際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

Financial problems and perceived well-being among the European self-employed, the role of social trust and collectivism

Download as PPTX, PDF
Marjan Gorgievski
Marjan Gorgievski

Presented at ICAP, July 9 13, 2014, Paris Authors: Marjan Gorgievski, Psychology Anne Annink, Public Administration Fabian Dekker, Sociology Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

1 of 13
Download to read offline
Financial problems and perceived well-being among the European self-employed, the role of social trust and collectivism Authors: Marjan Gorgievski, Psychology Anne Annink, Public Administration Fabian Dekker, Sociology Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands ICAP, July 9 13, 2014, Paris
Background Economic crisis in Europe, 23% of Europeans report they are living comfortably and 45% say they are getting by (Gallup, 2014). The self-employed are important for society What are the effects of financial hardship on the well- being of self-employed people?
Theoretical background is Conservation of Resources Theory (Hobfoll, 2002). Basic premises: People strive to protect and increase their resources (Potential) loss of resources is stressful, leading to impaired well-being People need to invest resources to gain resources and prevent (further) resource loss, which may lead to resource loss spirals Resource caravans: More resourceful people, people from more resourceful environments are better able to prevent and stop loss cycles. Ecological Stress Theory
Research model Financial hardship Well-being Country level Individual level Social trust Collectivism - - -+
H1. Financial problems relate to financial hardship H1a. Differences in level of financial hardship between countries explain country differences in level of wellbeing H2a. Social resources on individual level (social trust) buffer the negative hardship well-being relationship H2b. Social resources (collectivism) on societal level buffer the negative hardship well-being relationship H2c. There is a three way interaction of individual and societal social resources -> stronger buffer. Hypotheses
Sample: European Social Survey rounds 2004 and 2010 N = 9755 participants, 64% male, age on average 52.05, sd 15.97. From 31 European countries, 18 countries participated twice 2x: Belgium (N=347), Switzerland (N=431), Czech Republic (N=430), Germany (N=503), Denmark (N=286), Estonia (N=211), Spain (N=487), Finland (N=461), United Kingdom (N=447), Greece (N=1248), Ireland (N=550), The Netherlands (N=381), Norway (N=303), Poland (N=480), Portugal (595), Sweden (N=364), Slovakia (N=262) and Ukraine (N=137). 1x: Austria (208), Bulgaria (119), Cyprus (179), France (161), Croatia (87), Hungary (105), Israel (232), Iceland (74), Lietuva (16), Luxembourg (156), Romania (117), Turkey (216) Sample descriptives
Social trust, 3 items, e.g. Most people can be trusted; answers 1 (poor) 10 (good), Alpha reliability 0.78 Collectivism, 11 items Schwartz PVQ ; Alpha reliability = .77. Scales corrected according to Schwartz recommendations. Financial hardship, 2 items (household income and borrowing money), 1 (good) -5 (poor), Alpha reliability =0.92 Perceived subjective well-being ,3 items, satisfaction, happiness, general health; answers range 1 (poor) 5 (good); Alpha reliability = .07) More information: http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/ Measures
Descriptives upper individual level (n = 9755), lower diagonal country * year level ( age gender edu sup trust col Col_m fin wel Age - .002 -.12** .01 .03* -.37** -.09** .08** -.15** Gender (1 = male) .04 - -.03* -.15** -.01 .14** .02 -.09** .04* Higher education (edu) -.14 -.01 - -.08** .12** .17** .11** -.16** .13** Supervising3) (1 = yes) .04 -.18 -.39** - -.06** -.11** -.10** .19** -.10** Social trust .42** .28 .20 -.31 - .04** .16** -.30** .34** Collectivism -.05 -.01 .11 -.29 .50** - .28** -.17** .14** Collectivism_m -.36* -.05 .28 -.36 .15 .58** - -.16** .08** Financial hardship -.36* -.41* -.17 .38 -.83** -.41** -.08 - -.44** Well-being .46** .42* .17 -.35 .79** .11 -.04 -.86 - M 52.05 .64 .17 .61 4.96 -.27 -.27 2.17 3.81 SD 15.97 .48 .38 .49 2.07 .44 .12 .86 .76
Results Regression analyses Model 0 controls Model 1 Controls + hardship Model 2 trust * hardship Model 3 (random slope) Model 4 Collectivism * hardship Age -.01 *** (.000) -.01 *** (.000) -.01 *** (.000) -.01 *** (.000) -.01 (.000) Gender -.03 (.02) -.01 (.02) -.01 (.02) -.01 (.02) .01(.01) Edu .14 *** (.02) .07*** (.02) .07*** (.02) .07*** (.02) .07(0.2) Supervising -.08 *** (.01) -.02 (.01) -.02 (.02) -.02 (.02) -.02(.01) Trust .09 *** (.003) .07 *** (.003) .04 *** (.01) .04 *** (.01) .07(.01) Collectivism (culture) -.35 (.33) -.35 (.33) -.36 (.25) -.36 (.25) .18(.23) Financial hardship -.29***(.01) -.37***(.02) -.37***(.02) -.36(.03) interaction .01** (.004) -.24(.12) 2 x log 18295.56 16663.27 16656.48 16607.85 16606.59 2 x log 102.31 1632.29 6,79 48.63 0.99 df 9 10 11 12 12 UV Individual .44 (.01) .40 (.01) .40 (.01) .40 (.01) .40 (.01) UV country * ess round .08 (.01) .04 (.01) .04 (.01) .02 (.01) .02 (.01) UV slope hardship .01 (.002) .01 (.002) H1 supported H1b supported. (additional analyses show no round variance was explained) H2a supported H2 b (and c) were not supported Slope variance, financial hardship / well-being relationship significantly different across countries
Interaction plot social trust * financial hardship
Strengths and weaknesses Strength of the study: large sample size many European countries are represented two data points (before and after the crisis) Weaknesses: Short and diverse nature of the measures, panel data, but not longitudinal (within person)
Financial hardship relates negatively to well-being, and differences in levels of financial hardship explain differences in well-being across countries ESS data show support for a buffer effect of social trust. The average level is very low, so may be worth while investing in trying to increase this social buffer. Current analyses show the strength of the hardhip-wellbeing relationship differs across countries. We have not been able to find an explanatory mechanism for these differences, yet. To conclude
Future studies: Investigate the effect of other possible cross-country buffers of the hardship well-being relation (e.g., unemployment benefit), which would aid European policy making. Not just include culture at the country level, but also look at personal values differences within countries (would actually be possible with ESS data). More generally, look at person-environment interactions to develop more tailor made solutions. Future studies:

More Related Content

Financial problems and perceived well-being among the European self-employed, the role of social trust and collectivism

  • 1. Financial problems and perceived well-being among the European self-employed, the role of social trust and collectivism Authors: Marjan Gorgievski, Psychology Anne Annink, Public Administration Fabian Dekker, Sociology Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands ICAP, July 9 13, 2014, Paris
  • 2. Background Economic crisis in Europe, 23% of Europeans report they are living comfortably and 45% say they are getting by (Gallup, 2014). The self-employed are important for society What are the effects of financial hardship on the well- being of self-employed people?
  • 3. Theoretical background is Conservation of Resources Theory (Hobfoll, 2002). Basic premises: People strive to protect and increase their resources (Potential) loss of resources is stressful, leading to impaired well-being People need to invest resources to gain resources and prevent (further) resource loss, which may lead to resource loss spirals Resource caravans: More resourceful people, people from more resourceful environments are better able to prevent and stop loss cycles. Ecological Stress Theory
  • 4. Research model Financial hardship Well-being Country level Individual level Social trust Collectivism - - -+
  • 5. H1. Financial problems relate to financial hardship H1a. Differences in level of financial hardship between countries explain country differences in level of wellbeing H2a. Social resources on individual level (social trust) buffer the negative hardship well-being relationship H2b. Social resources (collectivism) on societal level buffer the negative hardship well-being relationship H2c. There is a three way interaction of individual and societal social resources -> stronger buffer. Hypotheses
  • 6. Sample: European Social Survey rounds 2004 and 2010 N = 9755 participants, 64% male, age on average 52.05, sd 15.97. From 31 European countries, 18 countries participated twice 2x: Belgium (N=347), Switzerland (N=431), Czech Republic (N=430), Germany (N=503), Denmark (N=286), Estonia (N=211), Spain (N=487), Finland (N=461), United Kingdom (N=447), Greece (N=1248), Ireland (N=550), The Netherlands (N=381), Norway (N=303), Poland (N=480), Portugal (595), Sweden (N=364), Slovakia (N=262) and Ukraine (N=137). 1x: Austria (208), Bulgaria (119), Cyprus (179), France (161), Croatia (87), Hungary (105), Israel (232), Iceland (74), Lietuva (16), Luxembourg (156), Romania (117), Turkey (216) Sample descriptives
  • 7. Social trust, 3 items, e.g. Most people can be trusted; answers 1 (poor) 10 (good), Alpha reliability 0.78 Collectivism, 11 items Schwartz PVQ ; Alpha reliability = .77. Scales corrected according to Schwartz recommendations. Financial hardship, 2 items (household income and borrowing money), 1 (good) -5 (poor), Alpha reliability =0.92 Perceived subjective well-being ,3 items, satisfaction, happiness, general health; answers range 1 (poor) 5 (good); Alpha reliability = .07) More information: http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/ Measures
  • 8. Descriptives upper individual level (n = 9755), lower diagonal country * year level ( age gender edu sup trust col Col_m fin wel Age - .002 -.12** .01 .03* -.37** -.09** .08** -.15** Gender (1 = male) .04 - -.03* -.15** -.01 .14** .02 -.09** .04* Higher education (edu) -.14 -.01 - -.08** .12** .17** .11** -.16** .13** Supervising3) (1 = yes) .04 -.18 -.39** - -.06** -.11** -.10** .19** -.10** Social trust .42** .28 .20 -.31 - .04** .16** -.30** .34** Collectivism -.05 -.01 .11 -.29 .50** - .28** -.17** .14** Collectivism_m -.36* -.05 .28 -.36 .15 .58** - -.16** .08** Financial hardship -.36* -.41* -.17 .38 -.83** -.41** -.08 - -.44** Well-being .46** .42* .17 -.35 .79** .11 -.04 -.86 - M 52.05 .64 .17 .61 4.96 -.27 -.27 2.17 3.81 SD 15.97 .48 .38 .49 2.07 .44 .12 .86 .76
  • 9. Results Regression analyses Model 0 controls Model 1 Controls + hardship Model 2 trust * hardship Model 3 (random slope) Model 4 Collectivism * hardship Age -.01 *** (.000) -.01 *** (.000) -.01 *** (.000) -.01 *** (.000) -.01 (.000) Gender -.03 (.02) -.01 (.02) -.01 (.02) -.01 (.02) .01(.01) Edu .14 *** (.02) .07*** (.02) .07*** (.02) .07*** (.02) .07(0.2) Supervising -.08 *** (.01) -.02 (.01) -.02 (.02) -.02 (.02) -.02(.01) Trust .09 *** (.003) .07 *** (.003) .04 *** (.01) .04 *** (.01) .07(.01) Collectivism (culture) -.35 (.33) -.35 (.33) -.36 (.25) -.36 (.25) .18(.23) Financial hardship -.29***(.01) -.37***(.02) -.37***(.02) -.36(.03) interaction .01** (.004) -.24(.12) 2 x log 18295.56 16663.27 16656.48 16607.85 16606.59 2 x log 102.31 1632.29 6,79 48.63 0.99 df 9 10 11 12 12 UV Individual .44 (.01) .40 (.01) .40 (.01) .40 (.01) .40 (.01) UV country * ess round .08 (.01) .04 (.01) .04 (.01) .02 (.01) .02 (.01) UV slope hardship .01 (.002) .01 (.002) H1 supported H1b supported. (additional analyses show no round variance was explained) H2a supported H2 b (and c) were not supported Slope variance, financial hardship / well-being relationship significantly different across countries
  • 10. Interaction plot social trust * financial hardship
  • 11. Strengths and weaknesses Strength of the study: large sample size many European countries are represented two data points (before and after the crisis) Weaknesses: Short and diverse nature of the measures, panel data, but not longitudinal (within person)
  • 12. Financial hardship relates negatively to well-being, and differences in levels of financial hardship explain differences in well-being across countries ESS data show support for a buffer effect of social trust. The average level is very low, so may be worth while investing in trying to increase this social buffer. Current analyses show the strength of the hardhip-wellbeing relationship differs across countries. We have not been able to find an explanatory mechanism for these differences, yet. To conclude
  • 13. Future studies: Investigate the effect of other possible cross-country buffers of the hardship well-being relation (e.g., unemployment benefit), which would aid European policy making. Not just include culture at the country level, but also look at personal values differences within countries (would actually be possible with ESS data). More generally, look at person-environment interactions to develop more tailor made solutions. Future studies: