Psychological distress in the labour market: Shame or deprivation?

This study examined the efficacy of two environmental/job characteristic models (financial hardship/shaming and deprivation) that have been proposed to account for the negative wellbeing effects for people in the labour market. Scales tapping wellbeing, financial distress, shame and the latent benefits of employment (social support, collective purpose, activity, time structure, status) were administered to 125 unemployed and 133 full-time employed individuals. As predicted, the unemployed sample had poorer wellbeing, more shame and financial distress, and less access to all latent benefits, except social support. Shame accounted for a modest amount of variance in wellbeing, and only one latent variable (status) was a significant predictor. Social support and activity did not mediate the effects of shame and financial distress, and shame did not interact with financial distress to predict wellbeing. Financial distress was the best predictor of wellbeing. Implications for labour market participants are highlighted.