Unfairness During Unemployment – How Perceived Injustice Affects Mental Health Among Unemployed People Andrea Zechmann, Karste

Home , Employment agency

Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 1

Unfairness During Unemployment – How Perceived Injustice Affects Mental Health

Among Unemployed People

Andrea Zechmann, Karsten I. Paul, and Klaus Moser

Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuernberg

Author Note

Andrea Zechmann, Organizational and Social Psychology, Friedrich-Alexander

University Erlangen-Nuernberg; Karsten I. Paul, Organizational and Social Psychology,

Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuernberg; Klaus Moser, Organizational and Social

Psychology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuernberg.

Correspondence may be addressed to Andrea Zechmann, Lange Gasse 20, 90403

Nuernberg, Germany, Email: [email protected]. This research was funded by the

German Research Foundation, as well as partly funded by the Ilse and Dr. Alexander Mayer-

Stiftung. Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 2

Abstract

This study sheds light on the consequences of injustice perceived by unemployed people in general, as well as in the employment agency setting. It suggests that general distributive injustice helps to explain the detrimental effect of unemployment on mental health. Additionally, it proposes that perceived procedural, interpersonal, and informational injustice in the employment agency setting undermines mental health. We tested our assumptions in a four-wave longitudinal study with a sample of initially unemployed people of whom many found new jobs during the course of the study. Multilevel analyses were used, accounting for within- and between-person variation of injustice. As expected, decreases of general distributive injustice mediated the effect of changes from unemployment to reemployment on decreases of depression.

Additionally, increases in procedural injustice perceived in the treatment by the employment agency predicted increases in depression. However, changes in interpersonal and informational injustice did not affect mental health. In summary, during unemployment, different types of injustice represent stressors: the lack of resources in general, as well as problems in the relationship with the most important institution in this life situation, the employment agency.

Thus, this study proposes important, yet unexplored, mechanisms that help to explain why unemployment undermines mental health.

Keywords: unemployment, employment agency, justice perceptions, mental health Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 3

Unfairness During Unemployment – How Perceived Injustice Affects Mental Health Among

Unemployed People

Asked about the most challenging aspects of their unemployment experience, many unemployed people report feelings of injustice experienced during unemployment in general, and in their relationship with the employment agency in specific. For example, a participant stated1:

“I still do not have a job even though I have completed three apprenticeships.” Another participant reported: “I’m doing an internship, but in the selection process, for any reason, my skills and qualifications weren’t taken into account [by the employment agency] and now I am doing unskilled work, although I am better qualified. […] I feel inferior and treated unfairly!”

As the abovementioned quotes exemplify, unemployment might confront people with questions of justice and injustice in different respects: On the one hand, unemployment in general could represent a source of injustice because people find themselves among the less advantaged members of society with regard to income (Mallinckrodt & Fretz, 1988), prestige

(Kulik, 2000; Paul & Batinic, 2010), opportunities for agency and influence (Fryer, 1992), and other important outcomes associated with employment. On the other hand, the relationship with the institution most important during unemployment—the employment agency (Fryer & Fagan,

2003)—might foster feelings of injustice. For example, unemployed people might perceive procedures (e.g., the way regulations are enacted to which they have to adhere to in order to secure their livelihood; Venn, 2012), as well as treatment by job placement officers, as problematic. However, research has largely neglected to study the phenomenon of perceived injustice during unemployment in general, and in the employment agency setting in specific, as well as its consequences for mental health.

1 Translated from German by the authors of this study. Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 4

Thus, this study is the first to address these aspects of unemployment. It contributes to the research field in three ways: First, it uncovers whether employment status changes lead to changes of perceived general distributive injustice. Second, it scrutinizes whether perceptions of general distributive injustice help to explain why unemployed people suffer. Third, it also sheds light on how procedural, interpersonal, and informational injustice perceived in the employment agency setting affects unemployed people’s mental health.

Unemployment as a Source of Perceived Injustice

Findings from previous research have suggested that the experience of unemployment is associated with questions of justice or injustice. In general, unemployed people rate their fate as more unfair than victims of other life events (Dalbert, 1997), and perceive the world as less just than their employed counterparts (Cubela Andoric, 2004; Otto, Glaser, & Dalbert, 2009).

Furthermore, a longer duration of unemployment is associated with a lower belief that the world is a just place (Cubela Andoric, 2004; Dalbert, 2004).

On the one hand, people who perceive injustice might be selected into unemployment.

For example, perceived injustice in organizational settings fosters turnover intentions (see the meta-analysis by Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Thus, people who perceive organizational injustice might quit their jobs and finally become unemployed. On the other hand, the experience of unemployment might trigger perceptions of injustice. With job loss, people lose many resources such as income (Mallinckrodt & Fretz, 1988) or prestige (Kulik, 2000; Paul & Batinic,

2010), and seem to fare worse in the job search process than their employed counterparts

(Kanfer, Wanberg, & Kantrowitz, 2001; Karren & Sherman, 2012). Facing numerous disadvantages associated with unemployment could finally culminate in perceived injustice. For example, unemployed people could feel that despite all their efforts, they lost their jobs, need to Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 5 live on public assistance, and in sum, get less from life than they deserve. Consequently, perceptions of injustice could result from unemployment. However, due to its exclusively cross- sectional design, research on injustice during unemployment has not yet answered the question of causality. Thus, it remains unclear whether differences of injustice perceptions between unemployed and employed people result from selection or reaction mechanisms. In order to unravel the question of causality, longitudinal studies which investigate the effects of employment status changes on changes of injustice perceptions are necessary.

Although distributive justice represents the most widely cited justice concept (see

Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001), it has not yet been considered in relation to unemployment. According to meta-analyses, distributive justice is positively related to satisfaction with an outcome and negatively related to the perception of an outcome as negative (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). From a conceptual point of view, distributive justice refers to the fairness of allocation rules, which can be based on principles of equity (Adams,

1965; Deutsch, 1975), equality, or need (Deutsch, 1975). In other words, people might consider an outcome as fair when those who invest most also get the most (i.e., equity), when every person receives the same share (i.e., equality), or when those in need receive more than those who need less (i.e., need). With regard to its application in organizational settings in which economic orientations dominate, distributive justice has been reduced to the equity principle

(Colquitt, 2001). However, in the context of unemployment, we consider restricting the distributive justice concept to the equity rule to be too narrow a definition. Therefore, we chose a broader perspective, which allows for taking into account unemployed people’s perceptions of general distributive (in)justice based on various rules of allocation. Unemployed people could perceive the allocation of, for example, jobs, training opportunities, or financial resources, as Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 6 unjust because they perceive them not to outweigh their inputs, not to reflect what others get, or not to meet their needs. Consequently, they might feel they do not get what they deserve. Thus, we consider unemployment a life situation which fosters perceptions of general distributive injustice. We also assume that finding a new job after a phase of unemployment largely alleviates these feelings because people then re-gain the resources of employed people.

Hypothesis 1: Changes in employment status lead to changes in the perception of general distributive injustice. In detail, reemployment, in contrast to continuous unemployment, leads to decreases in perceived injustice.

Furthermore, the finding that unemployment causes mental health impairments is well documented (McKee-Ryan, Song, Wanberg, & Kinicki, 2005; Paul & Moser, 2009). Still, many factors that help to explain why unemployment undermines mental health remain unknown (e.g., see Paul & Moser, 2009). To date, perceptions of injustice resulting from unemployment have rarely been considered in this context. So far, we only know that social injustice (i.e., feeling disadvantaged compared to others) during long-term unemployment is associated with impaired health and dissatisfaction with life (Freidl, Fazekas, Raml, Pretis, & Feistritzer, 2007). However, due to its cross-sectional design, this study allows only limited conclusions about the specific role that injustice plays in the process leading to unemployment-related distress.

From the perspective of injustice-stress theory (Vermunt, 2014; Vermunt & Steensma,

2001), distributive injustice in organizational settings results in stress which might, in turn, undermine mental health. Accordingly, meta-analytic evidence has suggested that distributive injustice is a strong predictor of impaired mental health (Robbins, Ford, & Tetrick, 2012).

Specifically, distributive injustice increases depression (e.g., Tepper, 2001; Ybema & van den

Bos, 2010). Although evidence mainly stems from research on the consequences of perceived Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 7 injustice in the organizational context, we believe that similar associations hold during unemployment. Thus, perceptions of general distributive injustice during unemployment could help to explain why unemployed people suffer. In other words, we assume that perceptions of general distributive injustice mediate the relationship of unemployment and decreased mental health. Reemployment, by contrast, should reduce perceived general distributive injustice and should, in turn, lead to increased mental health:

Hypothesis 2: Changes of general distributive injustice following employment status changes are associated with changes of mental health. Specifically, reductions of general distributive injustice due to reemployment mediate the relationship of reemployment and ameliorated mental health.

Perceived Injustice in the Employment Agency

Furthermore, we assume that besides general circumstances of unemployment, the interaction of unemployed people with the one public authority most important in this life situation—the employment agency—can lead to feelings of unfairness, too. Specifically, the employment agency plays a central role in the lives of unemployed people because this governmental institution provides them with unemployment benefits (see Fryer & Fagan, 2003, who allude to the central role of the employment agency). Yet, employment agencies, on whose support an unemployed person’s livelihood depends, impose many rules and regulations upon their clients (Venn, 2012), which could be perceived as aversive. Consequently, unemployed people could consider the interaction with the employment agency stressful (see Banks & Ullah,

1988, p. 133). This interaction might not happen on a completely voluntary basis, but instead represent a breeding ground for conflicts and perceived injustice. Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 8

Usually, unemployed people keep continuous contact with the employment agency

(Wanberg, Glomb, Song, & Sorenson, 2005). In fact, in many countries, unemployed people need to register at the employment agency and need to comply with its regulations in order to receive unemployment benefits (Venn, 2012). For example, unemployed people even have been characterized as a specific case of unofficial “public service workers”, with extremely detrimental working conditions and an especially weak negotiating position (Fryer & Winefield,

1998, p. 16). Thus, they not only depend on support by the employment agency to secure their livelihood, but are also particularly vulnerable to the treatment and practices they experience in this context.

Additionally, the relationship of unemployed people and employment agencies seems to offer potential for conflicts, at least in Germany. On the one hand, job placement officers counsel and support their clients in finding a job (e.g., assign them job offers, provide training opportunities). On the other hand, they also sanction them upon suspicion of non-compliance in the job search process (Venn, 2012). In short, in employment agencies, job placement officers execute the regulations imposed by the welfare system. However, this system has been criticized as unfair and may also enable a policy of retrenchment, which disadvantages unemployed people

(Kemmerling & Bruttel, 2006). More specifically, unemployed people who seek help at the employment agency might perceive the procedures applied there as well as the interaction with and treatment by the job placement officers as unclear and ambiguous. This could, in turn, lead to perceived injustice. For example, ambiguous reward and punishment in the organizational setting promotes perceived injustice (Podsakoff, Bommer, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006).

Also, unemployed participants of a qualitative study showed a clearly negative attitude toward the benefit system and described it as “arbitrary and unfair” (Fryer & Fagan, 2003, p. 94 ). In Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 9 sum, the employment agency seems to represent an arena of conflict between representatives of the welfare system and unemployed people, which could easily lead to perceptions of injustice.

We study the relationship of unemployed people and employment agencies by use of the dimensions of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice, which have been widely used in organizational justice research (Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; note that the latter two aspects are sometimes subsumed under the term interactional justice, see e.g., Cohen-Charash

& Spector, 2001). In the employment agency context, unemployed people might perceive procedural injustice when they perceive the procedures regulated by law and enacted there as unfair (e.g., the obligation to always remain available to the employment agency on very short notice while registered as unemployed in order to be able to promptly apply for job offers, or the obligation to accept any job considered reasonable by the employment agency, see SGB III,

1997). Moreover, they could experience interpersonal or informational injustice when they feel treated disrespectfully or inadequately informed (Colquitt, 2001) by their job placement officer.

As highlighted above, the employment agency reflects a powerful institution which exerts a substantial influence on its clients. In general, people particularly suffer from unfair treatment by powerful others (Wood, Braeken, & Niven, 2013). However, only sparse evidence exists with regard to consequences of experiences with the employment agency: Outplacement activities in the employment agency that are perceived as adequate bolster mental health of unemployed people (Marzucco & Hansez, 2016). Furthermore, thorough information about how unemployment benefits are allocated can reduce psychological distress among unemployed people (Fryer & Fagan, 2003). With a focus on injustice in organizational settings, injustice- stress theory (Vermunt, 2014; Vermunt & Steensma, 2001) proposes that unfair treatment by authorities regarding procedural, interpersonal, and informational aspects undermines mental Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 10 health. Empirical evidence from organizational settings largely substantiates this perspective:

Accordingly, meta-analyses of cross-sectional evidence have suggested that experiences of procedural and interactional injustice are associated with distress (Robbins et al., 2012).

Moreover, unjust procedures (e.g., Elovainio, Kivimäki, Vahtera, Keltikangas-Järvinen, &

Virtanen, 2003), as well as interactional injustice (e.g., Elovainio et al., 2003, Tepper, 2000), predict diminished mental health longitudinally. Specifically, procedural injustice (Spell &

Arnold, 2007; Ybema & van den Bos, 2010), and unfair treatment (Ylipaavalniemi et al., 2005), lead to depression.

Building on the existing evidence from other contexts, we assume that perceived procedural, interpersonal, and informational injustice in the employment agency setting predict impaired mental health. We therefore propose:

Hypothesis 3: Increases of perceived injustice in the relationship of unemployed people and the employment agency predict reductions of mental health, as reflected in depressive symptoms. Specifically, increases of (a) procedural, (b) interpersonal, or (c) informational injustice in the employment agency predict increases in depression among unemployed people.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Respondents were part of a longitudinal survey on the life situation, attitudes, and well- being of unemployed people, which was approved by the Ethics Committee of our faculty. Data collection for the survey (N = 1,143) lasted from October 2013 until March 2016. To account for possible seasonal variations in unemployment rates (Arntz & Wilke, 2012) and mental health

(Kasof, 2009; Kerr et al., 2013), approximately half of the sample (61.4%) was recruited from

October 2013 onwards, whereas for the second half of the sample, data collection started in April Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 11

2014. At T1, either institutions, such as employment agencies and counselling facilities, distributed questionnaires among their clients or interviewers recruited respondents outside employment agencies in German cities (mainly in the state of Bavaria), from governmental training programs, and via other sources. From T2 on, respondents received paper questionnaires by mail approximately every four months (the intervals between each wave ranged between three to five months, and, given the later start of the second half of the data collection, we had a total duration of our study of 2.5 years). Each respondent obtained an expense allowance of five Euros per questionnaire. A satisfactory average response rate of 87% (with regard to the respective previous measurement point) resulted for all intervals between T1 and T6 (the lowest response rate of 65% was achieved from T1 to T2 and the highest response rate of 95% was obtained from

T4 to T5).

The present analysis used two different subsamples: Analyses regarding Hypothesis 1 and

Hypothesis 2 were based on data for respondents who were unemployed or employed between

T3 and T6 (the reason was that we only gathered data on justice dimensions from T3 to T6). At

T3, N = 602 people participated, of whom 63% were unemployed and 37% held a job. At T6, of the N = 464 respondents still taking part, 49% were employed. At T3, 59% of the respondents were female and, on average, aged 40.7 years (SD = 12.0), with an age range from 18.5 to 65.0 years. Concerning their formal education, 1.7% of the sample had not completed school, while

26.7% indicated nine years of schooling as their highest degree, 30.7% reported ten years of schooling as their highest degree (middle school in the German system), 15.2% had completed

12 to 13 years of schooling (similar to a high-school diploma), and 25.7% had a university degree, respectively. Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 12

Analyses regarding Hypothesis 3 were based on respondents who were registered as unemployed at any wave between T3 and T6. The effective sample sizes for these analyses were

N = 290 at T3, N = 223 at T4, N = 184 at T5, and N = 162 at T6. The demographic characteristics of this sample were very similar to the sample used to test Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2

(details are available from the first author). Furthermore, the median duration of unemployment at T3 was 15.0 months (SD = 45.7).

Measures

Employment status. Regarding their employment status, participants of our study had to rate themselves in 1 of 18 categories (e.g., unemployed, full-time employed, homemaker) and provide further information, such as hours worked per week or registration status at the employment agency. Following the regulations of the International Labour Organization (ILO;

1982, 2013) and German labor market regulations (SGB III, 1997), people were classified as unemployed when they were (a) currently out of work (i.e., did not hold a job of more than 15 hours per week; note that unemployed people in Germany are allowed to work 15 hours a week at maximum), were (b) available to the labor market (i.e., were not students or were not unable to work due to long-term health issues), and were (c) searching for a job (i.e., were either registered at the federal employment agency or explicitly stated that they were unemployed and actively looking for a job). Respondents’ employment status could change between unemployment and reemployment from each wave to the other (i.e., a person could experience several employment status changes from unemployment to employment or employment to unemployment throughout our study). To ensure that our sample consisted of people who were unemployed at some point of the study, we excluded 82 respondents who were continuously employed (i.e., people whose employment contract expired shortly after T1, but who found new jobs before T2) or who were Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 13 never unemployed for other reasons (e.g., as they referred to themselves as homemakers or students). When respondents were temporarily out of the labor force (e.g., students, homemakers, or pensioners) at a particular wave, we also excluded data for the respective people at this wave.

Measurement of psychological variables. If available, we used the published German version of the scales. Otherwise, we employed the translation-backtranslation method with the support of a native English speaker.

Injustice Perceptions. To measure injustice perceptions, we adopted the German translation (Maier, Streicher, Jonas, & Woschée, 2007) of Colquitt’s (2001) justice scales.

In order to assess a broader concept of general distributive injustice that did not solely rely on considerations of equity (as the items published by Colquitt, 2001, explicitly did), we reformulated the items. Unemployed and employed respondents should indicate the extent to which they perceived general outcomes as fair (4 items, sample items: “I get what I deserve.”, “I feel that I receive the results and successes I can expect.”) on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. We then recoded the items so that higher scores reflect higher general distributive injustice. The scale showed satisfactory reliability (αmin = .78 to αmax = .81 from T3 to T6).

Concerning procedural, interpersonal, and informational injustice, we only slightly reformulated the items of Maier et al. (2007) for our purpose. Regarding procedural (in)justice, unemployed people answered how much they perceived the processes enacted by the employment agency as just (7 items, sample item: “To what extent have the procedures been free of bias?”). We used a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = to a small extent to 5 = to a large extent. We recoded the items so that higher scales reflect higher procedural injustice.

Internal consistency was good (αmin = .79 to αmax = .88 from T3 to T6). Furthermore, unemployed Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 14 respondents should also indicate to what extent the job placement officer treated them fairly (4 items, sample item: “To what extent did the job placement officer treat you with respect?”) and informed them adequately (4 items, sample item: “To what extent did the job placement officer explain procedures thoroughly?”). Again, after recoding, higher scores indicate higher interpersonal or informational injustice, respectively. Both five-point scales showed good or excellent internal consistency (interpersonal: αmin = .87 to αmax = .91 from T3 to T6, informational: αmin = .90 to αmax = .93 from T3 to T6).

Depression. We chose depression as an outcome variable because this indicator of mental health is not only closely related to unemployment (Norvile & Paul, 2017), but also correlates with perceived injustice (e.g., Spell & Arnold, 2007). We utilized the German version (Brähler,

Mühlan, Albani, & Schmidt, 2007) of the WHO-5 Index (World Health Organization, 1998) to assess the extent of depression a person experienced. Respondents indicated their mental health on a six-point Likert-type scale (sample item: “I have felt cheerful and in good spirits.”; reverse scored) ranging from 1 = all of the time to 6 = at no time. Reliability for the scale was excellent

(αmin = .91 to αmin = .92 from T3 to T6). We coded the scale so that higher scores represent lower mental health, i.e., higher depression.

Control Variables. Due to theoretical reasons (see recommendations of Becker, 2005), we controlled for gender (0 = male, 1 = female), age (in years), and education (five categories, see above) and dichotomized education into low (not completed school or lower level education) and high education (middle and higher level secondary education as well as tertiary education).

When studying unemployed people only, we included the duration of unemployment (in months) as an additional control variable. Meta-analyses (McKee-Ryan et al., 2005; Paul & Moser, 2009) have shown that mental health during unemployment may differ with regard to the duration of Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 15 unemployment as well as a person’s gender. Also, younger and less educated people show poorer mental health during unemployment.

Drop-Out Analysis

We compared the unemployed and employed participants who only answered the questionnaire at T3 to those who contributed to at least one other wave (T4, T5, or T6) of the study. Responders were older, t(53.56) = -6.13, p < .001, d = -0.78, than non-responders, but both groups did not differ with respect to gender, χ2(1) = 1.33, p > .05, d = 0.09, education, χ2(5)

= 1.40, p > .05, d = 0.10, depression, t(596) = 0.37, p > .05, d = 0.06, or general distributive, t(585) = -0.74, p > .05, d = -0.11, procedural, t(583) = 0.80, p > .05, d = 0.13, interpersonal, t(586) = 1.17, p > .05, d = 0.19, and informational injustice, t(586) = 0.17, p > .05, d = 0.03. All in all, we consider a strong influence of attrition bias on the results to be unlikely.

Analytical Strategy

Due to the hierarchical data structure of our panel study, we first checked whether multilevel modeling was a suitable approach. We thus computed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). For both samples, the ICC’s for depression (sample of unemployed and employed people: ICC = 0.64; sample of unemployed people only: ICC = 0.65) suggested that a substantial proportion of variance in this outcome variable resided between the Level-2 units

(i.e., people). This reflected ample between-person variance (ICC > 0.05), which calls for consideration of dependent observations (Kreft & de Leeuw, 1998, pp. 9-10). Therefore, we conducted multilevel modeling using R version 3.2.2 with the packages lme4 (Bates, Maechler,

Bolker, & Walker, 2015) and mediation (Tingley, Yamamoto, Hirose, Keele, & Imai, 2014).

We followed the recommendations of Singer and Willett (2003) and measured time individually for every respondent as the number of days passed since T3 (i.e., the first Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 16 measurement occasion applied in the analyses presented here). Then, random-intercept models were specified. Next, we tested whether a linear, quadratic, or other higher-order function best captured the trajectory of depression for every sample. Among the sample including continuously unemployed people and people who switched between unemployment and employment (this sample was used to test Hypotheses 1 and 2), depression increased linearly over time (B = 0.00, p < .01, ES = 0.00). Among the subsample of unemployed respondents only, which was used to test Hypotheses 3(a) to 3(c), depression followed a similar pattern (B = 0.00, p < .01, ES = 0.00).

In order to scrutinize Hypothesis 1 and test whether employment status changes resulted in changes of general distributive injustice, we added the control variables of age, gender, and education, and included the dichotomously coded employment status variable.

To test Hypothesis 2, the indirect effect (i.e., mediation effect) of employment status on mental health via general distributive injustice was analyzed. More specifically, we wanted to scrutinize whether within-person changes in the mediator (i.e., general distributive injustice), which resulted from a person’s change of employment status, led to within-person changes in depression. We first modeled the effect of employment status changes on depression while taking the effect of time as well as of control variables into account. Then, we scrutinized the effect of general distributive injustice on depression: We used a centering approach in order to differentiate within-person and between-person variance components of general distributive injustice, which allows us to distinguish between within-person and between-person effects. This centering procedure is also necessary when conducting lower-level mediation in multilevel models (Zhang, Zyphur, & Preacher, 2009). Therefore, we applied CWC(M)2 procedure, i.e., we included the person-mean centered mediator variable on Level 1 (representing a person’s

2 CWC(M) = centered within context with reintroduction of the subtracted means. Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 17 deviation from his or her typical level of general distributive injustice perception at each wave) and its person mean at Level 2 (a person’s typical level of perception of general distributive injustice) into the model predicting depression. Next, we computed the effect of employment status changes on general distributive injustice. Based on these models, we finally conducted a multilevel mediation analysis to compute the indirect effect of employment status changes on within-person changes in depression via within-person changes of injustice perceptions.

With regard to Hypothesis 3, we used a different subsample (i.e., the subsample of people who were registered as unemployed at any wave between T3 and T6). Then, we separately specified the main effects of within-person changes in justice dimensions on changes in depression. To begin with, control variables and the person mean of the respective predictor (i.e., procedural, interpersonal, or informational injustice) were included in the model. As our focus was on within-person processes, we next added each predictor in its person-mean centered form in order to model intra-individual deviations from the person mean.

We furthermore calculated effect sizes to estimate the magnitude of the effects. As up to now, no state-of-the-art procedure exists for calculation of effect sizes in the types of multilevel models used in this study, we chose the following procedure: In order to estimate effect magnitude for the direct effects of employment status on depression and general distributive injustice, respectively, we adapted dRAW (see Feingold, 2009, p. 7): We divided the unstandardized regression coefficients by the standard deviation of the dependent variable (i.e., depression or general distributive injustice) for unemployed people at T3. Note that we were interested in the change in standard deviations of the dependent variable that was attributable to one unit of change in the independent variable for one unit of time (because the “treatment”, e.g., reemployment might have only lasted for one unit of time, i.e., wave). Consequently we did not Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 18 multiply the effect size by the number of waves (as was done in other longitudinal studies, see

Feingold, 2009). This led to more conservative estimates in the present study. We considered values of .20, .50, and .80 small, moderate, and large because dRAW is based on Cohen’s d

(Cohen, 1988). In order to estimate effect magnitude for the indirect effect of employment status on depression via general distributive injustice, dab was used (see Stapleton, Pituch, & Dion,

2015). We divided the indirect effect by the standard deviation of the outcome (i.e., depression) among unemployed respondents at T3. We considered values of .02, .15, and .40 small, moderate, and large because dab reflects a product of effect sizes which are based on d and r

(Stapleton et al., 2015).

In order to estimate effect magnitude for direct effects based on continuous independent variables (i.e., general distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational injustice), we adapted the recommendations of Feingold (2009) and Stapleton et al. (2015): We calculated effect size ES by dividing unstandardized coefficients by the standard deviation of the dependent variable (i.e., depression) for unemployed people at T3. We considered effects of .10, .30, and .50 small, moderate, and large because this effect size estimate is based on r (Cohen, 1988).

Results

Descriptives

Cross-sectional correlations between demographic, independent, and dependent variables indicated that among the sample of unemployed and employed people, older respondents, r

= .09, p < .05, and those with lower education, r = -.08, p < .05, reported higher depression levels

(see Table 1). However, no meaningful associations between gender and depression were found.

Furthermore, general distributive injustice showed highly significant relations to depression, with r = .30, p < .01. Among the subsample of unemployed people only, those with longer Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 19 unemployment duration reported higher depression, r = .18, p < .01. Regarding perceived injustice, correlations with depression ranged from r = .18, p < .01, for informational injustice to r = .30, p < .01, for procedural injustice.

------

Insert Table 1 here

------

Influence of Employment Status on General Distributive Injustice

To test Hypothesis 1, we analyzed whether employment status changes between unemployment and employment predicted changes of general distributive injustice. As expected, changes from unemployment to reemployment resulted in decreases of perceived general distributive injustice (B = -0.45, p < .01, dRAW = -0.36) while controlling for time, age, gender, and education3 (see Table 2). In other words, people perceived their general outcomes from life to be fairer as soon as they switched from unemployment to employment. Thus, Hypothesis 1 received support.

------

Insert Table 2 here

------

3 All analyses were repeated without control variables, resulting in findings that were very similar to those reported here. Results are available from the first author upon request. Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 20

Mediation by General Distributive Injustice

Moreover, Hypothesis 2 focused on whether within-person changes in general distributive injustice indeed mediated the effect of reemployment on improvements in mental health.

As expected, while considering the effect of time, age, gender, and education, changes from unemployment to reemployment (B = -0.32, p < .01, dRAW = -0.28) resulted in decreased depression.4 Additionally, within-person decreases of perceived general distributive injustice (B

= 0.08, p < .01, ES = 0.07) significantly predicted reductions of depression while controlling for each person’s mean level of general distributive injustice (γ = 0.39, p < .01, ES = 0.34), as well as employment status (B = -0.24, p < .01, dRAW = -0.21), age (B = 0.00, p > .05, ES = 0.00), gender (B = 0.05, p > .05, dRAW = 0.04), and education (B = -0.15, p < .10, dRAW = -0.13).

Finally, results of a multilevel mediation analysis showed that decreases of general distributive injustice, indirect effect = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.05; -0.01], p < 0.001, dab = -0.03, mediated the influence of reemployment on improvements of mental health (see Table 3). In other words, increases of general distributive injustice partly explained the detrimental effect of unemployment on mental health. Consequently, Hypothesis 2 was substantiated.

------

Insert Table 3 here

------

Effects of Injustice Among Unemployed People

When focusing on main effects of within-person changes of perceived injustice on depression among unemployed participants (see Table 4), as proposed in Hypothesis 3, we found

4 For reasons of space, these results will not be displayed in tables. The detailed results are available from the first author. Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 21 the following: Increases of procedural injustice (B = 0.20, p < .01, ES = 0.17) predicted increases of depression while controlling for demographics and a person’s mean procedural injustice perception. However, within-person changes of perceived informational (B = 0.09, p > .05, ES =

0.08) and interpersonal injustice (B = 0.03, p > .05, ES = 0.03) in the employment agency did not significantly affect the depression scores of our unemployed respondents, although the effects pointed in the hypothesized direction. Consequently, these findings lend support to Hypothesis

3(a), but not to Hypotheses 3(b), and 3(c). The results highlight that the mental health of unemployed people diminishes when they experience an increase of procedural injustice in the employment agency setting.

------

Insert Table 4 here

------

Between-Person Effects of Injustice

Even though our study focused on within-person changes of injustice perceptions, we also considered between-person levels of injustice. According to our findings, unemployed and employed people who, on average, perceived higher levels of general distributive injustice (γ =

0.39, p < .01, ES = 0.34) as well as unemployed people who, on average, perceived higher levels of procedural (γ = 0.39, p < .01, ES = 0.34), interpersonal (γ = 0.33, p < .01, ES = 0.29), or informational (γ = 0.26, p < .01, ES = 0.23) injustice in the employment agency also experienced higher depression than people who perceived lower levels of injustice. Thus, inter-individual differences of injustice perceptions seem to be associated with mental health. Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 22

Discussion

Our study contributes to the research field in three ways: First, it shows that unemployment indeed causes perceptions of general distributive injustice. It thus complements previous cross-sectional evidence on the role of injustice during unemployment. Second, it uncovers an important mechanism which (partly) explains why people suffer during unemployment, but which psychological research on unemployment has neglected so far: The perception of getting less than what is deserved helps to explain why unemployment leads to depression. Third, our study is the first to highlight psychological consequences resulting from problems in the relationship of unemployed people and the employment agency by means of injustice perceptions. Indeed, perceived increases of procedural injustice in the employment agency negatively affect mental health.

Unemployment and Changes in General Distributive Injustice

Our findings complement previous research, which showed that unemployment is considered as an unfair life situation (Dalbert, 1997). Moreover, they substantiated our proposition that employment status changes predict within-person changes of general distributive injustice perceptions. With an effect of moderate magnitude, changes from unemployment to employment lead to reductions of general distributive injustice perceptions. Our results thus highlight that situational, not personal, characteristics are responsible for the feeling of unemployed people not getting what they deserve. So far, we can only speculate on which aspects of the unemployment situation trigger these injustice perceptions. For example, unemployed people could feel that they dispose of less financial resources (Paul & Batinic,

2010) than they deserve compared with the efforts they invested in their previous work life or regarding their needs. Furthermore, they could also feel stigmatized (Kulik, 2000) and powerless Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 23

(Fryer & Payne, 1984), being assigned lower status and influence than they deserve in comparison with, for example, their investments in education and training or compared to other members of society. In sum, future research might look into which specific aspects of unemployment determine the perception of general distributive injustice.

We furthermore expected that decreases of general distributive injustice help to explain improved mental health resulting from reemployment. Our analyses revealed a small, but significant effect, thus uncovering an important, yet neglected mediator of the adverse effects of unemployment on mental health. In other words, this study helps to explain why unemployment is psychologically destructive, a question which, despite decade-long research, has not yet been fully answered (Paul & Moser, 2009). It seems that not only the lack of fulfillment of financial and psychological needs (Paul & Batinic, 2010) and work-related values (Paul & Moser, 2006) represent inherent, harmful characteristics of unemployment, but also the perception of not receiving what one deserves.

Moreover, this study highlights that not only social injustice (Freidl et al., 2007) is correlated with low well-being, but that general distributive injustice predicts depression among unemployed people. In other words, unemployed people appear to suffer from the perception that they get less than they deserve. Additionally, injustice-stress theory (Vermunt, 2014; Vermunt

& Steensma, 2001) might not only hold with regard to the consequences of distributive injustice in organizational settings, but might also apply to the situation of unemployed people. Indeed, distributive injustice not only predicts impairments of mental health in organizations (Robbins et al., 2012; Ybema & van den Bos, 2010), but also general distributive injustice accounts for depression during unemployment. Aspects of distributive injustice therefore seem to represent stressors which affect the well-being of people in different life situations. Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 24

Changes of Injustice in the Employment Agency Setting

In line with the propositions of injustice-stress theory (Vermunt, 2014; Vermunt

& Steensma, 2001) and with a small, yet significant effect, increases in procedural injustice in the employment agency accounted for increases of depression. Furthermore, our results align with those of previous research from the organizational setting, which identified procedural injustice as an important predictor of impaired mental health (Robbins et al., 2012; Tepper,

2001). Moreover, they complement prior evidence according to which the adequacy of outplacement activities (Marzucco & Hansez, 2016) or the clarity of the procedures of benefit allocation (according to a qualitative study by Fryer & Fagan, 2003) are associated with the mental health of unemployed people. In sum, procedures in the employment agency which unemployed people perceive as unfair represent significant stressors and thus predict a deterioration of their mental health.

However, within-person changes of interpersonal and informational injustice did not affect mental health. Possibly, increasingly unfair treatment (e.g., increased impoliteness and lack of information) by the job placement officer might not posit a stressor powerful enough to exacerbate depression among unemployed people. Even though interactional injustice is a risk factor for depression in the organizational context (Ylipaavalniemi et al., 2005), this aspect of injustice-stress theory (Vermunt, 2014; Vermunt & Steensma, 2001) might not apply to the dyadic interaction of unemployed people and their job placement officer. Although we do not suggest that unfair treatment by significant authorities completely remains without marks for unemployed people, we suspect the reason for the divergent results elsewhere: Supposedly, unemployed people interact with their job placement officer considerably less intensively and less often than employees interact with their supervisor (unemployed people contacted the Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 25 employment agency four times in two weeks at maximum, see Wanberg et al., 2005).

Consequently, unemployed people might not only escape an authority’s temper more often than employees, but might also be exposed to unfair treatment for a shorter time. These circumstances might result in a comparatively low dosage of perceived unfair treatment in employment agencies, and might make it difficult to notice variations of interactional injustice.

Alternatively, the lack of effects of interpersonal and informational injustice on mental health might reflect an actual lack of variation in how job placement officers behave toward their clients. Indeed, perceived interpersonal and informational injustice in our study showed a high stability with average correlations of r = .70 for interpersonal and r = .67 for informational injustice between T3 and T6. Thus, a job placement officer might consistently behave in the same way toward his or her clients. For example, job placement officers could feel a strong motivation to consistently treat their clients fairly: The management of employment agencies in the United Kingdom seems to typically consider conflicts of job placement officers with their clients to be a failure of job placement officers themselves (Bishop, Korczynski, & Cohen,

2005). In order to scrutinize whether similar management practices are used in other countries, such as German employment agencies, future studies could take into account the perspective of job placement officers.

To qualify the pattern of our findings, we again refer to research from organizational settings: Accordingly, the effects of interpersonal and informational injustice on mental health are typically less strong than the effects of procedural injustice (Judge & Colquitt, 2004; Robbins et al., 2012). In order to unravel whether the former play a role in the employment agency context, future studies are necessary. Specifically, these studies should clarify to which degree variations of interpersonal and informational injustice occur in the employment agency, and Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 26 whether these are large enough to meaningfully influence the mental health of unemployed people.

Between-Person Effects of Injustice Perceptions

Although our assumptions focused on effects of within-person changes of injustice on mental health, we also scrutinized between-person effects of injustice (thus following the recommendations of Curran & Bauer, 2011). With respect to the latter and mostly moderate effects, respondents who typically experienced higher levels of general distributive, procedural, interpersonal, or informational injustice also reported higher depression levels. However, due to its cross-sectional design, prior research on injustice during unemployment has not yet differentiated between within- and between-person variability of injustice perceptions, making it difficult to compare our findings. Yet, we consider it important to describe effects on each level in order to allow for a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of perceived injustice. These results might suggest that dispositional aspects also play a role for the perception of injustice. For example, personality characteristics, such as neuroticism, could influence both depression

(Widinger & Trull, 1992) and perceived injustice (see meta-analytical results for negative affectivity, a proxy for neuroticism, Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Future research could further pursue this avenue in order to unravel antecedents of stable injustice perceptions that trigger vicious circles with regard to mental health.

Limitations and Future Directions

Every study comes with its limitations, as does ours. As our sample consisted of initially unemployed people, we mainly studied the effect of employment status changes from unemployment to reemployment. By contrast, fewer people changed from employment to unemployment during the course of our study. According to meta-analytical evidence (Paul Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 27

& Moser, 2009), when switching from unemployment to employment, mental health improves, whereas when switching from employment to unemployment, mental health deteriorates.

Importantly, changes in both directions produced similar effect sizes. We thus consider employment status changes in both directions to be appropriate to study the mechanisms behind the association of unemployment and impaired mental health. Nevertheless, in order to substantiate our results, future studies might use designs with more frequent employment status changes from employment to unemployment.

To operationalize perceived injustice in the employment agency setting, we asked respondents to indicate to what extent they felt treated unfairly by their job placement officer.

Yet, we did not assess how often they reported to the employment agency. Thus, contact with the job placement officer might have been rather infrequent (Wanberg et al., 2005), which might have made it difficult to adequately gauge his or her behavior regarding interpersonal and informational injustice. This circumstance could finally have led to an underestimation of the effects of these aspects of injustice on mental health, producing insignificant within-person effects. Future research might thus asses how often unemployed people meet their job placement officer, and finally focus on samples of unemployed people who frequently had contact with the employment agency.

Furthermore, our respondents were not completely representative for the population of unemployed people in Germany (Bundesagentur für Arbeit, 2014). Instead, slightly more female, higher educated, and longer-term unemployed people participated in our study. As people who have been unemployed for a longer time also reported higher procedural, interpersonal, and informational injustice, as well as higher depression, our study might have slightly overestimated the effects of these justice perceptions on depression. Yet, as gender and education were Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 28 unrelated to the variables of interest in this study, strong bias seems to be unlikely. In general, our sample quite accurately reflected the age distribution of unemployed people in Germany.

Furthermore, we observed a drop-out of younger people in our sample, which might stem from the fact that younger people were more likely to find a job (β = -0.15, p < .05) from T3 to T4.

However, among unemployed people, age was unrelated to depression as well as to perceptions of procedural, interpersonal, and informational injustice. In sum, we consider a strong biasing influence of the samples’ characteristics on our results as unlikely.

Finally, our findings might not generalize to different cultural and economic backgrounds. The comparably low unemployment rate between 4.4% and 5.1% in Germany at the time of our study (OECD, 2016) might have contributed to an underestimation of the problem. That is, perceptions of injustice could play an even larger role in countries with considerably and continuously higher unemployment rates, for example, Greece, Spain, or South

Africa, where more people have to rely on assistance by employment agencies with strained resources and possibly overwhelmed and stressed job placement officers, and where the outlook regarding possible reemployment is bleaker for unemployed people. Moreover, strictness of eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits differs between countries (with particularly strict regulations in Portugal, Romania, and the Slovak Republic, see Venn, 2012). In countries with stricter regulations and more frequent sanctions, unemployed people might perceive injustice in the employment agency context more often. We thus encourage researchers to conduct similar studies in other countries with more pronounced unemployment rates and less generous unemployment benefit systems. Notwithstanding, we believe our study demonstrates that at least in one major European country, general distributive injustice due to unemployment and Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 29 associated circumstances, as well as procedural injustice in the employment agency, represent significant stressors, which undermine unemployed people’s mental health.

General Conclusion, Theoretical, and Practical Implications

Future studies could focus on the antecedents of injustice perceptions during unemployment to determine why unemployment leads to perceptions of general distributive injustice. Knowledge of whether disadvantages especially with regard to, for example, financial aspects (Paul & Batinic, 2010), social recognition (Kulik, 2000), or the job search process

(Kanfer et al., 2001) are perceived as unfair could help to understand what specific aspects constitute perceived general distributive injustice during unemployment. Thus, we suggest considering general distributive injustice as a new outcome variable that helps to describe the aversive consequences of unemployment. Furthermore, research needs to uncover which procedures in the employment agency are perceived as unjust. Unemployed people might perceive the way benefits (Fryer & Fagan, 2003) or appointments are allocated as unfair. For example, in their answers to an open question on stress factors related to unemployment, some of our respondents reported that even during illness, it was almost impossible to reschedule appointments assigned to them because job placement officers were not available by telephone or email (see Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001, for the negative relation of voice and perceived procedural injustice). In a first step, it could be useful to locate the organizational level of the employment agency where problems occur: Perceptions of injustice could result from procedures determined by the welfare system which, for example, regulate the eligibility, amount, and duration of benefit payments. They could also result from procedures that are within the job placement officer’s scope of interpretation, such as scheduling appointments. In this respect, it could prove fruitful to also take the perspectives of job placement officers into account. As Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 30 representatives of the employment agency, they could report about procedures which hold the potential for conflicts with their clients.

With regard to practical implications, our study might suggest some new starting points for the design of interventions for unemployed people. In order to stabilize their mental health, it might not only suffice to ensure adequate financial means and satisfaction of important psychological needs (Paul & Batinic, 2010), but could also require addressing injustice issues caused by unemployment in general. However, further research is needed to determine the antecedents of perceived general distributive injustice during unemployment. If, for example, stigmatization plays a role, it might be necessary to change the perception of unemployed people in society. To attain this ambitious goal, combatting prejudice by emphasizing unemployed people’s high employment commitment (Paul & Moser, 2006) could help.

Furthermore, our findings show that it is important to reduce perceived procedural injustice among unemployed people in the employment agency context because it can increase psychological suffering. Depression, in turn, might hinder a person’s successful reintegration into the job market (Paul & Moser, 2009), and represents a large economic burden for a country

(Luppa, Heinrich, Angermeyer, König, & Riedel-Heller, 2007). In order to reduce perceived injustice in employment agencies and prevent severe consequences for the functioning of the labor market, legal regulations of the welfare system might need to be called into question.

Research thus needs to disentangle which regulations are perceived as unfair in order to be able to increase policy makers’ awareness of the effects of unfairly perceived procedures regulated by law and enacted in employment agencies.

Finally, we believe that our study represents a first important step in uncovering the role of perceived injustice for impaired mental health during unemployment in general, as well as in Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 31 the employment agency in particular. So far, psychological research has largely neglected both injustice perceptions due to unemployment and its circumstances as well as the relationship of employment agencies and their clients. Nonetheless, the issue of perceived injustice is not only highly relevant for the individuals affected, but could also have implications for the welfare system as well as the economic success of a country. Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 32

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology (pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.

Arntz, M., & Wilke, R. A. (2012). Weather-related employment subsidies as a remedy for

seasonal unemployment? Evidence from Germany. LABOUR, 26(2), 266–286. https://doi.org/

10.1111/j.1467-9914.2012.00547.x

Banks, M. H., & Ullah, P. (1988). Youth unemployment in the 1980's: Its psychological effects.

London: Routledge.

Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models

using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational

research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods,

8(3), 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105278021

Bishop, V., Korczynski, M., & Cohen, L. (2005). The invisibility of violence: Constructing

violence out of the job centre workplace in the UK. Work, Employment & Society, 19(3), 583–

602. https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170050556

Brähler, E., Mühlan, H., Albani, C., & Schmidt, S. (2007). Teststatistische Prüfung und

Normierung der deutschen Versionen des EUROHIS-QOL Lebensqualität-Index und des

WHO-5 Wohlbefindens-Index [Statistical testing and standardization of the German version

of the EUROHIS-QOL life-quality index and the WHO-5 well-being index]. Diagnostica,

53(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.53.2.83

Bundesagentur für Arbeit. (2014). Arbeitsmarkt 2014 [Labor market 2014]. Nürnberg:

Bundesagentur für Arbeit. Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 33

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-

analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.

https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2958

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of

a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-

9010.86.3.386

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the

millenium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.425

Cubela Andoric, V. (2004). Belief in a just world and young adults' ways of coping with

unemployment and the job search. In C. Dalbert & H. Sallay (Eds.), The justice motive in

adolescence and young adulthood (pp. 189–214). Oxfordshire: Routledge.

Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2011). The disaggregation of within-person and between-person

effects in longitudinal models of change. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 583–619.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100356

Dalbert, C. (1997). Coping with an unjust fate: The case of structural unemployment. Social

Justice Research, 10(2), 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02683311

Dalbert, C. (2004). Belief in a just world as a resource for unemployed young adults. In C.

Dalbert & H. Sallay (Eds.), The justice motive in adolescence and young adulthood (pp. 175–

188). Oxfordshire: Routledge. Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 34

Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the

basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/

j.1540-4560.1975.tb01000.x

Elovainio, M., Kivimäki, M., Vahtera, J., Keltikangas-Järvinen, L., & Virtanen, M. (2003).

Sleeping problems and health behaviors as mediators between organizational justice and

health. Health Psychology, 22(3), 287–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.22.3.287

Feingold, A. (2009). Effect sizes for growth-modeling analysis for controlled clinical trials in the

same metric as for classical analysis. Psychological Methods, 14(1), 43–53.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014699

Freidl, W., Fazekas, C., Raml, R., Pretis, M., & Feistritzer, G. (2007). Perceived social justice,

long-term unemployment and health. A survey among marginalised groups in Austria. Social

Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 42(7), 547–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-

007-0207-y

Fryer, D. (1992). Poverty stricken? A plea for a greater emphasis on the role of poverty in

psychological research on unemployment and mental health in the social context. In C. H. A.

Verhaar & L. G. Jansma (Eds.), On the mysteries of unemployment (pp. 191–207). Dordrecht:

Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Fryer, D., & Fagan, R. (2003). Toward a critical community psychological perspective on

unemployment and mental health research. American Journal of Community Psychology,

32(1/2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025698924304

Fryer, D., & Payne, R. (1984). Proactive behaviour in unemployment: Findings and implications.

Leisure Studies, 3(3), 273–295. Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 35

Fryer, D., & Winefield, A. H. (1998). Employment stress and unemployment distress as two

varieties of labour market induced psychological strain: An exploratory framework.

Australian Journal of Social Research, 5(1), 3–18.

International Labour Organization. (1982). Resolutions concerning economically active

population, employment, unemployment and underemployment adopted by the 13th

International Conference of Labour Statisticians. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour

Office.

International Labour Organization. (2013). Report II: Statistics of work, employment and labour

underutilization: Report for discussion at the 19th International Conference of Labour

Statisticians. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office.

Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational justice and stress: The mediating role of

work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 395–404.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.395

Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C. R., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2001). Job search and employment: A

personality-motivational analysis and meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology,

86(5), 837–855. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.5.837

Karren, R., & Sherman, K. (2012). Layoffs and unemployment discrimination: A new stigma.

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(8), 848–863.

https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941211280193

Kasof, J. (2009). Cultural variation in seasonal depression: Cross-national differences in winter

versus summer patterns of seasonal affective disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 115(1-

2), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2008.09.004 Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 36

Kemmerling, A., & Bruttel, O. (2006). ‘New politics’ in German labour market policy? The

implications of the recent Hartz reforms for the German welfare state. West European

Politics, 29(1), 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380500389273

Kerr, D. C. R., Shaman, J., Washburn, I. J., Vuchinich, S., Neppl, T. K., Capaldi, D. M., &

Conger, R. D. (2013). Two longterm studies of seasonal variation in depressive symptoms

among community participants. Journal of Affective Disorders, 151(3), 837–842.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2013.07.019

Kreft, I., & de Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications Ltd.

Kulik, L. (2000). Jobless men and women: A comparative analysis of job search intensity,

attitudes toward unemployment, and related responses. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 73(4), 487–500.

Luppa, M., Heinrich, S., Angermeyer, M. C., König, H.-H., & Riedel-Heller, S. G. (2007). Cost-

of-illness studies of depression: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 98(1-2),

29–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2006.07.017

Maier, G. W., Streicher, B., Jonas, E., & Woschée, R. (2007). Gerechtigkeitseinschätzungen in

Organisationen [Justice perceptions in organizations]. Diagnostica, 53(2), 97–108.

https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.53.2.97

Mallinckrodt, B., & Fretz, B. R. (1988). Social support and the impact of job loss on older

professionals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35(3), 281–286.

https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0167.35.3.281 Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 37

Marzucco, L., & Hansez, I. (2016). Outplacement adequacy and benefits: The mediating role of

overall justice. Journal of Employment Counseling, 53(3), 130–143.

https://doi.org/10.1002/joec.12034

McKee-Ryan, F., Song, Z., Wanberg, C. R., & Kinicki, A. J. (2005). Psychological and physical

well-being during unemployment: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Applied Psychology,

90(1), 53–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.53

Norvile, N., & Paul, K. I. (2017). Latent deprivation: Why depression is the main characteristic

of unemployment-related distress. Mykolas Romeris University Vilnius & Friedrich-

Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg.

OECD. (2016). OECD employment outlook 2016. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Otto, K., Glaser, D., & Dalbert, C. (2009). Mental health, occupational trust, and quality of

working life: Does belief in a just world matter? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(6),

1288–1315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00482.x

Paul, K. I., & Batinic, B. (2010). The need for work: Jahoda's latent functions of employment in

a representative sample of the German population. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(1),

45–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.622

Paul, K. I., & Moser, K. (2009). Unemployment impairs mental health: Meta-analyses. Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 264–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.01.001

Paul, K. I., & Moser, K. (2006). Incongruence as an explanation for the negative mental health

effects of unemployment: Meta-analytic evidence. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 79(4), 595–621. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X70823

Podsakoff, P. M., Bommer, W. H., Podsakoff, N. P., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Relationships

between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes, perceptions, and Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 38

behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new research. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 113–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.09.002

Robbins, J. M., Ford, M. T., & Tetrick, L. E. (2012). Perceived unfairness and employee health:

A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 235–272.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025408

SGB III. (1997). Das Dritte Buch Sozialgesetzbuch - Arbeitsförderung, § 138 Arbeitslosigkeit

[Third Book of the Social Security Statute - employment promotion, § 138 unemployment].

Retrieved from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/sgb_3/

Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Spell, C. S., & Arnold, T. (2007). An appraisal perspective of justice, structure, and job control

as antecedents of psychological distress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(6), 729–751.

https://doi.org/10.1002/job.441

Stapleton, L. M., Pituch, K. A., & Dion, E. (2015). Standardized effect size measures for

mediation analysis in cluster-randomized trials. The Journal of Experimental Education,

83(4), 547–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2014.919569

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal,

43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375

Tepper, B. J. (2001). Health consequences of organizational injustice: Tests of main and

interactive effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 197–215.

https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2951 Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 39

Tingley, D., Yamamoto, T., Hirose, K., Keele, L., & Imai, K. (2014). mediation: R package for

causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 59(5), 1–38.

https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v059.i05

Venn, D. (2012). Eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits: Quantitative indicators for

OECD and EU countries. OECD Social, Employment, and Migration Working Papers, No.

131. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Vermunt, R. (2014). Law, ethics, and economics: Good, the bad, and the just. Surrey: Ashgate.

Vermunt, R., & Steensma, H. (2001). Stress and injustice in organisations. In R. Cropanzano

(Ed.), Justice in the workplace (Vol. 2, pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wanberg, C. R., Glomb, T. M., Song, Z., & Sorenson, S. (2005). Job-search persistence during

unemployment: A 10-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 411–

430. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.411

Widinger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (1992). Personality and psychopathology: An application of the

five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 363–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

6494.1992.tb00977.x

Wood, S., Braeken, J., & Niven, K. (2013). Discrimination and well-being in organizations:

Testing the differential power and organizational justice theories of workplace aggression.

Journal of Business Ethics, 115(3), 617–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1404-5

World Health Organization. (1998). WHO (five) well-being index (1998 version). Retrieved

from https://www.psykiatri-regionh.dk/who-5/Documents/WHO5_English.pdf

Ybema, J. F., & van den Bos, K. (2010). Effects of organizational justice on depressive

symptoms and sickness absence: A longitudinal perspective. Social Science & Medicine,

70(10), 1609–1617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.027 Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 40

Ylipaavalniemi, J., Kivimäki, M., Elovainio, M., Virtanen, M., Keltikangas-Järvinen, L., &

Vahtera, J. (2005). Psychosocial work characteristics and incidence of newly diagnosed

depression: A prospective cohort study of three different models. Social Science & Medicine,

61(1), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.038

Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). Testing multilevel mediation using

hierarchical linear models. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 695–719. https://doi.org/

10.1177/1094428108327450 Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 41

Tables

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Internal Consistencies for the Samples Analyzed

M (SD) M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Gender 1.59 (0.49) 1.56 (0.50) -

2 Age 40.68 (12.01) 42.94 (11.64) -0.05 -

3 Education 0.72 (0.45) 0.66 (0.48) 0.02 -0.09* -

4 Depression 3.39 (1.12) 3.60 (1.15) 0.02 .09* -.08* .91 5 Distrib. 3.98 (1.24) - 0.08 .14** -.06 .30** .81 injustice 6 Months - 34.73 (45.85) -.07 .29** -.06 .18** - - unempl. 7 Proced. - 2.73 (0.86) .06 -.07 -.08 .30** - .13* .86 injustice 8 Interpers. - 2.28 (0.98) .01 -.12 -.08 .23** - .16** .70** .88 injustice 9 Inform. - 2.60 (1.05) .04 -.10 .04 .18** - .12* .68** .69** .91 injustice Note. N = 602 unemployed and employed people at T3. Values from “months unemployed” downwards refer to the subsample of N = 290 unemployed people at T3. Internal consistencies are displayed in the diagonal. Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female. Education: 0 = low education, 1 = high education. * p < .05, ** p < .01. Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 42

Table 2. Main Effect of Employment Status on General Distributive Injustice Among Unemployed and Employed People

Dependent variable: Parameter Distributive injustice Intercept 3.82** (0.18)

Level 1

Time -0.00 (0.00)

Age 0.01** (0.00)

Employment -0.45** (0.06)

Level 2

Education -0.12 (0.09)

Gender 0.10 (0.08)

-2*log likelihood 5355.24

AIC 5331.15

BIC 5375.22 Note. The table displays unstandardized coefficients. Standard errors can be found in parentheses. Time: Days passed since answering third questionnaire. Employment: 0 = unemployment, 1 = employment. Education: 0 = low education, 1 = high education. Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female. ** p < .01. Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 43

Table 3. Multilevel Mediation Analysis for the Effect of Employment Status on Depression via General Distributive Injustice

Mediator: Distributive injustice

Average indirect -0.03*** [-0.05; -0.01] effect

Average direct effect -0.30*** [-0.40; -0.21]

Total effect -0.33*** [-0.43; -0.23]

Proportion mediated 0.10*** [0.03; 0.15]

Note. Numbers outside brackets are unstandardized coefficients; numbers inside brackets are upper and lower limits of 95% confidence intervals. The mediation analysis accounted for the effects of time and employment as well as age, gender, and education. *** p < .001. Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 44

Table 4. Main Effects of Injustice on Depression Among Unemployed People

Parameter Procedural injustice Interpersonal injustice Informational injustice

Intercept 2.28** (0.34) 2.51** (0.31) 2.71** (0.30)

Level 1

Time 0.00* (0.00) 0.00* (0.00) 0.00** (0.00)

Age 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01)

Months unemployed 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)

Procedural injustice 0.20** (0.06)

Interpersonal injustice 0.03 (0.06)

Informational injustice 0.09 (0.05)

Level 2 (person)

Gender 0.12 (0.12) 0.17 (0.12) 0.16 (0.12)

Education -0.10 (0.12) -0.12 (0.12) -0.20 (0.12)

Procedural injustice 0.39** (0.08)

Interpersonal injustice 0.33** (0.07)

Informational injustice 0.26** (0.06) Running head: UNFAIRNESS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT 45

-2*log likelihood 1745.10 1778.44 1775.69

AIC 1713.85 1747.01 1743.87

BIC 1758.14 1791.36 1788.20 Note. The table displays unstandardized coefficients. Standard errors are displayed in parentheses. Employment: 0 = unemployment, 1 = employment. Education: 0 = low education, 1 = high education. Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female. * p < .05, ** p < .01.