Saturday, 18 April 2026

A note on job insecurity worries in the context of an MBA questionnaire survey design

A note on job insecurity worries in the context of an MBA questionnaire survey design


With regard to my MBA dissertation research theme of "the influence of AI usage on the project team employees' worries on job insecurity in ABC telecom company, I would like conduct a questionnaire survey to my company's colleagues. I am not familiar with the topic of "worries" on job insecurity from the perspective of psychology and not sure how to formulate 1 to 2 questionnaire survey questions on this topic, notably using the five-point rating scale in this case. Could you give me some concept clarification and advice?

In psychology, job insecurity worry is usually the emotional/affective side of job insecurity, meaning the employee’s fear, anxiety, or concern about possible job loss or reduced role value in the future. In your dissertation, this fits well if you want to measure not only whether people think AI may affect their job, but also whether that possibility makes them feel uneasy.

Concept clarification

Job insecurity is often treated as having two parts. The cognitive part is the person’s judgment that their job may be threatened, while the affective part is the feeling of worry, fear, or anxiety about that threat.
For your topic, “worries” should therefore be framed as an emotional response to AI-related uncertainty, not as a technical evaluation of AI itself.
That distinction helps you avoid writing items that mix up “I think AI may change my work” with “I feel worried about what that means for my job”.

How to phrase items

For a questionnaire, it is usually better to write items that are:

·        Simple and specific.

·        About the respondent’s own feelings.

·        Focused on the future.

·        Neutral enough to avoid sounding accusatory or too dramatic.

A five-point agreement scale is suitable here, for example:

1.    Strongly disagree.

2.    Disagree.

3.    Neither agree nor disagree.

4.    Agree.

5.    Strongly agree.

Possible items

You could use these two items:

1.    “I feel worried that increased AI use in my company may affect the security of my job.”

2.    “When I think about AI being used more in my company, I feel anxious about my future job prospects.”

These items capture the emotional worry aspect directly, which is consistent with how job insecurity is commonly described in the literature as fear, alarm, or anxiety about future job loss.
If you want a slightly more conservative wording, you can replace “anxious” with “concerned,” which is often easier for survey respondents to answer honestly.

Practical advice

Because you are studying AI usage, it is best not to make the item too broad. “AI usage” could mean automation, decision support, monitoring, or customer service tools, and these may affect employees differently.
So your item should ideally link AI to the respondent’s own job security perception, rather than asking generally whether AI is “good” or “bad”.
Also, two items are acceptable for a small dissertation survey, but if possible, three to four items usually give you a more reliable measure than just one or two.

Suggested final wording

If you want a clean, thesis-friendly version, I would recommend:

·        “I feel worried that the increased use of AI in my company may threaten my job security.”

·        “I feel anxious about my future job prospects because of the increasing use of AI in my company.”

These are directly aligned with the emotional dimension of job insecurity discussed in the literature.

 

Suggest two related academic references

Here are two key academic references that directly support the distinction between cognitive and affective (worry-based) job insecurity, as well as validated questionnaire items using Likert scales for the affective dimension.

1.    Chirumbolo, A., Callea, A., & Urbini, F. (2025). The assessment of job insecurity: Dimensionality, reliability, and validity of the Multidimensional Job Insecurity Questionnaire – Revised (MJIQ-R). Economic and Industrial Democracy, 46(3), 742-765.
This paper validates a 16-item scale with affective items like "I fear losing my job" and "I am worried about not being able to keep my job," ideal for five-point agreement scales in your AI-job insecurity context.

2.    Pienaar, J., De Witte, H., Hellgren, J., & Sverke, M. (2013). The cognitive/affective distinction of job insecurity: Validation and differential relations. Southern African Business Review, 17(2), 1-22.
This study clarifies the affective component as "feelings and fears" about job loss, with empirical validation of scales distinguishing worry from mere perception, and links it to outcomes like emotional exhaustion.

 


A collection of blog notes on using chatgpt for research purpose.

Friday, 17 April 2026

An illustrative sketchy draft of a Housing Dissertation report: on affordable rental housing providers

An illustrative sketchy draft of a Housing Dissertation report: on affordable rental housing providers

Regarding the article of “Public perceptions of for-profit and nonprofit affordable rental housing providers”, by Leland, S. and Read, D.C. (2025), Community Development 56(6), 837-849, the following review comments are made:

 

What are: (1) the main research theme, (2) the main research issues, (3) the main research objectives and (4) the main research questions of this article?

 

    Based on the article "Public perceptions of for-profit and nonprofit affordable rental housing providers" by Suzanne Leland and Dustin C. Read, here are the comments:

1.    Main research theme: The primary theme of the study is to investigate public perceptions of for-profit versus nonprofit affordable rental housing providers, specifically how these perceptions influence legitimacy and fairness attributed to these organizations in the preservation of affordable rental housing. It centers on understanding the impact of organizational sector (for-profit vs. nonprofit) and framing on public support for affordable rental housing initiatives.

2.    Main research issues:

  • The difficulty private sector affordable rental housing providers face in building public support at the local level.
  • The role that for-profit or nonprofit status plays in shaping public perceptions and support.
  • The influence of framing the profit motive of rental housing providers on public attitudes.
  • The lack of extensive research disentangling effects of for-profit versus nonprofit status on public opinion in affordable rental housing.
  • How scale (size) of affordable rental housing complexes affects perceptions of providers.

3.    Main research objectives:

  • To experimentally test whether nonprofit affordable rental housing providers are perceived more favorably than for-profit ones in terms of legitimacy and fairness.
  • To examine how framing the organizational type (nonprofit vs. for-profit) of affordable rental housing providers influences public support.
  • To assess whether public views of providers vary depending on the size of the affordable rental housing complex they operate.

4.    Main research questions:

  • Do members of the public view nonprofit affordable rental housing providers more favorably than for-profit providers?
  • Does framing an affordable rental housing provider’s profit status affect public perceptions of legitimacy and fairness in providing affordable housing?
  • Are perceptions of affordable rental housing providers influenced by the size of the apartment complexes they own and operate?.

These research elements guide the vignette experiment conducted by the authors, offering insights into how nonprofit status and framing can impact public opinion and support for affordable rental housing initiatives.

 

Describe two main arguments of the article in terms of the Toulmin model of argument.

    The article presents two main arguments regarding public perceptions of affordable rental housing providers, which can be described using the Toulmin model of argument, consisting of Claim, Data/Evidence, Warrant (the underlying assumption), Backing, Qualifier, and Rebuttal. Here are the two arguments structured accordingly:


Argument 1: Nonprofit affordable rental housing providers are perceived more favorably than for-profit providers.

  • Claim: Nonprofits are viewed as more legitimate participants in the preservation of affordable rental housing and are perceived as more likely to treat residents fairly compared to for-profit providers.
  • Data/Evidence: The vignette experiment results show that subjects exposed to nonprofit scenarios rated the organizations significantly more favorably in terms of legitimacy and fairness than those exposed to for-profit scenarios.
  • Warrant: According to the contract failure hypothesis (Hansmann, 1980, 1981), nonprofits are trusted more because they are legally prohibited from distributing profits, reducing incentives to sacrifice social goals for profit, leading to higher perceived trustworthiness and legitimacy.
  • Backing: Prior research supports that consumers generally prefer nonprofits over for-profits in contexts with information asymmetry, viewing nonprofits as more socially oriented providers unless shown evidence otherwise (Aaker et al., 2010; Lee & Kim, 2024; Meier et al., 2022).
  • Qualifier: This perception mainly holds in the context of affordable rental housing and naturally occurring affordable homes in the U.S., as reflected in this controlled experimental setting.
  • Rebuttal: While nonprofits are generally favored, actual treatment and effectiveness could vary; some consumers may not uniformly prefer nonprofits depending on additional information or context.

Argument 2: Framing an affordable rental housing provider’s organizational status influences public support.

  • Claim: The way an affordable rental housing provider’s nonprofit or for-profit status is framed affects public perceptions, implying that emphasizing nonprofit status or downplaying for-profit status can increase public support.
  • Data/Evidence: Experimental manipulation of the vignettes by describing the provider either as a nonprofit or a for-profit resulted in significant differences in public attitudes toward legitimacy and fairness.
  • Warrant: Framing theory suggests that how information is presented shapes people’s perceptions and attitudes; thus, language and emphasis on organizational characteristics influence acceptance or opposition (Goetz, 2008; Monkkonen & Manville, 2019).
  • Backing: Prior studies in housing and urban planning have shown that public perceptions of affordable rental housing are malleable based on framing of scale, benefits, burdens, or motives of providers (Matheis & Sorens, 2024; Marble & Nall, 2021).
  • Qualifier: The impact of framing is significant but not absolute; it depends on existing beliefs, informational context, and demographic variables (age, income, urbanicity).
  • Rebuttal: Framing alone cannot overcome deeply rooted fears or opposition; it is one of several strategies needed to build public support for affordable housing initiatives.

These arguments underscore how both organizational form and communicative framing shape public support dynamics in affordable rental housing provision.

 

In terms of a Housing Studies dissertation report structure, highlight 3 main points from the article on each of the following dissertation chapters: Introduction Literature review Research methodology Presentation of research findings Discussion of research findings Conclusions and recommendations.

 

  • Below are three main points drawn from the article "Public perceptions of for-profit and nonprofit affordable rental housing providers" that fit into each typical chapter of a Housing Studies dissertation report structure:

1. Introduction

    • Affordable rental housing demand exceeds supply in the U.S., especially for low- and moderate-income households, making preservation and production a policy priority.
    • Private sector providers (both for-profit and nonprofit) face challenges building local public support due to fears about affordable housing’s impacts on neighborhoods.
    • The study aims to examine how public perceptions differ based on providers’ nonprofit or for-profit status, testing whether framing these characteristics influences support.

2. Literature Review

    • The contract failure hypothesis (Hansmann, 1980, 1981) suggests nonprofits are entrusted more with socially oriented services due to restrictions on profit distribution, shaping public trust.
    • Fear and stigma about affordable rental housing (e.g., neighborhood decline, resident characteristics) affect public acceptance; however, evidence suggests properly managed affordable housing can yield positive neighborhood impacts.
    • Framing theory explains that language and presentation of affordable housing initiatives (including organizational form and profit motives) influence public perception and support, but studies on nonprofit vs. for-profit distinction are limited.

3. Research Methodology

    • Use of a vignette experimental design with six scenarios manipulating the sector (nonprofit vs. for-profit) and size (number of units) of a naturally occurring affordable rental housing provider to isolate framing effects.
    • Data collected through randomized exposure to vignettes and measurement of attitudes on perceived legitimacy and fairness using Likert scales.
    • Controlled approach ensures "mundane realism" by grounding vignettes in a real news story, allowing inference of causal relationships between framing and public perceptions.

4. Presentation of Research Findings

    • Nonprofit providers are perceived significantly more favorably than for-profits regarding their legitimacy to preserve affordable housing and fair treatment of residents.
    • Perceptions vary by the scale of property owned, with mixed results: smaller complexes are generally viewed more positively than medium ones, but very large complexes do not receive consistently less favorable views.
    • Control variables show demographic factors such as older age, higher income, female gender, and rural residence influence more positive views of providers and perceptions of fairness.

5. Discussion of Research Findings

    • Findings align with the contract failure hypothesis, reinforcing that nonprofit status can be effectively framed to build public trust in affordable housing providers.
    • Mixed effects of scale indicate complexity in public attitudes toward multifamily housing size; numerical framing may require clearer reference points for better interpretation.
    • Context matters: demographic differences and area type influence perceptions, suggesting tailored framing strategies may be necessary for effective public engagement.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

    • Emphasizing nonprofit status or downplaying for-profit status through strategic framing can enhance public support for affordable rental housing initiatives, especially for naturally occurring affordable housing providers.
    • Local governments and housing advocates should leverage framing in communications and policy campaigns to counteract stigma and build political support.
    • Further research is recommended to explore how other framing dimensions (e.g., scale, benefits) interact with organizational form and demographic variables, to design nuanced outreach strategies.

These points provide structured thematic highlights from the article suitable for each dissertation chapter in Housing Studies.

 

  

Reference

Suzanne Leland & Dustin C. Read (2025) Public perceptions of for-profit and nonprofit affordable rental housing providers, Community Development, 56:6, 837-849, DOI:
10.1080/15575330.2024.2411734




A collection of blog notes on using chatgpt for research purpose.