Unemployed, Depressed and Spreading Loneliness

People who have recently become unemployed are four times more likely to claim to have depression than the general population, a new survey suggests. The survey is the Pfizer Health Index; this year the study also examined the impact of the recession on people’s lives, with particular focus on those who recently became unemployed.

"The Pfizer Health Index is a Behaviour and Attitudes National Barometer Survey, which samples 1,040 adults aged 16 and over. Pfizer said a "booster" of 122 recently unemployed people was added to the research this year." See more here. More information is also available here. The 2008 report (related to the Pfizer Health Index) is available here.

Finally, the link between unemployment and depression is worth considering in light of new research which indicates that loneliness spreads in social networks: "Loneliness can be contagious, new study finds". The research, a new study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, was led by John Cacioppo, a neuroscientist and psychologist at the University of Chicago. The data comes from a longitudinal study, conducted by the University of Chicago, the University of California-San Diego and Harvard, which interviewed more than 5,000 people over the course of 10 years, tracking their friendship histories and their reports of loneliness.

"In the study, researchers found that lonely individuals tend to move to the fringes of social networks (and, no, we’re not talking about Facebook or Twitter here), where they have fewer and fewer friends.

But before they move to the periphery, they “infect” or “transmit” their feelings of loneliness to their remaining friends. With fewer close relationships, these friends then become lonely and eventually move to the fringes of the social network, again passing their loneliness on to others. Thus, the cycle continues."

The study also found that "loneliness spreads much more easily among women than among men, citing the idea that women may be more likely to express and share emotions, as well as the observation that there may be greater stigma associated with loneliness among men." This may be the source of some solace: the latest Live Register (LR) figures show that almost twice as many men are claiming unemployment benefit (or allowance), compared to women. If two-thirds of LR claimants (i.e. the males) are less likely to spread their feelings of loneliness (compared to the other third), then this is the potential source of solace. However, there is still the possibility that loneliness could be spreading; and more importantly; LR claimants are more likely to be depressed.

Social Capital and Innovation - ter Weel and Akcomak

How do social capital and government support affect innovation and growth? Evidence from the EU regional support programmes

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Akcomak, Semih (akcomak@merit.unu.edu) (UNU-MERIT)
Ter Weel, Bas (b.terweel@merit.unimaas.nl) (UNU-MERIT)
Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Bas ter Weel
Ibrahim Akcomak

This research investigates the role of social capital and government intervention in explaining the differences of innovation output and economic growth for regions of the European Union from 1990-2002. Using several measures of social capital and innovation, and the European Union’s Objective 1, 2 and 5b figures for EU regional support, the estimates suggest that EU funding is not significantly contributing to economic outcomes, while social capital is. Investigation of a possible complementary relationship between social capital and government support reveals that regions with higher levels of social capital are more likely to effectively gain from EU regional support programmes. This result implies that aside from the benefits associated with the direct effect of social capital on economic outcomes, social capital appears to be a critical prerequisite for the effective implementation of government programmes. From a policy perspective, it appears to be important to stimulate education to foster human capital formation. When combined, human capital and social capital are likely to yield stronger effects for effective policies which increase economic outcomes

Do Younger Students Do Better?

In a recent IZA working paper, Billari and Pellizzari show that the youngest students in an Italian university perform better compared to their oldest peers, particularly in the most technical subjects. They also find that the youngest students perform slightly better in cognitive tests and also appear to have less active social lives: they are less likely to do sports, go to discos and have romantic relationships. Based on this, Billari and Pellizzari suggest:

(i) a profile of cognitive development that might be decreasing already around age 20; (ii) psychological relative age effects that lead the youngest in a cohort to develop social skills (self-esteem, leadership) at a slower pace

Their conclusion is that younger students have less active social lives and devote more time to studying (which they say is backed up by additional evidence from the PISA study).

The built environment and collective efficacy: Environmental determinants or correlates?

A new study by Cohen, Iganami, & Finch (In press) has found that having more parks and less off-licences leads to a greater sense of social cohesion and more informal social control. The later two concepts together form “collective efficacy”. The authors discuss how collective efficacy is frequently considered a “cause”, but they have hypothesized "that environmental features might be the foundation for or the etiology of personal reports of neighborhood collective efficacy, independent of the composition of the people who lived in the neighborhoods and their concomitant socio-demographic characteristics".

However, to what extent are such built environment variables causal? Longitudinal data is needed to answer this. Even still it is possible that demand for alcohol or even for parks may be driving the built environment- collective efficacy relationship... It is not surprising that number of alcohol outlets dropped out as a predictor when disadvantage was including in the analysis. I would like to have a seen a breakdown of the parks-collective efficacy relationship into the social cohesion and informal social control items.

I would guess that less pesky youths loitering on the street are producing the park-collective efficacy relationship. Loitering or "groups of three or more adults not waiting for scheduled activities or businesses" is the most frequently cited problem in regard to social disorder (Samson & Raudenbush, 1999). Less loitering (with intent) means less frequency of disrespect, graffiti, and by definition hanging out which may mean that such a rare event would provoke a response of informal social control thus the high endorsement. Whereas if you're habituated to these conditions you are less likely to intervene. So it is important to also assess perceived social norms for loitering and social disorder in order to determine the real likelihood of intervention, more room for anchoring vignettes here. The evidence points to perceptions of government responsiveness and neighbourhood attachment and social ties as key determinants of informal social control. It's possible that any loitering filters such as internet shops, video game halls, community centres, could improve collective efficacy. Alternatively, there may be something distinct about the broad demographic range of usage of parks that acts to engender civility. Perhaps informal social control is supported by a space of mutual ownership where others are likely to support an intervention and thus the park acts as a nursery for the formation of neighbourhood power relations.

Read Cohen et al (In press)