|
Article Excerpt
The results of psychological and sociological unemployment research seem to be clear and unambiguous: all authors of review articles and meta-analyses agree that unemployed people show worse mental health and more signs of psychological distress when compared with employed people (examples for more recent reviews and meta-analyses: Dooley, Fielding, & Levi, 1996; Kasl, Rodriguez, & Lasch, 1998; Lennon, 1999; McKee-Ryan & Kinicki, 2002; Moser & Paul, 2001; Murphy & Athanasou, 1999; Winefield, 1995). This result is true for very different aspects of mental health and well-being, for example, symptoms of depression and hopelessness, symptoms of anxiety, psychosomatic symptoms, self-esteem and feelings of control (Winefield, 1995). It is true for different social groups and different life situations in different countries all over the industrialised world and it is also true for different years and decades of the entire 20th century (Moser & Paul, 2001). Thus, the negative impact of unemployment on mental health seems to be a very robust effect. Regarding the problem of causality, the general consensus is that unemployment not only correlates with but actually causes psychological distress (Murphy & Athanasou, 1999).
While employed people were usually used as comparison group in the research literature, it is interesting to note that the mental health of unemployed people is also impaired in comparison to other social groups. There exist more than a dozen epidemiological studies from western countries that report prevalence rates of minor psychological disorders or depression not only for employed and unemployed people, but also for students, retirees or home-makers (e.g. Eaton & Kessler, 1981; Ohayon, Priest, Guilleminault, & Caulet, 1999). The median prevalence rates from these studies are as follows: 9% for employed people, 11% for students, 16% for retired people, 18% for home-makers and 23% for unemployed people. Thus, unemployed people are distressed not only in comparison to employed people but also in comparison to other groups of people who are out of employment (a list of the 13 studies used to compute these median prevalence rates is available from the first author).
However, the question of why unemployment hurts psychological health has not yet been answered in an unequivocal way. We hypothesize that an important reason for the distress that typically accompanies unemployment is the fact that it is characterized by a lack of congruence between a person's level of employment commitment and his or her current employment situation. The purpose of the present paper is to test some important predictions derived from this hypothesis by means of meta-analysis of cross-sectional and longitudinal data.
Psychological unemployment theories
Several general psychological theories, for example, helplessness theory and expectancy-value theory, have been applied to the problem of unemployment (Feather, 1990). However, three more specific theories developed within the field of unemployment research have been the most influential: Jahoda's latent deprivation model, Warr's vitamin model and Fryer's agency restriction approach. They will be briefly reviewed in the next sections.
According to Jahoda's renowned latent deprivation theory, the institution of employment has not only a manifest function (earning a living) but also five latent, that is, unintended functions that are important for mental health: time structure, social contact, status, enforced activity and collective purpose (1983). Jahoda stated that these latent functions correspond to basic human needs. Thus, the amount of access to the latent functions has a direct impact upon a person's well-being. In modern societies, employment is the only institution that can provide the latent functions in a sufficient amount. Therefore, according to this model, employment is usually necessary in order to be psychologically healthy.
Warr's vitamin model is similar to Jahoda's deprivation theory in hypothesizing that certain characteristics of a person's environment act as the main determinants of the person's mental health (1987). However, the environmental features specified by Warr only partly match those specified by Jahoda: opportunity for control, opportunity for skill use, externally generated goals, variety, environmental clarity, availability of money, physical security, opportunity for interpersonal contact and valued social position. Warr hypothesized that the environment influences mental health 'in a manner analogous to the effect of vitamins on physical health' (1987, p. 9). This means that low levels of the nine environmental features are thought to have negative effects on well-being. Increasing levels are associated with better mental health but an increase beyond a certain limit should have no further positive effect. Some of the environmental features are even hypothesized to be harmful in very high doses (e.g. variety). Unemployed people are typically confronted with an environment that contains only limited amounts of each of Warr's 'vitamins', which is assumed to be the reason for the impaired well-being of this group of people.
While Jahoda's and Warr's models can be described as situation-centred, Fryer's (1986, 1997) agency restriction theory lays the focus of interest on the unemployed person. This theory is based on a view of humans as proactive and intrinsically motivated beings. In his view, people are 'agents actively striving for purposeful self-determination, attempting to make sense of, initiate, influence, and cope with events in line with personal values, goals, and expectations of the future' (1997, p. 12). In the case of unemployed people, agency is severely restricted and frustrated, especially because of the material poverty, future insecurity, low social power and stigmatization connected with unemployment that undermine planning and purposeful action. This frustration of agency can lead to mental health problems. Thus, 'agency theory tries to focus upon what people bring with them to a situation which is unfamiliar and problematical rather than upon what is taken away from them [by the loss of employment]' (1986, p. 16).
While we sympathize with Fryer's (1986) general view of human beings, we believe that he neglected an important common characteristic of most unemployed people, that is, that they are usually strongly committed to employment and wish to have a job. We believe that this common characteristic may be one of the reasons for their low measures of well-being.
The concept of unemployment
Although people whom we would call 'unemployed' today probably existed throughout time, the abstract concept of 'unemployment' did not emerge until the industrial revolution (Garraty, 1978). The modern English word 'unemployment' and the German equivalent 'Arbeitslosigkeit' did not come into general use until 1890. At the same time, the institutions were created that are currently used to deal with the unemployment phenomenon and that are so typical of contemporary western societies, for example, regular unemployment statistics and unemployment insurance systems (Garraty, 1978).
Today, most national definitions of unemployment are oriented towards that of the International Labour Office (ILO): The 'unemployed' comprise all people above a specific age who during the reference period were:
(a) 'without work', i.e. were not in paid employment or self-employment (...);
(b) 'currently available for work', i.e. were available for paid employment or self-employment during the reference period; and
(c) 'seeking work', i.e. had taken specific steps in a specified reference period to seek paid employment or serf-employment" (ILO, 2000, p. 429).
This definition shows that unemployment is a complex, multidimensional construct, involving not only situational aspects (non-employment), but also motivational aspects ('seeking work') and medical and legal aspects (being 'available for work').
Looking at the theories of Jahoda (1983) and Warr (1987), we see that they focus primarily on the 'without work' criterion, specifying 'functions' or 'vitamins' of employment that are taken away from people by job loss. Fryer (1986) is more concerned with special features of unemployment, for example, future insecurity. However, none of the three models explicitly takes into account the two more person-oriented criteria of job search and availability, which are also essential elements of the unemployment construct. Their function is to distinguish unemployed people from certain other groups of people who do not work, groups who are usually referred to as being 'out of the labour force'. The 'availability' criterion distinguishes unemployed people from people who are not able to work due to health reasons or who are legally excluded from the labour market, for example, children. The 'job search' criterion separates unemployed people from other people who fit the first and the second criterion but do not show active interest in employment, such as home-makers and fulltime students. If we interpret this 'job search' requirement as a behavioural indicator of an underlying high motivation for employment, we can conclude that unemployed people are defined to be a very specific subgroup of all people who not employed. They are supposed to be those not-employed people who are able and allowed to work and who would prefer to work. Furthermore, the definition cited above is not only an abstract concept but also represents a political goal: governments usually use demeaning bureaucratic processes, stigmatization and unpleasant situational conditions to deter 'illegitimate' individuals from claiming unemployment benefits (Fryer, 1992). In other words, there exist institutionalized procedures to officially register only those people with a strong employment motivation as unemployed. (1)
If we interpret the job-search criterion in a motivational way, we can conclude that an essentially psychological variable, that is, the wish to be employed, represents a central element of the construct of unemployment. Its function is to distinguish unemployed people from other groups of non-employed people, such as students and home-makers, who in fact typically feel better than the unemployed do (see introduction). The question of whether this psychological variable could be helpful in explaining the distress symptoms that typically characterize unemployed people is suggested here.
Incongruence as an explanation of psychological distress
Several theories from different research fields in psychology assume that human beings are generally inclined to reduce cognitive or motivational discrepancies and that such discrepancies are associated with negative outcomes such as psychological distress or dissatisfaction (e.g. Festinger, 1957; Holland, 1985; Miller, 1959; Rogers, 1957; Lawler, 1973; Locke, 1969). For example, according to Grawe's (2004) consistency theory, humans strive for congruence between individual goals and perceived goal attainment, although perfect congruence is rarely achieved. High levels of incongruence are hypothesized as an essential cause of the formation and maintenance of psychopathological symptoms. Already available empirical data strongly support this theory (Berking, Grosse-Holtforth, & Jacobi, 2003; Grosse-Holtforth & Grawe, 2003).
Discrepancy theories such as the ones cited above have been successfully applied to the field of occupational and organizational psychology (e.g. by Holton, Lee, & Tidd, 2002). In our opinion, it should also be possible to apply such theories to the field of unemployment research: a preference for something that is unattainable at the moment, in other words, a strong motivation for employment, is one of the defining characteristics of the unemployment concept (see above). In other words: unemployed people can be described as being caught in a life situation that they do not want to be in. This state of incongruence is possibly a cause of their diminished mental health.
The question arises as to why unemployed people want to be employed. Financial need is the most obvious antecedent of a person's current motivation for employment. In addition, several other variables, for example, early education and training, the period in the life cycle, gender identity or individual personality characteristics have been specified as antecedents of this motivation (Gallie & Vogler, 1994). Values and normative beliefs concerning work and its role in one's life are also likely to be important predictors. Two interesting constructs measuring such attitudes have repeatedly been studied in psychological unemployment research and will be meta-analysed here: work involvement and the Protestant work ethic (see below).
Work involvement and the protestant work ethic
Work involvement, which has also been called 'Employment commitment', is defined as 'the extent to which a person wants to be engaged in work' (Warr, Cook, & Wall, 1979, p. 130). It is usually viewed as a dispositional variable (Jackson, Stafford, Banks, & Warr, 1983). According to Kanungo, work involvement is the result of a lifelong socialization process: 'involvement in work in general (...) is a normative belief about the value of work in one's life, and it is (...) a function of one's past cultural conditioning or socialization.' (1982, p. 342). Work involvement is usually assumed to be the central component of the Protestant work ethic (Jackson et al., 1983) and has been shown to be strongly correlated with this variable (Paterson & O'Driscoll, 1989; Shamir, 1986).
Protestant work ethic endorsement is usually conceptualized as a dispositional variable characterized by a belief in the importance of hard work and asceticism. Disciplined work is seen as a prescription against sloth, sexual temptation and religious doubt in this-initially religious--belief system (Mirels &...
|
