Figure 1
Conceptual model.
Table 1
Correlation table for the four insecurity measures.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | M | SD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gig job insecurity | .90 | 2.44 | 1.31 | |||
| 2 | Business insecurity | .795 | .86 | 2.78 | 1.28 | ||
| 3 | Financial insecurity | .684 | .677 | .92 | 2.46 | 1.43 | |
| 4 | Career insecurity | .766 | .710 | .599 | – | 2.32 | 1.44 |
[i] Note: N = 227; Reliability (Alpha in diagonals). Career insecurity = single item.
Table 2
Results from the Latent Profile Analysis Models (with scales).
| NO. OF PROFILES | TECH 14 BLRT Chi2 (df) | BIC | SABIC | VLMR | LMR | ENTROPY | AVERAGE CLASS PROBABILITY | POSTERIOR PROBABILITY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | – | 3176.158 | 3150.803 | |||||
| 2 | –1566.379*** | 2669.900 | 2628.699 | –1566.379*** | 514.418*** | .929 | [0.97; 0.99] | [0.43; 0.57] |
| 3 | –1299.688*** | 2577.592 | 2520.545 | –1299.688 | 115.186 | .873 | [0.90; 0.97] | [0.25; 0.45] |
| 4 | –1239.972*** | 2540.215 | 2467.322 | –1239.972* | 62.208* | .913 | [0.92; 0.96] | [0.16; 0.40] |
| 5 | –1207.721*** | 2512.002 | 2423.262 | –1207.721 | 53.370 | .917 | [0.90; 0.98] | [0.10; 0.41] |
| 6 | –1180.052*** | 2497.609 | 2393.023 | –1180.052 | 40.042 | .908 | [0.87; 0.97] | [0.08; 0.36] |
Figure 2
Latent profiles, standardized solution. ‘Highly secure’ N = 90, ‘Career secure’ N = 45, ‘Gig and career insecure’ N = 54, ‘Highly insecure’ N = 38.
Table 3
Personal demographic antecedents to insecurity profiles.
| HIGHLY SECURE [1] | CAREER SECURE [2] | GIG AND CAREER INSECURE [3] | HIGHLY INSECURE [4] | Chi2 | PAIRWISE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | 90 | 41 | 52 | 35 | ||
| Gender (% female) | 34 | 44 | 48 | 61 | 7.67* | 1 < 4 |
| Age (in years) | 58.5 | 48.0 | 50.4 | 48.1 | 26.49*** | 1 > 2–4 |
| Education (% academic degree) | 45 | 39 | 48 | 52 | 1.39 | – |
| Country of birth (% Sweden) | 87 | 91 | 91 | 82 | 1.36 | – |
| Marital status (% married/cohabiting) | 78 | 70 | 49 | 67 | 11.72** | 3 < 1,2 |
| Children (% child at home) | 14 | 41 | 29 | 35 | 11.00* | 1 < 2,4 |
| Household contribution | OR | |||||
| Less than 50% | 10.2 | 44.1 | 10.1 | 11.2 | 6.960a .143b .160c | 1 > 2 2 < 3 2 < 4 |
| 50% | 26.0 | 18.2 | 22.3 | 29.2 | 2.911d .291e | 1 > 2 2 < 3 |
| Between 50–100% | 33.5 | 15.7 | 16.7 | 18.8 | .419f .272g | 1 < 3 2 < 3 |
| 100% | 30.3 | 22.0 | 50.9 | 40.8 | – |
[i] Note: N = 218; *p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001.
a Comparison of class 1 to class 2 threshold from category 1 to higher OR = 6.960, 95% CI [2.582;18.763]
b Comparison of class 2 to class 3 threshold from category 1 to higher OR = 0.143, 95% CI [0.042;0.484]
c Comparison of class 2 to class 4 threshold from category 1 to higher OR = 0.160, 95% CI [0.047;0.541]
d Comparison of class 1 to class 2 threshold from category 2 to higher OR = 2.911, 95% CI [1.257;6.742]
e Comparison of class 2 to class 3 threshold from category 2 to higher OR = 0.291, 95% CI [0.111;0.760]
f Comparison of class 1 to class 3 threshold from category 3 to higher OR = 0.419, 95% CI [0.202;0.870]
g Comparison of class 2 to class 3 threshold from category 3 to higher OR = 0.272, 95% CI [0.095;0.776]
Table 4
Gig employment characteristics antecedents to insecurity profiles
| HIGHLY SECURE [1] | CAREER SECURE [2] | GIG AND CAREER INSECURE [3] | HIGHLY INSECURE [4] | Chi2 | PAIRWISE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90 | 41 | 52 | 35 | |||
| Sector (%) | OR | |||||
| Machines, goods, energy | 18.2 | 13.2 | 11.6 | 2.1 | ||
| Education, health care, social work | 14.5 | 18.5 | 19.2 | 7.2 | .211a .220b .229c | 1 < 4 2 < 4 3 < 4 |
| Knowledge intensive | 32.0 | 16.8 | 33.6 | 48.2 | ||
| Labour intensive | 35.4 | 51.4 | 35.6 | 42.5 | ||
| Seasonal variations | 1.51 | 1.52 | 1.52 | 1.66 | 2.705 | – |
| Type of assignment (%) | OR | |||||
| One long-term | 30.4 | 19.6 | 10.6 | 27.3 | 0.271d | 1 < 3 |
| Several smaller assignments | 62.0 | 68.6 | 85.8 | 67.3 | ||
| Many short client contacts | 7.6 | 11.8 | 3.6 | 5.4 | ||
| Advance notice (% <1 month in advance) | 39.5 | 24.9 | 52.1 | 47.9 | 6.537# | 2 < 3,2 < 4# |
| Main activity (%) | OR | |||||
| Employed gig | 48.9 | 33.6 | 35.2 | 59.9 | ||
| Other work | 26.2 | 48.4 | 45.7 | 29.6 | 2.949e 2.749f | 2 > 4 3 > 4 |
| Other activity | 25.0 | 18.0 | 19.1 | 10.6 | ||
| Regularity of work | 3.06 | 3.19 | 3.06 | 3.64 | 7.85* | 1;3 < 4 |
| Lack of assignments | 1.70 | 2.89 | 2.85 | 3.63 | 83.499*** | 1 < 3–4; 2–3 < 4 |
| Tenure (years) | 4.13 | 7.50 | 5.56 | 4.94 | 4.520 | – |
| Income (% above 250 000 SEK/year | 27.6 | 38.9 | 24 | 29.2 | 1.875 | – |
| Percentage of income (% more than 20%) | 41.6 | 48.4 | 42 | 72.6 | 11.512** | 1–3 < 4 |
| Unemployment last 2 years (%) | 13.9 | 32.5 | 34.6 | 53.8 | 22.544*** | 1 < 2–4 |
[i] Note: N = 218; *p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001; # p = .085.
a Comparison of class 1 to class 4 threshold from category 2 to higher OR = 0.211, 95% CI [0.056; 0.792]
b Comparison of class 2 to class 4 threshold from category 2 to higher OR = 0.220, 95% CI [0.053; 0.911]
c Comparison of class 3 to class 4 threshold from category 2 to higher OR = 0.229, 95% CI [0.055; 0.959]
d Comparison of class 1 and 3 threshold from category 1 to higher OR = 0.271 95% CI [0.097; 0.760]
e Comparison of class 2 and 4 threshold from category 1 to higher OR = 2.949 95% CI [1.078; 8.066]
f Comparison of class 3 and 4 threshold from category 1 to higher OR = 2.949 95% CI [1.047; 7.216]
Table 5
Labor market and Personal motivation antecedents to insecurity profiles.
| HIGHLY SECURE [1] | CAREER SECURE [2] | GIG AND CAREER INSECURE [3] | HIGHLY INSECURE [4] | Chi2 | PAIRWISE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90 | 41 | 52 | 35 | |||
| Labor market | ||||||
| Covid impact (–100; 100) | 3.39 | 10.97 | 7.45 | -8.72 | 3.177 | – |
| Digitalization during covid (0 not at all – 5 a lot) | 1.63 | 2.37 | 2.14 | 2.51 | 14.444** | 1 < 2;4 |
| Personal Motivation | ||||||
| Intrinsic | 4.27 | 3.82 | 3.67 | 3.33 | 15.010*** | 1 > 3–4 |
| Need to make a living | 2.09 | 3.03 | 3.41 | 3.61 | 34.877*** | 1 < 3–4 |
[i] Note: N = 218; *p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001.
Figure A1
Latent profiles, based on mean scores of insecurity scales (1–5). ‘Highly secure’ N = 90, ‘Career secure’ N = 45, ‘Gig and career insecure’ N = 54, ‘Highly insecure’ N = 38.