burnout inventory - general survey: an internet study. Anxiety Stress Coping. 2002;15(3):245–60. doi: 10.1080/1061580021000020716 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
17.Hobfoll SE. The influence of culture, community, and the nested‐self in the stress process: advancing conservation of resources theory. Appl Psychol. 2001;50(3):337–421. doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00062 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
18.Hobfoll SE, Halbesleben J, Neveu J-P, Westman M. Conservation of resources in the organizational context: the reality of resources and their consequences. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav. 2018;5(1):103–28. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
19.Bakker AB, Demerouti E. Job demands-resources theory: taking stock and looking forward. J Occup Health Psychol. 2017;22(3):273–85. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000056 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Halbesleben JRB, Bowler WM. Emotional exhaustion and job performance: the mediating role of motivation. J Appl Psychol. 2007;92(1):93–106. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.93 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Christian MS, Garza AS, Slaughter JE. Work engagement: a quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Pers Psychol. 2011;64(1):89–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
22.Cropanzano R, Rupp DE, Byrne ZS. The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(1):160–9. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.160 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Li Z, Lin C, Lin Z. Job insecurity and emotional exhaustion: the mediating role of emotional labor. Manage Sci. 2013;26(03):1–8. [Google Scholar]
24.Dutton JE, Dukerich JM, Harquail CV. Organizational images and member identification. Adm Sci Q. 1994;39(2):239. doi: 10.2307/2393235 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
25.Robinson SL, Wolfe Morrison E. The development of psychological contract breach and violation: a longitudinal study. J Organ Behav. 2000;21(5):525–46. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
26.Tyler TR, Blader SL. The group engagement model: procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2003;7(4):349–61. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.van Dick R, Ullrich J, Tissington PA. Working under a Black cloud: how to sustain organizational identification after a merger*. Br J Manag. 2006;17(S1):S69–79. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00479.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
28.Van Knippenberg D, Van Schie ECM. Foci and correlates of organizational identification. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2000;73(2):137–47. doi: 10.1348/096317900166949 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
29.Wang H-J, Demerouti E, Le Blanc P. Transformational leadership, adaptability, and job crafting: the moderating role of organizational identification. J Vocat Behav. 2017;100:185–95. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.03.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
30.Riketta M. Organizational identification: a meta-analysis. J Vocat Behav. 2005;66(2):358–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
31.Weiss HM, Cropanzano R. Affective events theory. Res Organ Behav. 1996;18(1):1–74. [Google Scholar]
32.Lammers JC, Atouba YL, Carlson EJ. Which identities matter? A mixed-method study of group, organizational, and professional identities and their relationship to burnout. MCQ. 2013;27(4):503–36. doi: 10.1177/0893318913498824 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
33.Mauno S, Leskinen E, Kinnunen U. Multi‐wave, multi‐variable models of job insecurity: applying different scales in studying the stability of job insecurity. J Organ Behav. 2001;22(8):919–37. doi: 10.1002/job.122 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
34.Watkins MB, Ren R, Umphress EE, Boswell WR, Triana M del C, Zardkoohi A. Compassion organizing: employees’ satisfaction with corporate philanthropic disaster response and reduced job strain. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2014;88(2):436–58. doi: 10.1111/joop.12088 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
35.Mael F, Ashforth BE. Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. J Organ Behav. 1992;13(2):103–23. doi: 10.1002/job.4030130202 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
36.Bachrach DG, Wang H, Bendoly E, Zhang S. Importance of organizational citizenship behaviour for overall performance evaluation: comparing the role of task interdependence in China and the USA. Manag Organ Rev. 2007;3(2):255–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00071.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
37.Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB. Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: a review and suggestions for future research. In: Organizational citizenship behavior and contextual performance; 2014. p. 133–51. [Google Scholar]
38.Jiang L, Lavaysse LM. Cognitive and affective job insecurity: a meta-analysis and a primary study. J Manage. 2018;44(6):2307–42. doi: 10.1177/0149206318773853 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
39.Ma E, Wang Y-C, Xu S (Tracy), Wang D. Clarifying the multi-order multidimensional structure of organizational citizenship behavior: a cross-cultural validation. JHTM. 2022;50:83–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.12.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
40.Zhang Z, Waqas M, Yahya F, Qadri UA, Marfoh J. Unrevealing the hidden effects of job insecurity: a moderated-mediation model of moral disengagement and moral identity. Front Psychol. 2022;13:906896. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.906896 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Shin Y, Hur W-M, Moon TW, Lee S. A motivational perspective on job insecurity: relationships between job insecurity, intrinsic motivation, and performance and behavioral outcomes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(10):1812. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16101812 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Yu S, Gong X, Wu N. Job insecurity and employee engagement: a moderated dual path model. Sustainability. 2020;12(23):10081. doi: 10.3390/su122310081 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
43.Callea A, Urbini F, Chirumbolo A. The mediating role of organizational identification in the relationship between qualitative job insecurity, OCB and job performance. J Manag Dev. 2016;35(6):735–46. doi: 10.1108/jmd-10-2015-0143 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
44.He H, Zhu W, Zheng X. Procedural justice and employee engagement: roles of organizational identification and moral identity centrality. J Bus Ethics. 2013;122(4):681–95. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1774-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
45.M. Karatepe O, Hassannia R, Karatepe T, Enea C, Rezapouraghdam H. The effects of job insecurity, emotional exhaustion, and met expectations on hotel employees’ pro-environmental behaviors: test of a serial mediation model. Int J Ment Health Promot. 2023;25(2):287–307. doi: 10.32604/ijmhp.2022.025706 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
46.He P, Wang X, Wu M, Estay C. Compulsory citizenship behavior and employee silence: the roles of emotional exhaustion and organizational identification. Soc Behav Pers. 2018;46(12):2025–47. doi: 10.2224/sbp.7452 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
47.Yagil D, Medler-Liraz H. Personally committed to emotional labor: surface acting, emotional exhaustion and performance among service employees with a strong need to belong. J Occup Health Psychol. 2017;22(4):481–91. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000049 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Farroukh N, Canaan Messarra L, Yunis M. The perception of job insecurity and organizational citizenship behavior during COVID-19: the moderating roles of positive psychological capital and grit. JABS. 2023;17(6):1069–87. doi: 10.1108/jabs-05-2022-0176 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
49.Kim B-J. Unstable jobs cannot cultivate good organizational citizens: the sequential mediating role of organizational trust and identification. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(7):1102. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16071102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Lindell MK, Whitney DJ. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(1):114–21. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0329976.r001

Decision Letter 0

Francesco Marcatto

4 Jun 2025

PONE-D-25-21939A Study of the Effects of Job Insecurity on Organizational Citizenship Behavior Based on the Chained Mediating Effects of Emotional Exhaustion and Organizational IdentificationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 19 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Francesco Marcatto, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for allowing me to review the paper entitled “A Study of the Effects of Job Insecurity on Organizational Citizenship Behavior Based on the Chained Mediating Effects of Emotional Exhaustion and Organizational Identification" Here are some suggestions to improve the paper:

1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?

1. The current form of the abstract is not well written. Please do not report the statistic result in the abstract. Author should highlight the novelty and main aim of the study. Make sure it commences with a succinct statement of the primary aim of the study, highlighting the novelty it brings to the field. This should be followed by a concise description of the research methodology employed, including the analysis techniques utilized and details regarding the sample collection process. Finally, it should conclude with a brief summary of the key findings and the implications derived from them. It is essential to emphasize the unique contributions of this study. Only highlight the most significant findings and implications to maintain focus.

2. The introduction lacks a clear structure and focus. It would benefit from a more coherent presentation to effectively introduce the study's objectives and significance. Please follow this suggested structure: (1) Summarize the existing issue together with its importance. (2) Explain how researchers should address the discovered areas that need further investigation. (3) The research gap must clearly relate to the existing issue. (4) The research benefits from critiquing these aspects that previous academic studies avoid. (5) Review relevant past studies. (6) Draw a contrast between this study and all related past research. (7) Clearly state the research objectives. (8) The paper details how it introduces beneficial concepts to academic literature. A properly organized introduction creates better clarity by establishing solid groundwork for the overall paper.

3. The introduction fails to connect properly the research issue to the fundamental concepts of this study. The discussion needs to present all essential concepts in a straightforward manner. Authors only tend to cover these constructs without proper linkage with the issues.

4. The authors fail to define their research gap with clarity and supporting evidence. The authors need to present a precise identification of the unaddressed areas in past research. All necessary arguments should be presented to validate the immediate need for addressing this gap. Provide a clear reasoning that demonstrates the study’s connection to contemporary conditions.

2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?

5. Should have a standalone section for underpinning theory. This is to explain how the theory supporting the proposed paths and model. To enhance the clarity and coherence of the research, I recommend the authors thoroughly explain how or any theory support the current study and each path. By elaborating on the theory's key concepts and demonstrating its relevance to the research topic, the authors can establish a stronger connection between the theoretical foundation and the study's objectives.

6. Section 1.1 to 1.4 should be parked under the heading of literature review.

3. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?

7. The research methodology is not well-written and not clear. Should have two sub-sections: (1) Research procedure and samples and (2) research instruments.

8. The authors should discuss the generalizability and representativeness of their sample in relation to the target population. Authors need to clearly explain how the chosen sample is intended to be representative of and reflective of the larger population. Any strategies employed to ensure a diverse and inclusive sample should also be highlighted. This will increase the credibility of the research findings and help readers understand the extent to which the results can be generalized to the broader population.

9. It is essential to provide a clear explanation of a stratified convenience sampling technique used in the study, along with the rationale for its selection. Why these techniques? What do you mean stratified convenience sampling technique? Stratified sampling technique is a probability sampling technique whereas convenience sampling technique is a non-probability sampling technique. Please relook into this. Are you referring to quota sampling technique? The authors should describe how they utilized this sampling technique to select respondents for the survey, ensuring generalizability and representativeness towards the targeted population. By doing so, readers can better understand the methodological approach and the potential limitations associated with the sample selection.

10. Any selection criteria?

11. It is good to include control variables which could be a confounding variable. However, author should provide justification for the inclusion of these control variables.

12. The procedure of data collection needs to be elaborated further. The authors should explain in more detail how they collected the data, how they approached the respondents, and how they identified participants for the survey study. This explanation should be reasonable and logical, avoiding exaggerations and providing a clear account of the steps taken in the data collection process.

13. Any pretest and pilot test conducted prior to full scale study? Why?

14. Why SPSS PROCESS MACRO software was used in this study?

15. The research instrument section is too lengthy. Please simplify it.

4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?

16. The analysis results reporting is not clear. Author should report the preliminary analysis result (common method bias test, descriptive analysis results, and respondents profile characteristics), measurement model analysis (reliability, convergent validity, discriminant validity), and structural model analysis (path result)

5. Practicality and/or Research implications: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for practice and/or further research? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the

17. The structure of the conclusion part should be as follows: (1) Discussion, (2) Theoretical Implications, (3) Practical Implications, (4) Limitations and Future Research Recommendations, and (5) Conclusion.

18. Discussion part should be presented more concise.

19. Should have a standalone section for theoretical implication. This section should discuss the implications of the study's findings and how they contribute to the existing theoretical knowledge. Summarize the key findings and their relevance to the existing theoretical frameworks or models. Analyze how the findings align with or challenge current theoretical perspectives and concepts related to all the key concepts of this study. Discuss any theoretical insights or advancements that the study provides and highlight how the findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the research area.

20. Should have a standalone section for practical implication. The authors should provide valuable insights based on current practices and policies, supported by evidence from their research. To strengthen the practical implications, it is crucial to reference specific findings, data, or examples that demonstrate the validity and reliability of the recommendations. By incorporating this approach, the authors can offer concrete and actionable suggestions that have a solid grounding in their research findings.

21. A conclusion section is required with not more than 150 words.

6. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.

Proofread the manuscript, Clarity is required, and cite more recent relevant studies. Please also check citation format and referencing style.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

I commend your efforts in completing this study. Based on my evaluation, the manuscript is well written and meets two essential criteria for publication in PLOS ONE: compliance with research ethics and a sound methodological foundation. Therefore, I believe the manuscript is, in principle, suitable for publication. That said, I would like to offer the following suggestions to help improve the overall clarity and scholarly quality of your work:

1. I recommend removing detailed numerical statistical findings from the abstract, as these may reduce clarity for general readers. Instead, consider presenting your key findings in a concise and accessible manner to ensure broader understanding.

2. There appears to be inconsistency in how the term Conservation of Resources Theory is referenced, as it is also labeled at times as resource preservation theory or resource conservation theory. While this may stem from translation issues, ensuring consistent and accurate use of terminology will strengthen the manuscript’s academic clarity.

3. It would enhance the manuscript’s impact to include dedicated sections for Theoretical Implications and Managerial Implications. These sections would clarify the study’s contributions to both academic discourse and practical application—potentially including recommendations for organizational practice or policy.

I believe that research conducted with care and clarity can make a meaningful contribution to society. I hope these suggestions help you further refine the manuscript and strengthen its scholarly value.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Andika Setia Pratama

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Sep 8;20(9):e0329976. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0329976.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1

22 Jun 2025

Response to Reviewers

Dear Editor and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' valuable comments on our manuscript titled “A Study of the Effects of Job Insecurity on Organizational Citizenship Behavior Based on the Chained Mediating Effects of Emotional Exhaustion and Organizational Identification” (Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-21939). These comments are very helpful for revising and improving our paper and provide important guidance for our research. We have now correctly named and uploaded three separate files as required by the journal editorial office: Response to Reviewers, Revised Manuscript with Track Changes, and Manuscript. Proper authorship is also indicated in the manuscript. The data analysis results have been accurately reported within the text, and additional related analyses have been uploaded as supplementary files. The original data have been deposited in the public database figshare, with corresponding statements included both in the Methods section of the manuscript and in the final Data Availability statement. Below, the reviewers’ comments are presented in italics and have been numbered for clarity. Please note that our responses are given in regular font, with the word “Response” highlighted in green. Furthermore, all revisions and additions in the latest version of the manuscript have been made using Word’s “Track Changes” feature. Please refer to the detailed point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments and concerns below.

Responses to the comments of Reviewer #1:

Part One

Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?

1: The current form of the abstract is not well written. Please do not report the statistic result in the abstract. Author should highlight the novelty and main aim of the study. Make sure it commences with a succinct statement of the primary aim of the study, highlighting the novelty it brings to the field. This should be followed by a concise description of the research methodology employed, including the analysis techniques utilized and details regarding the sample collection process. Finally, it should conclude with a brief summary of the key findings and the implications derived from them. It is essential to emphasize the unique contributions of this study. Only highlight the most significant findings and implications to maintain focus.

Response:

We sincerely thank you for this clear and valuable advice. We agree that the previous abstract was not well-structured. To address your concerns, we have completely rewritten the abstract following a formal, four-part structure: Objectives, Methods, Results, and Conclusions.

Here is the newly structured abstract for your review:

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

2: The introduction lacks a clear structure and focus. It would benefit from a more coherent presentation to effectively introduce the study's objectives and significance. Please follow this suggested structure: (1) Summarize the existing issue together with its importance. (2) Explain how researchers should address the discovered areas that need further investigation. (3) The research gap must clearly relate to the existing issue. (4) The research benefits from critiquing these aspects that previous academic studies avoid. (5) Review relevant past studies. (6) Draw a contrast between this study and all related past research. (7) Clearly state the research objectives. (8) The paper details how it introduces beneficial concepts to academic literature. A properly organized introduction creates better clarity by establishing solid groundwork for the overall paper.

Response:

We sincerely thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that the original introduction was not well-structured and lacked a clear focus. To address this critical issue, we have completely rewritten the Introduction section following the 8-point structure you kindly provided. The new Introduction now proceeds as follows:

�(1) It begins by establishing job insecurity as a critical contemporary issue and highlights the importance of OCB for organizational success.

�(2) It explains the need to investigate the underlying mechanisms of the job insecurity-OCB link.

�(3) It clearly identifies the research gap: the lack of understanding of the chained mediating process involving both emotional exhaustion and organizational identification.

�(4) It critiques previous studies for largely focusing on single-mediator models and avoiding more complex, sequential pathways.

�(5 & 6) It briefly reviews and contrasts our study with past research, emphasizing our unique contribution of integrating COR and Social Identity theories to test a sequential model.

�(7) It explicitly states the three main objectives of our study.

�(8) It concludes by detailing how our study introduces a beneficial concept (the chained mediation model) to the literature and its practical implications.

We believe this new structure provides a much clearer, more logical, and compelling rationale for our study, setting a solid groundwork for the rest of the paper.

3: The introduction fails to connect properly the research issue to the fundamental concepts of this study. The discussion needs to present all essential concepts in a straightforward manner. Authors only tend to cover these constructs without proper linkage with the issues.

Response:3

Thank you for pointing out this weakness. In our revised manuscript, we have made significant efforts to better connect the research issue (the impact of job insecurity) with the fundamental concepts (emotional exhaustion, organizational identification, OCB). The newly structured Introduction now establishes these links in a more straightforward and logical manner. For example, we now explicitly state that job insecurity is a stressor that harms OCB, and the core of our research problem is to uncover the sequential psychological process (affective reaction -> cognitive evaluation -> behavioral outcome) that connects them. The detailed theoretical elaboration of how each concept is linked has been moved to the new "Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development" section, where each link is justified step-by-step with clear theoretical backing.

4: The authors fail to define their research gap with clarity and supporting evidence. The authors need to present a precise identification of the unaddressed areas in past research. All necessary arguments should be presented to validate the immediate need for addressing this gap. Provide a clear reasoning that demonstrates the study’s connection to contemporary conditions.

Response:

We appreciate this crucial feedback. We acknowledge that the research gap was not clearly articulated in the original version. In the revised Introduction, we now dedicate a specific paragraph to clearly defining the research gap. We explicitly state that while the direct effects and single mediations have been studied, the sequential, chained mediating role of emotional exhaustion and organizational identification represents a significant and unaddressed area. We argue that past research has overlooked the potential sequence where an affective reaction (exhaustion) precedes a cognitive-evaluative shift (identification), and we provide a clear rationale for why investigating this multi-step process is important for a more complete understanding. We believe the research gap is now precise, well-justified, and clearly connected to contemporary research needs.

Part Two

Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?

5:Should have a standalone section for underpinning theory. This is to explain how the theory supporting the proposed paths and model. To enhance the clarity and coherence of the research, I recommend the authors thoroughly explain how or any theory support the current study and each path. By elaborating on the theory's key concepts and demonstrating its relevance to the research topic, the authors can establish a stronger connection between the theoretical foundation and the study's objectives.

6: Section 1.1 to 1.4 should be parked under the heading of literature review.

Response to 5 & 6:

Thank you for these two very helpful structural recommendations. We agree that a more structured presentation of the theoretical background and hypothesis development was necessary. To address both comments simultaneously, we have implemented a significant structural revision:

We have created a new, standalone section titled "2. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development" which now appears after the Introduction.

We have moved the content from our former sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 into this new section, under corresponding subheadings (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4).

Within this new section, we have taken care to explicitly state the underpinning theories (e.g., Conservation of Resources Theory, Social Identity Theory) for each proposed path. We now clearly explain how each theory supports the specific hypothesis being developed.

This new structure accomplishes two goals: (1) it creates the "standalone section for underpinning theory" you requested, and (2) it logically parks the detailed literature review and hypothesis derivation in one coherent place. This change also allowed us to make the main Introduction more concise and focused, as per your earlier comments. We are confident that this revised structure greatly enhances the clarity and coherence of our manuscript.

Part Three

Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?

7: The research methodology is not well-written and not clear. Should have two sub-sections: (1) Research procedure and samples and (2) research instruments.

Response:

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have reorganized the methodology section to improve its structure and clarity. We merged previous content into a new sub-section titled “3.1 Participants and Procedure” and renamed the “Research tools” section to “3.2 Measures”. We have also retained “3.3 Data Analysis” as a separate sub-section because our chained mediation analysis is a key feature of our study, and a dedicated section allows for a clear explanation of this advanced technique. We believe this revised three-part structure (Participants and Procedure, Measures, Data Analysis) enhances the logical flow and readability of our methodology.

8:The authors should discuss the generalizability and representativeness of their sample in relation to the target population. Authors need to clearly explain how the chosen sample is intended to be representative of and reflective of the larger population. Any strategies employed to ensure a diverse and inclusive sample should also be highlighted. This will increase the credibility of the research findings and help readers understand the extent to which the results can be generalized to the broader population.

Response:

Thank you for this important point. Our target population is the general workforce in China. We employed a convenience sampling method, recruiting participants through collaborations with various companies and an online survey platform. This strategy aimed to create a diverse sample in terms of industry, age, and tenure, thereby enhancing its representativeness of urban professionals in China. We acknowledge that as a non-probability sample, its generalizability to the entire national workforce is limited. In the interest of manuscript conciseness, we have not included a detailed discussion on generalizability in the main text but appreciate the opportunity to clarify our sampling rationale and its implications here.

9:It is essential to provide a clear explanation of a stratified convenience sampling technique used in the study, along with the rationale for its selection. Why these techniques? What do you mean stratified convenience sampling technique? Stratified sampling technique is a probability sampling technique whereas convenience sampling technique is a non-probability sampling technique. Please relook into this. Are you referring to quota sampling technique? The authors should describe how they utilized this sampling technique to select respondents for the survey, ensuring generalizability and representativeness towards the targeted population. By doing so, readers can better understand the methodological approach and the potential limitations associated with the sample selection.

Response:

Thank you for highlighting this inconsistency. We sincerely apologize for the error. You are correct; “stratified convenience sampling” was an inaccurate term. The method we used was convenience sampling. We have corrected this term throughout the manuscript to accurately reflect our methodology.

10:Any selection criteria?

Response:

Thank you for the question. Yes, we did use selection criteria. We have now clarified in the “3.1 Participants and Procedure” section that beyond being full-time employees, we screened the data to ensure quality. Specifically, our manuscript now states: “...the questionnaire included attention-check questions and we screened for invalid data (e.g., excessively short completion times or logical inconsistencies)...”

11:It is good to include control variables which could be a confounding variable. However, author should provide justification for the inclusion of these control variables.

Response:

Thank you for this valuable advice. We agree that controlling for potential confounding variables is important. Based on prior literature suggesting their influence on work-related outcomes, we collected demographic data on gender, age, education, and work tenure. We have now re-analyzed our data including these variables as controls (the results are available in the supplementary materials and confirm our main findings).

12:The procedure of data collection needs to be elaborated further. The authors should explain in more detail how they collected the data, how they approached the respondents, and how they identified participants for the survey study. This explanation should be reasonable and logical, avoiding exaggerations and providing a clear account of the steps taken in the data collection process.

Response:

Thank you. We have revised the “3.1 Participants and Procedure” section to provide a more detailed and accurate account of our data collection process. We have specified the recruitment channels (collaboration with HR departments and an online platform) and clarified the ex

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0329976.s003.docx^{(30.3KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0329976.r003

Decision Letter 1

Jianpeng Fan

8 Jul 2025

PONE-D-25-21939R1A Study of the Effects of Job Insecurity on Organizational Citizenship Behavior Based on the Chained Mediating Effects of Emotional Exhaustion and Organizational IdentificationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhu,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 22 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jianpeng Fan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Thank you for allowing me to review the improved version of the paper entitled “A Study of the Effects of Job Insecurity on Organizational Citizenship Behavior Based on the Chained Mediating Effects of Emotional Exhaustion and Organizational Identification" Here are some suggestions to improve the paper:

1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?

1. Authors have well revised the introduction by explaining the intention of the study and also the uniqueness of the paper.

2. Authors have improved the literature review.

3. The methodology is well written and comprehensive enough.

4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?

4. The analysis is well presented.

5. I can see authors did a very good job. The key findings are explained thoroughly and clearly. Implications is revised substantially, and key points are indicated clearly.

6. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.

6. The manuscript is well-written.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

Thank you for the thoughtful and thorough way you addressed my previous comments. While your revisions have addressed most of the issues I raised, a few points still require attention to make the manuscript more rigorous and ready for publication:

1. Please adopt a single citation format throughout the manuscript (Vancouver style). I noticed instances of duplicate citations in mixed styles. For example:

“The study employed the validated Job Insecurity Scale developed by Mauno et al. (2001)[30] to assess employees’ subjective perceptions of job stability.”

could be streamlined to:

“The study employed the validated Job Insecurity Scale to assess employees’ subjective perceptions of job stability [30].”

2. Section 4.1 — Common Method Bias (CMB) test

The manuscript currently states:

“The 305 results of Harman’s single-factor test indicated that the unrotated first common factor accounted for 49.59 % of the variance, thereby indicating the presence of common method bias, which was insufficient to overshadow the study’s findings.”

Because 49.59% falls below the conventional 50% threshold, it should not be interpreted as evidence of common method variance (CMV). Nevertheless, the risk of CMV is reinforced by VIF values greater than 3.3 (Kock, 2015; https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101). I strongly recommend conducting an additional diagnostic—such as the Lindell & Whitney marker‐variable test (2001; https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114)—to determine whether CMB meaningfully inflates the correlations among your variables. For a comprehensive overview, see Podsakoff et al. (2023; https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-040030).

3. To further underscore the relevance and urgency of your OCB investigation, you may wish to incorporate insights from recent literature, for example:

• https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-08-2023-0433

• https://doi.org/10.1108/K-04-2024-1049

• https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241268848

I trust these suggestions will help you refine the manuscript and enhance its scholarly contributions.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Andika Setia Pratama

**********

PLoS One. 2025 Sep 8;20(9):e0329976. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0329976.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2

16 Jul 2025

Response to Reviewers

Dear Editor and Reviewers:

Responses to the comments of Reviewer #1:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive evaluation and strong endorsement of our manuscript. We are greatly encouraged by their recognition of our research.

Responses to the comments of Reviewer #2:

1.Please adopt a single citation format throughout the manuscript (Vancouver style). I noticed instances of duplicate citations in mixed styles. For example:

“The study employed the validated Job Insecurity Scale developed by Mauno et al. (2001)[30] to assess employees’ subjective perceptions of job stability.”

could be streamlined to:

“The study employed the validated Job Insecurity Scale to assess employees’ subjective perceptions of job stability [30].”

Response:

Thank you for bringing this formatting inconsistency to our attention. We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and standardized all citations to follow the Vancouver style consistently. Specifically, we have removed the author names and publication years from in-text citations, retaining only the numerical references in square brackets. The instances you identified in the methodology section have been corrected as follows:

1.“The study employed the validated Job Insecurity Scale developed by Mauno et al. (2001)[30]” has been revised to “The study employed the validated Job Insecurity Scale [30]”

2.Similar corrections have been applied to all other measurement instruments and analytical framework citations throughout the manuscript

3.We have conducted a comprehensive review to ensure no other formatting inconsistencies remain in the document.

2. Section 4.1 — Common Method Bias (CMB) test

The manuscript currently states:

Response:

We are grateful for this very insightful comment regarding the Common Method Bias (CMB) analysis. We agree that our initial interpretation was not sufficiently nuanced and appreciate the valuable references provided. As we are in the advanced stages of revision and do not have the opportunity to collect new data to perform the suggested marker-variable test, we have taken a two-fold approach to address your concern, following your guidance:

1.Revised Section 4.1: To proactively mitigate common method bias (CMB), a three-wave, time-lagged research design was employed, which is a key procedural remedy. We further conducted statistical analyses to assess potential remaining bias. Harman's single-factor test revealed that the first unrotated factor accounted for 49.59% of the variance, falling below the 50% threshold. Additionally, a full collinearity assessment was performed, yielding a maximum variance inflation factor (VIF) of 3.36. While we acknowledge that this VIF value is slightly above the strict 3.3 benchmark suggested by Kock (2015), it remains well within other commonly accepted thresholds (e.g., 5 or 10). Considering our robust time-lagged design as the primary control, coupled with these statistical results, we conclude that common method bias is not a significant concern for this study.

2.Added to Limitations: We have also added a paragraph to the “Limitations and Future Research” section. In this paragraph, we explicitly state that the study did not employ the marker-variable technique and recommend that future research could benefit from incorporating this method for a more robust assessment of CMB. We believe these revisions transparently address the potential for CMB and align our manuscript with the rigorous standards you have suggested. The modified sections are provided below for your review.

3. To further underscore the relevance and urgency of your OCB investigation, you may wish to incorporate insights from recent literature, for example:

• https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-08-2023-0433

• https://doi.org/10.1108/K-04-2024-1049

• https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241268848

Response:

Thank you for recommending these valuable contemporary references. We have strategically incorporated all three suggested papers into the end of the first paragraph of the introduction to strengthen our theoretical foundation and demonstrate the continued relevance of OCB research. The specific additions are as follows:

“Recent empirical evidence has further underscored the critical role of OCB across diverse organizational contexts, demonstrating its enhancement through servant leadership and psychological empowerment [7], its significance in challenging institutional environments [8], and its complex relationship with individual characteristics requiring mediational pathways [9].”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

pone.0329976.s004.docx^{(17.7KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0329976.r005

Decision Letter 2

Jianpeng Fan

24 Jul 2025

A Study of the Effects of Job Insecurity on Organizational Citizenship Behavior Based on the Chained Mediating Effects of Emotional Exhaustion and Organizational Identification

PONE-D-25-21939R2

Dear Dr. Zhu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Jianpeng Fan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

I appreciate the considerable effort you have devoted to strengthening the manuscript and addressing each of my previous comments. Although potential issues related to common method bias (CMB) remain, I commend your candor in acknowledging them explicitly and your diligence in mitigating their impact.

With respect to my earlier recommendation concerning the procedural remedies proposed by Lindell and Whitney (2001), please note that CMB can still be assessed even when marker‑variable data were not collected during the original data‑gathering phase. Nonetheless, I recognize the steps you have taken and do not wish to delay the publication process any further.

Given the transparency of your methods, your adherence to ethical standards, and the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s technical requirements, I recommend that the paper be accepted for publication in PLOS ONE. One additional suggestion—regrettably omitted from my earlier feedback—is to consider shortening the title for greater concision; if feasible, doing so would enhance the paper’s overall clarity. However, the current title does accurately reflect the scope of your study.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #2: Yes: Andika Setia Pratama

**********

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0329976.r006

Acceptance letter

Jianpeng Fan

PONE-D-25-21939R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhu,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Jianpeng Fan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 File. Appendix (Supplementary Data Analysis).

(DOCX)

pone.0329976.s001.docx^{(21.8KB, docx)}

S2 File. Questionnaire.

(DOCX)

pone.0329976.s002.docx^{(15.2KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0329976.s003.docx^{(30.3KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

pone.0329976.s004.docx^{(17.7KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

[pone.0329976.ref001] 1.Greenhalgh L, Rosenblatt Z. Job insecurity: toward conceptual clarity. Acad Manag Rev. 1984;9(3):438. doi: 10.2307/258284 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref002] 2.Shoss MK, Vancouver JB. A dynamic, computational model of job insecurity and job performance. J Appl Psychol. 2024;109(2):222–37. doi: 10.1037/apl0001142 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref003] 3.De witte H, Pienaar J, De cuyper N. Review of 30 years of longitudinal studies on the association between job insecurity and health and well‐being: is there causal evidence? Aust Psychol. 2016;51(1):18–31. doi: 10.1111/ap.12176 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref004] 4.Lee C, Huang G-H, Ashford SJ. Job insecurity and the changing workplace: recent developments and the future trends in job insecurity research. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav. 2018;5(1):335–59. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104651 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref005] 5.Anderson N, Potočnik K, Zhou J. Innovation and creativity in organizations: a state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. J Manag. 2014;40(5):1297–333. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref006] 6.Podsakoff NP, Whiting SW, Podsakoff PM, Blume BD. Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2009;94(1):122–41. doi: 10.1037/a0013079 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref007] 7.Kamil NLM, Abukhalifa AMS, Eliyana A, Pratama AS. Unlocking organisational citizenship and innovation: a servant leadership approach for psychological empowerment. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2025;46(1):23–40. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-08-2023-0433 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref008] 8.Gunawan DR, Eliyana A, Anggraini RD, Pratama AS, Pranindy JSA, Febrianto Z, et al. Organizational citizenship behavior in correctional institutions: Does meaning of work matter? Kybernetes. 2024. doi: 10.1108/k-04-2024-1049 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref009] 9.Sridadi AR, Pratama AS, Eliyana A, Gunawan DR, Yazid Z. Fostering organizational citizenship behavior: the role of proactive personality, job satisfaction, and affective commitment. SAGE Open. 2024;14(3). doi: 10.1177/21582440241268848 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref010] 10.Xiyuan L, Gang X. The impact of job insecurity on citizenship behavior - and the moderating role of personality traits. Stud Pract. 2014;10:113–21. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref011] 11.Ashforth BE, Mael F. Social identity theory and the organization. Acad Manage Rev. 1989;14(1):20. doi: 10.2307/258189 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref012] 12.Lam CF, Liang J, Ashford SJ, Lee C. Job insecurity and organizational citizenship behavior: exploring curvilinear and moderated relationships. J Appl Psychol. 2015;100(2):499–510. doi: 10.1037/a0038659 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref013] 13.Niesen W, Van Hootegem A, Vander Elst T, Battistelli A, De Witte H. Job insecurity and innovative work behaviour: a psychological contract perspective. Psychol Belg. 2018;57(4):174–89. doi: 10.5334/pb.381 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref014] 14.Sverke M, Hellgren J, Näswall K. No security: a meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences. J Occup Health Psychol. 2002;7(3):242–64. doi: 10.1037//1076-8998.7.3.242 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref015] 15.Piccoli B, Callea A, Urbini F, Chirumbolo A, Ingusci E, De Witte H. Job insecurity and performance: the mediating role of organizational identification. PR. 2017;46(8):1508–22. doi: 10.1108/pr-05-2016-0120 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref016] 16.Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Schaufeli WB. Validation of the maslach burnout inventory - general survey: an internet study. Anxiety Stress Coping. 2002;15(3):245–60. doi: 10.1080/1061580021000020716 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref017] 17.Hobfoll SE. The influence of culture, community, and the nested‐self in the stress process: advancing conservation of resources theory. Appl Psychol. 2001;50(3):337–421. doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00062 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref018] 18.Hobfoll SE, Halbesleben J, Neveu J-P, Westman M. Conservation of resources in the organizational context: the reality of resources and their consequences. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav. 2018;5(1):103–28. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref019] 19.Bakker AB, Demerouti E. Job demands-resources theory: taking stock and looking forward. J Occup Health Psychol. 2017;22(3):273–85. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000056 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref020] 20.Halbesleben JRB, Bowler WM. Emotional exhaustion and job performance: the mediating role of motivation. J Appl Psychol. 2007;92(1):93–106. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.93 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref021] 21.Christian MS, Garza AS, Slaughter JE. Work engagement: a quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Pers Psychol. 2011;64(1):89–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref022] 22.Cropanzano R, Rupp DE, Byrne ZS. The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(1):160–9. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.160 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref023] 23.Li Z, Lin C, Lin Z. Job insecurity and emotional exhaustion: the mediating role of emotional labor. Manage Sci. 2013;26(03):1–8. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref024] 24.Dutton JE, Dukerich JM, Harquail CV. Organizational images and member identification. Adm Sci Q. 1994;39(2):239. doi: 10.2307/2393235 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref025] 25.Robinson SL, Wolfe Morrison E. The development of psychological contract breach and violation: a longitudinal study. J Organ Behav. 2000;21(5):525–46. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref026] 26.Tyler TR, Blader SL. The group engagement model: procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2003;7(4):349–61. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref027] 27.van Dick R, Ullrich J, Tissington PA. Working under a Black cloud: how to sustain organizational identification after a merger*. Br J Manag. 2006;17(S1):S69–79. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00479.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref028] 28.Van Knippenberg D, Van Schie ECM. Foci and correlates of organizational identification. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2000;73(2):137–47. doi: 10.1348/096317900166949 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref029] 29.Wang H-J, Demerouti E, Le Blanc P. Transformational leadership, adaptability, and job crafting: the moderating role of organizational identification. J Vocat Behav. 2017;100:185–95. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.03.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref030] 30.Riketta M. Organizational identification: a meta-analysis. J Vocat Behav. 2005;66(2):358–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref031] 31.Weiss HM, Cropanzano R. Affective events theory. Res Organ Behav. 1996;18(1):1–74. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref032] 32.Lammers JC, Atouba YL, Carlson EJ. Which identities matter? A mixed-method study of group, organizational, and professional identities and their relationship to burnout. MCQ. 2013;27(4):503–36. doi: 10.1177/0893318913498824 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref033] 33.Mauno S, Leskinen E, Kinnunen U. Multi‐wave, multi‐variable models of job insecurity: applying different scales in studying the stability of job insecurity. J Organ Behav. 2001;22(8):919–37. doi: 10.1002/job.122 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref034] 34.Watkins MB, Ren R, Umphress EE, Boswell WR, Triana M del C, Zardkoohi A. Compassion organizing: employees’ satisfaction with corporate philanthropic disaster response and reduced job strain. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2014;88(2):436–58. doi: 10.1111/joop.12088 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref035] 35.Mael F, Ashforth BE. Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. J Organ Behav. 1992;13(2):103–23. doi: 10.1002/job.4030130202 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref036] 36.Bachrach DG, Wang H, Bendoly E, Zhang S. Importance of organizational citizenship behaviour for overall performance evaluation: comparing the role of task interdependence in China and the USA. Manag Organ Rev. 2007;3(2):255–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00071.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref037] 37.Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB. Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: a review and suggestions for future research. In: Organizational citizenship behavior and contextual performance; 2014. p. 133–51. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref038] 38.Jiang L, Lavaysse LM. Cognitive and affective job insecurity: a meta-analysis and a primary study. J Manage. 2018;44(6):2307–42. doi: 10.1177/0149206318773853 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref039] 39.Ma E, Wang Y-C, Xu S (Tracy), Wang D. Clarifying the multi-order multidimensional structure of organizational citizenship behavior: a cross-cultural validation. JHTM. 2022;50:83–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.12.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref040] 40.Zhang Z, Waqas M, Yahya F, Qadri UA, Marfoh J. Unrevealing the hidden effects of job insecurity: a moderated-mediation model of moral disengagement and moral identity. Front Psychol. 2022;13:906896. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.906896 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref041] 41.Shin Y, Hur W-M, Moon TW, Lee S. A motivational perspective on job insecurity: relationships between job insecurity, intrinsic motivation, and performance and behavioral outcomes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(10):1812. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16101812 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref042] 42.Yu S, Gong X, Wu N. Job insecurity and employee engagement: a moderated dual path model. Sustainability. 2020;12(23):10081. doi: 10.3390/su122310081 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref043] 43.Callea A, Urbini F, Chirumbolo A. The mediating role of organizational identification in the relationship between qualitative job insecurity, OCB and job performance. J Manag Dev. 2016;35(6):735–46. doi: 10.1108/jmd-10-2015-0143 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref044] 44.He H, Zhu W, Zheng X. Procedural justice and employee engagement: roles of organizational identification and moral identity centrality. J Bus Ethics. 2013;122(4):681–95. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1774-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref045] 45.M. Karatepe O, Hassannia R, Karatepe T, Enea C, Rezapouraghdam H. The effects of job insecurity, emotional exhaustion, and met expectations on hotel employees’ pro-environmental behaviors: test of a serial mediation model. Int J Ment Health Promot. 2023;25(2):287–307. doi: 10.32604/ijmhp.2022.025706 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref046] 46.He P, Wang X, Wu M, Estay C. Compulsory citizenship behavior and employee silence: the roles of emotional exhaustion and organizational identification. Soc Behav Pers. 2018;46(12):2025–47. doi: 10.2224/sbp.7452 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref047] 47.Yagil D, Medler-Liraz H. Personally committed to emotional labor: surface acting, emotional exhaustion and performance among service employees with a strong need to belong. J Occup Health Psychol. 2017;22(4):481–91. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000049 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref048] 48.Farroukh N, Canaan Messarra L, Yunis M. The perception of job insecurity and organizational citizenship behavior during COVID-19: the moderating roles of positive psychological capital and grit. JABS. 2023;17(6):1069–87. doi: 10.1108/jabs-05-2022-0176 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref049] 49.Kim B-J. Unstable jobs cannot cultivate good organizational citizens: the sequential mediating role of organizational trust and identification. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(7):1102. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16071102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0329976.ref050] 50.Lindell MK, Whitney DJ. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(1):114–21. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

A study of the effects of job insecurity on organizational citizenship behavior based on the chained mediating effects of emotional exhaustion and organizational identification

Jing Zhu

Mingfa Yang

Roles

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

1. Introduction

Fig 1. Hypothetical relationship diagram.

2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses development

2.1 Job insecurity and organizational citizenship behavior

2.2 The mediating role of emotional exhaustion

2.3 The mediating role of organizational identification

2.4 The chained mediating effect of emotional exhaustion and organizational identification

3. Methodology

3.1 Participants and procedure

3.2 Measures

3.2.1 Job insecurity scale.

3.2.2 Emotional exhaustion scale.

3.2.3 Organizational identification scale.

3.2.4 Organizational citizenship behavior scale.

Table 1. Research instrument validation.

3.3 Data analysis

4. Findings

4.1 Common method bias test

4.2 Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis

Table 2. Pearson correlation – standard format.

4.3 Chain mediation effect test

Table 3. Mediation effects model test (n = 330).

Fig 2. Path diagram of model.

Table 4. Results of parallel mediation effect test.

5. Discussion

6. Conclusion

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Francesco Marcatto

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 1

Jianpeng Fan

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 2

Decision Letter 2

Jianpeng Fan

Roles

Acceptance letter

Jianpeng Fan

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases