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. 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
Δ 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: