Review

Unemployment Psychological Reports

0(0) 1–18
Normalization: Its Effect ! The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
on Mental Health During sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0033294118794410
Various Stages of journals.sagepub.com/home/prx

Unemployment
Steve Thill and Claude Houssemand
ECCS Research Unit, Institute for Lifelong Learning and Guidance,
University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Anne Pignault
Psychology and Neuropsychology Laboratory, University of Lorraine, France

Abstract
The negative effects of job loss on mental health have been thoroughly described in
the literature. However, different fluctuations in mental health during the unemploy-
ment period have been noticed. We argue that a coping process takes place in this
kind of situation. Therefore, in this study, we investigated the effect of the unemploy-
ment normalization process on mental health during various stages of unemploy-
ment. Participants (N ¼ 803) completed the General Health Questionaire-12 and the
Unemployment Normalization Questionnaire. Results showed that a negative
perception of unemployment had the greatest impact on mental health during the
different phases of unemployment. Nevertheless, during the first year, having a
positive perception counteracted these negative effects, and after 1 year, the
unemployment norm took over the role of buffering against the negative effects
on mental health. These results indicate that unemployment is still perceived as
negative, but depending on the stage of unemployment, various coping strategies
are used to buffer the negative consequences of unemployment.

Keywords
unemployment, coping, normalization, unemployment duration, mental health

Corresponding Author:
Steve Thill, ECCS Research Unit, Institute for Lifelong Learning and Guidance, University of
Luxembourg, Campus Belval, Maison des Sciences Humaines, 11 porte de Science, 4366 Esch-sur-
Alzette, Luxembourg.
Email: steve.thill@uni.lu
2 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Introduction
A large number of papers and reviews are based on the importance of work for
mental health. Perhaps the most influential theory is represented by Jahoda’s
(1981, 1982) latent deprivation model. Jahoda claimed that work provides an
individual with manifest (financial reward) and latent (time structure, social
contact, collective purpose, status, and activity) benefits. In particular, the
latent benefits cover basic human needs that are assumed to be necessary for
mental health. According to this theory, the loss of employment leads to a state
of conflict with the abovementioned needs, resulting in distress.

Effects of unemployment over time

Two major meta-analyses by (McKee-Ryan, Song, Wanberg, & Kinicki, 2005;
Paul & Moser, 2009) provided especially good illustrations of the detrimental
effects of unemployment. They distinguished between three types of individual-
level studies, all of which have provided support for this negative effect. First,
cross-sectional studies have shown that unemployed groups tend to have higher
levels of distress than employed groups. A second group of studies has followed
individuals over time from employment into unemployment and has shown
detrimental effects among displaced workers. Finally, longitudinal studies
have followed individuals over time from unemployment back into employment
and have shown a decrease in stress among those who became reemployed.
The literature shows not only the impact of transitions on mental health1 but
also the influence of unemployment duration. Studies on this issue have pro-
duced varying results. There are two major bodies of research on the relation
between unemployment duration and mental health. Some researchers have
found that unemployed people show signs of adaptation or habituation
(Clark, Georgellis, & Sanfey, 2001; De Witte, Hooge, & Vanbelle, 2010).
In other studies, the opposite has been found: The longer people were unem-
ployed, the stronger the impact on their mental health (Hepworth, 1980; McKee-
Ryan et al., 2005; Warr & Jackson, 1984). Paul and Moser (2009) found a
marked increase in impaired mental health for the first and third year of
unemployment but a decrease and stagnation during the second year. Lucas,
Clark, Georgellis, and Diener (2004) found that people who were unemployed
for long periods of time showed significantly lower mental health than people
who were unemployed for less than a year. Moreover, individuals did not return
to their previous level of satisfaction after reemployment. Clark et al. (2001)
highlighted a similar result in their longitudinal study. People who had experi-
enced unemployment had lower levels of satisfaction compared with people who
had never been unemployed.
Fryer and Payne (1984) suggested that some unemployed people can see
positive aspects of unemployment. In their qualitative empirical examination,
Thill et al. 3

they interrogated 11 unemployed individuals who perceived and used their

unemployment period as an opportunity to pursue goals. In this study, the
unemployed were considered to be active agents trying to bring change to
their situation, contrary to the conceptualization of the unemployed in
Jahoda’s (1982) deprivation model. Fryer and Payne defined unemployment
as a complex phenomenon that is primarily considered to be negative but has
some positive sides. Leana and Feldman (1988) also considered unemployed
people to be active during their unemployment phase and noticed that
unemployment can include positive aspects such as motivation or feelings of
excitement. This might not be true for all unemployed people but, for example,
for young, highly educated employees.
Even though empirical findings have not been consistent, we expected mental
health to drop during the unemployment period.

Hypothesis 1: Mental health will be worse for groups that have been unemployed
for the long-term rather than for the short-term.

With some exceptions, the literature has focused primarily on the detrimental
effects of unemployment and has not produced consistent results, which indi-
cates that there might be differences in how people perceive unemployment and
how they cope with this situation during the diverse stages of unemployment.
This means that, different from the theoretical standpoint presented in the latent
deprivation model, unemployed people are not passive victims but react
to unemployment by engaging in various coping strategies in order to main-
tain their psychological equilibrium (Fryer & Payne, 1984; Leana, Feldman, &
Tan, 1998).

Unemployment normalization
Ashforth and Kreiner (2002) consider normalization to be a coping strategy.
They stated that normalization is a strategy that a person can use to regulate
emotions by perceiving a situation as normal or ordinary. This means that
people who are confronted with a stressful life event (e.g., unemployment)
would perceive a lower degree of change in their lives. Taking this into the
context of unemployment, unemployment normalization is considered to be a
self-regulatory strategy that is used during unemployment to reevaluate this
stressful experience as an ordinary situation (Pignault & Houssemand, 2017;
Pignault & Houssemand, 2018).
In 2011, Pignault conducted a discourse analysis of interviews with 77 unem-
ployed people. This study showed that people develop explanatory systems that
enable them to rationalize and trivialize their unemployment, thus making it a
‘‘societal problem’’ that can affect anyone. In 2013, Pignault and Houssemand
interviewed 69 elderly unemployed people and found similar results. Participants
4 Psychological Reports 0(0)

justified their situation their unemployment by attributing it to external factors,

such as the economic context or the fact that unemployment is now an inevitable
stage. Later, two other studies showed the effects of unemployment normaliza-
tion on mental health for the first time. Houssemand and Pignault (2017) iden-
tified two factors of unemployment normalization: (a) what we call external
justification for current unemployment situation and second unemployment
norm. The first factor external justification refers to explanations or justifications
given by the unemployed people in which they attribute their situation to uncon-
trollable factors, such as the crisis or the economic downturn. The second factor
unemployment norm refers to the perception of unemployment as a normal stage
in one’s career. The normalization of unemployment by which unemployment is
considered to be a normal or inevitable stage of a person’s professional career
and is attributed to external factors, was hypothesised to show a positive effect
on mental health, but only external justification had a buffering effect on the
distress caused by unemployment. In the same year, Pignault and Houssemand
added two more factors, negative perception of unemployment and positive per-
ception of unemployment. While negative perception shows the negative aspects of
unemployment (e.g., ‘‘feeling ashamed’’ or ‘‘depressed"), the positive perception
of unemployment refers to more positive aspects of unemployment (e.g.,
unemployment not being a concern or work not being necessary to feel
happy). The positive perception of unemployment refers to seeing unemployment
as an ‘‘opportunity’’ and not a fatal stage in one’s career. In this study, the
authors hypothesized that normalization might be a coping strategy that can
be used to lower the detrimental effects of job loss or even recognize it as an
opportunity because people might perceive unemployment as a normal stage in
their career due to external uncontrollable factors. Their results showed that
people who perceived unemployment as a negative experience and justified
their situation on the basis of external factors also showed higher levels of dis-
tress. By contrast, people who perceived unemployment as more positive showed
higher scores in mental health.

Hypothesis 2: Unemployment normalization will predict mental health.

Until now the literature only shows that unemployment normalization is a pos-
sible coping strategy, without considering the process aspect of coping. Lazarus
and Folkman (1984) defined coping as ‘‘constantly changing cognitive and
behavioural efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that
are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person’’ (p. 141).
This definition includes the words constantly changing, indicating that coping
is a process that changes over time. At some point, people might use one form of
coping, and at another point, they might rely on a different strategy. We there-
fore want to explore which coping strategies people tend to use during the
Thill et al. 5

various stages of unemployment. We expected that positive perception would

predict mental health better in the groups that were in the early stages, whereas
we expected that negative perception would become more important for the
groups that had been unemployed for a longer time. Because we expected
unemployment normalization to function as a coping strategy (Pignault &
Houssemand, 2017), the two cognitive factors of unemployment normalization,
external justification and unemployment norm, were expected to compensate for
or interact with the affective factors, negative perception and positive perception.
These compensations or interactions, again, were expected to have a positive
influence on mental health.

Hypothesis 3: The extent to which the factors of unemployment will predict mental
health will depend on the stage of unemployment.

In the present study, we aim to clarify how the different stages of unemployment
are related to fluctuations in mental health. Many studies have shown that
subjective mental health changes during the unemployment period, yet the pro-
cess has remained unclear. The fact that different results have been found for
changes in mental health during unemployment raises the question of whether
these differences may be due to different coping strategies. The purpose of this
study is to identify whether unemployment normalization can be considered an
efficient coping strategy by examining its influence on mental health. A second
goal is to explain which different strategies unemployed people use during the
various stages of unemployment and how they interact with each other.

Method
Participants and procedure
A total of 803 unemployed people2—598 (74.5%) in Luxembourg and 205 in
France—took part in this research. Participants were contacted personally in the
waiting rooms of Public Employment Services (PES). The unemployed person
was informed that the questionnaire was part of an academic study conducted
by the University of Luxembourg in collaboration with the PES of the respective
country. In addition, the purpose of the study was explained, and potential
participants were ensured that their participation would be voluntary and con-
fidential. Participants completed the 20-minute questionnaire by themselves.
The average age of the 803 participants was mean ¼ 35.03 (standard devi-
ation ¼ 11.35). A total of 44.3% were male, and 48.6% had been unemployed
before. The actual length of participants’ unemployment was categorized as less
than 6 months (55.0%), between 6 months and 1 year (19.6%), between 1 year
and 3 years (18.3%), or more than 3 years (6.8%).
6 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Measures
The questionnaire was composed of two major scales. First, participants filled
out the Unemployment Normalization Questionnaire (UNQ). The purpose of
this scale is to examine unemployed people’s perception of unemployment. Next,
they completed the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), the traditional scale
used to assess lack of mental health.

Unemployment Normalization Questionnaire. The current version of the

Unemployment Normalization Questionnaire is composed of 16 items.
Participants are asked to indicate their level of agreement with each item on a
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Unemployment
normalization refers to the perception of unemployment as a normal and inev-
itable situation due to uncontrollable external factors (Pignault & Houssemand,
2013). This definition already illustrates the multidimensional character of the
questionnaire, which follows a four-factor model. The first factor, negative per-
ception of unemployment (NEG, sample item: ‘‘Since I have been unemployed, I
feel different from others’’), refers to the negative effect of unemployment on the
person. By contrast, the positive perception of unemployment (POS, sample
item: ‘‘Unemployment is not a concern for me’’) factor specifies that unemploy-
ment might be viewed as an opportunity instead of a failure. External
Justification (JUST, sample item: ‘‘Unemployment is a result of the crisis’’)
explains how people ‘‘justify’’ their actual situation as determined by uncontrol-
lable factors (Pignault, 2011). The last factor, unemployment norm (NORM,
sample item: ‘‘Unemployment is now an inevitable stage in life’’), refers to the
impression that unemployment is a ‘‘normal’’ stage in a professional career. The
structure of the questionnaire was based on an initial study by Pignault and
Houssemand (2013), and the findings were subsequently supported in a con-
firmatory study by Pignault and Houssemand (2017). The fit statistics four-
factor model were good (confirmatory fit index ¼ .971, Tucker–Lewis
index ¼ .964) or even excellent (root mean square error of approxima-
tion ¼ .045). The four factors can be organized into two interpretative dimen-
sions. NEG (five items;  ¼ .77) and POS (five items;  ¼ .74) compose the
affective dimension as they explain how people experience unemployment.
JUS (three items;  ¼ .59) and NORM (three items;  ¼ .69) form the cognitive
dimension as they refer to how people explain their situation to themselves. The
last two factors had low Cronbach’s alpha values in the current study. This may
have been due to the small number of items and the number of dimensions of the
questionnaire (Cortina, 1993). The means and standard deviations of the
unemployment normalization factors can be found in Table 1.

The General Health Questionnaire. The GHQ (Goldberg, 1972) is a 60-item screen-
ing instrument that was originally developed to detect minor psychiatric
Thill et al. 7

Table 1. Correlations, means, and standard deviations for unemployment normalization

and mental health.

NEG POS JUST NORM GHQ

NEG
POS .25**
JUST .20** .06
NORM .05 .20** .25**
GHQ .57** .31** .08* .09*
Mean 2.54 1.70 2.35 2.41 30.70
SD .75 .59 .73 .80 8.11
NEG: negative perception of unemployment; POS: positive perception of unemployment; JUST: external
justification; NORM: unemployment norm; GHQ: General Health Questionnaire; SD: standard deviation.
**p < .01.
*p < .05.

disorders but is also used to identify a lack of mental health. We used the
shortened version (GHQ-12). The GHQ-12 consists of 12 items that assess,
for example, feelings of strain, (un)happiness, depression. worthlessness, hope-
lessness, and the feeling that one is unable to face problems. This short ques-
tionnaire is widely used in various countries and has been translated into
different languages. The French version, which was used in this study, has
been validated in various studies (Langevin, François, Boini, & Riou, 2011;
Lesage, Martens-Resende, Deschamps, & Berjot, 2011; Salama-Younes,
Montazeri, Ismaı̈l, & Roncin, 2009). Two different scoring methods can be
used: Likert scaling or bimodal scaling. We chose to use a four-point rating
scale with different anchors for different questions. We inverted the GHQ
score for interpretation purposes. Thus, a high score indicated mental health.
The internal consistency for the GHQ in this study was high ( ¼ .90). The mean
and standard deviation of the GHQ can be found in Table 1.

Results
The proportions of participants in various stages of unemployment were not
equally distributed. The majority of the sample had been unemployed for less
than 6 months (55.0%), and only 6.8% had been unemployed for more than
3 years. Gender, 2(3) ¼ 0.98, p ¼ .807, country, 2(3) ¼ 5.22, p ¼ .157, and
unemployment experience, 2(3) ¼ 1.01, p ¼ .798, did not show significant differ-
ences across the various stages of unemployment. A one-way analysis of vari-
ance (ANOVA) on age showed significant differences across the different stages,
F(3, 796) ¼ 17.22, p < .001, 2 ¼ .061; however, this effect was very weak (Cohen,
1988). Scheffe’s post hoc test revealed that the people who had been unemployed
8 Psychological Reports 0(0)

for more than 1 year (M12–36months ¼ 38.68; M>36months ¼ 42.16) were signifi-
cantly older than the people in the short-term unemployment groups
(M<6months ¼ 33.72; M6–12months ¼ 33.82).

Mental health during unemployment

First, we compared the mental health levels of the groups with different lengths
of unemployment. We expected to find lower mental health in the groups of
people who had been unemployed for a longer time. However, a one-way
ANOVA did not show a difference in subjective mental health between any
groups, F(3, 793) ¼ 0.533, p ¼ .660, 2 ¼ .002.

Mental health and normalization

Mental health and the unemployment normalization dimensions were corre-
lated. Negative perception was negatively correlated with mental health, whereas
positive perception was positively related to mental health. The two cognitive
factors, external justification and unemployment norm, showed only very weak
correlations with mental health (Table 1). In order to check the extent to which
mental health could be predicted by unemployment normalization, we tested a
linear regression model with the GHQ score as the dependent variable and all
four factors from the Questionnaire about unemployment normalization as
independent variables. The residuals were normally distributed (Shapiro–Wilk:
p ¼ .159). Table 2 shows that all unemployment normalization factors predicted
mental health except for external justification. Negative perception ( ¼ 0.53,
p < .001) was negatively related to mental health, whereas positive perception
( ¼ 0.16, p < .001) and unemployment norm showed positive relations
( ¼ 0.08, p < .01). Covariates (gender, age, unemployment experience, country)
did not have a significant effect on mental health.

Table 2. Predictors of mental health.

Variable B SE B  t p

Constant 30.70 .23 133.32 <.001

NEG 4.32 .25 .53 17.59 <.001
POS 1.29 .25 .16 5.25 <.001
JUST .06 .24 .01 .26 .798
NORM .67 .24 .08 2.76 <.01
NEG: negative perception of unemployment; POS: positive perception of unemployment; JUST: external
justification; NORM: unemployment norm; SE: standard error.
Thill et al. 9

Mental health and normalization during unemployment

Before testing the relation between mental health and unemployment normal-
ization in the same regression model for the various stages of unemployment, we
compared the factors of unemployment normalization across the four groups to
determine whether unemployment normalization changed with different lengths
of unemployment. An ANOVA showed a significant increases in external justi-
fication (F(3, 797) ¼ 5.27, p  .001, 2 ¼ .02) and negative perception (F(3,
797) ¼ 4.22, p < .01, 2 ¼ .02) after 3 years (Figure 1).
The results of the linear regression with mental health as the dependent vari-
able and the normalization factors as predictor variables for the four groups of
unemployment length are shown in Table 3. During the first year of unemploy-
ment, negative perception and positive perception were strong predictors of
mental health. The two factors indicated an inverse influence on mental
health. Negative perception negatively predicted mental health, whereas positive
perception was a positive predictor. During the first 6 months, negative percep-
tion ( ¼ 0.54, p < .001) and positive perception ( ¼ 0.18, p < .001) signifi-
cantly predicted mental health, F(4, 435) ¼ 68.31, p < .001, R2 ¼ .39. During
the second half of the first year of unemployment, similar results for negative
perception ( ¼ 0.50, p < .001), and positive perception ( ¼ 0.17, p < .05) were
found, F(4, 151) ¼ 18.58, p < .001, R2 ¼ .33. The regression for people who had
been unemployed for more than a year but less than 3 years revealed that nega-
tive perception ( ¼ 0.50, p < .001) and unemployment norm ( ¼ 0.26, p < .01)
were significant predictors of mental health, F(4, 141) ¼ 15.45, p < .001, R2 ¼ .31.
Positive perception did not have a significant relation mental health for people in
this stage of unemployment. For people who had been unemployed for more
than 3 years, the regression revealed that negative perception ( ¼ 0.61,

0.50
0.42

0.40
0.40
0.30

0.20
Negave percepon
0.09
0.10 0.06 External Jusficaon

0.08
0.00
-0.08
-0.02
-0.10
-0.10
-0.20
< 6 months 6 -12 months 12-36 months > 36 months

Figure 1. Negative perception and external justification during unemployment.

10 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Table 3. Predictors of mental health during the different stages of unemployment.

Mental health

Unemployment duration Variable B 95% CI  t p

<6 months Constant 30.68 [30.08, 31.28] 100.36 <.001

NEG 4.44 [5.09, 3.80] .54 13.58 <.001
POS 1.46 [.80, 2.13] .18 4.34 <.001
JUST .04 [.69, .61] .01 .114 .909
NORM .56 [.09, 1.21] .07 1.70 .090
R2 .39
F 68.31***

6 months to 1 year Constant 30.52 [29.46, 31.58] 56.74 <.001

NEG 3.97 [5.10, 2.84] .50 6.93 <.001
POS 1.42 [.18, 2.65] .16 2.26 <.05
JUST .03 [1.1, 1.06] .00 .05 .961
NORM .15 [.98, 1.27] .02 .26 .798
R2 .33
F 18.58***

1 to 3 years Constant 30.53 [29.46, 31.59] 56.54 <.001

NEG 3.90 [5.03, 2.76] .50 6.79 <.001
POS .43 [.61, 1.48] .06 .82 .412
JUST .29 [1.41, .83] .04 .51 .608
NORM 1.91 [.83, 2.98] .26 3.51 <.01
R2 .31
F 15.45***

>3 years Constant 32.45 [30.16, 34.74] 28.49 <.001

NEG 5.91 [8.08, 3.73] .61 5.46 <.001
POS 1.60 [.13, 3.33] .21 1.86 .069
JUST .14 [1.80, 2.08] .02 .14 .886
NORM .66 [2.50, 1.18] .08 .73 .472
R2 .49
F 11.92***
CI: confidence interval; NEG: negative perception of unemployment; POS: positive perception of
unemployment; JUST: external justification; NORM: unemployment norm.
***p < .001.
Thill et al. 11

p < .001) was the only significant predictor of mental health, F(4, 50) ¼ 11.92,
p < .001, R2 ¼ .49. Even though negative perception was the only significant
predictor during this stage of unemployment, the model showed the highest
predictability of mental health. Mental health was not predicted by positive
perception, external justification, or unemployment norm in the group of
people who had been unemployed for more than 3 years. The covariates did
not predict mental health during the different stages of unemployment.

Discussion
In the present study, we found some interesting results on the relations between
the unemployment normalization process and mental health. In the preliminary
statistics, we found that people, who had been unemployed for the long term,
were significantly older than those in the short-term groups. This might be due
to the fact that seniors are less likely to be reemployed compared with their
younger counterparts (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, n.d.; Wanberg, Kanfer, Hamann, & Zhang, 2016).

Mental health during unemployment

We analyzed the effect of the duration of unemployment on mental health. In
the literature about mental health during unemployment, different results can be
found. In our sample, the four groups showed similar levels of mental health.
This result can be due to different factors. First, the GHQ score indicated mental
health, which is not only related to the work context but to the whole range of
life aspects that influence a person. Second, the literature has provided different
results for length of unemployment. Some researchers (McKee-Ryan et al.,
2005) have claimed that unemployment may distress people more over time,
whereas other studies (Clark et al., 2001; De Witte et al., 2010) have shown a
habituation effect during the unemployment period. Paul and Moser (2009) even
found another result in which people show a peak in distress at the 1-year mark,
which flattens around the second year and rises again at the end of the second
year. None of these effects could be replicated. Third, in a study conducted in
Luxembourg, Houssemand and Meyers (2011) showed that in ‘‘a favourable
labour market,’’ mental health did not change during the unemployment
period. This phenomenon was referred to the favourable labour market in
Luxembourg. Another possible explanation for such a finding is presented in
the next steps of the study.

Mental health and normalization

In the next step of the study, we analyzed the extent to which mental health
could be predicted by unemployment normalization. Three of the four
12 Psychological Reports 0(0)

unemployment normalization factors seemed to be good predictors of mental

health. As expected, negative perception was negatively related and positive per-
ception was positively related to mental health (Pignault & Houssemand, 2017).
People who managed to see the positive effects of unemployment show higher
mental health. In addition, unemployment norm was also a positive predictor.
This means that viewing one’s unemployment as part of one’s career path was
related to higher mental health. External justification did not significantly predict
mental health. Different from our expectations, attributing one’s unemployment
situation through external factors did not have a positive effect on mental health.

Mental health and normalization during unemployment

In the last part of this study, we addressed the extent to which unemployment
normalization could predict mental health during the different stages of
unemployment. As we consider unemployment normalization to be a coping
process, we expected different strategies to counter the negative aspects of
unemployment during the various stages of the unemployment situation. The
regression confirmed the hypothesis that mental health during unemployment is
predicted by different forms of the unemployed person’s perception of the situ-
ation (Figure 2). We can differentiate between three stages.
Stage 1. During the first 6 months, negative perception and positive perception
of unemployment were strong predictors of the GHQ score. The positive per-
ception variable was a positive predictor of mental health, whereas the negative
perception variable was a negative predictor of mental health. Similar results
were found for the period of 6 months to 1 year of unemployment. Negative
perception and positive perception predicted mental health as in the previous
regression. External justification and unemployment norm did not predict
mental health during this stage.

less than 1 year between 1 year and 3 years more than 3 years
• NEG - • NEG - • NEG -
• POS + • NORM +

Figure 2. Predictors of mental health during the different stages of unemployment. NEG:
negative perception of unemployment; POS: positive perception of unemployment; NORM:
unemployment norm.
Thill et al. 13

Stage 2. During the first part of long-term unemployment (1–3 years),

a change was found to occur. The positive perception variable was no longer
a significant predictor of mental health. Negative perception and unemployment
norm were the variables of interest that significantly predicted mental health.
Unemployment norm starts to be an important predictor only after 1 year of
unemployment, and this indicates that time might play an important role in how
unemployment is perceived and how people feel affected by it (Clark, 2003; Frey
& Stutzer, 2002). External justification still did not show an effect on mental
health.
Stage 3. After 3 years of unemployment, negative perception was the only
significant predictor of mental health. During all the stages of unemployment,
negative perception was the variable that was the strongest predictor of the GHQ
score. There were no positive predictors after 3 years of unemployment, and this
might also account for the increase in the strength with which negative perception
predicted mental health at this point in time.

Conclusions
We propose this unemployment normalization model (Figure 3), which repre-
sents the different coping processes that are used in the various stages of
unemployment to counter the negative reality of unemployment. However, it
is important to note that this process model is a first theoretical draft and needs
further testing. Our results show that negative perception predicts mental health
during all the stages of unemployment. Therefore, the negative perception factor
has negative consequences for the mental health of unemployed people.
However, people seem to use different strategies to cope with this incongruent
situation (Paul & Moser, 2006) in order to maintain the greatest possible level of
mental health. During the first year, positive perception plays an important role
in countering the negative aspects. People who are unemployed perceive their
situation as negative because their actual status is not consistent with their pref-
erence. They strive to become employed, but because they do not manage to

Figure 3. Unemployment normalization during unemployment.

14 Psychological Reports 0(0)

achieve this goal, they might use positive reevaluation as a strategy to lower their
state of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1962). Lazarus and Folkman (1984) call
this emotion-focused coping strategy cognitive reappraisal. Later, unemployment
norm serves to increase mental health. Due to isolation or because they interact
less with people from the working population, unemployed people might begin
to accept their status as unemployed people at this stage (Amundson & Borgen,
1982) and begin to compare themselves with others in the same situation. At this
point, jobless people might start to share the same belief that unemployment
might simply be a normal part of any career path (Elster, 1989; Stavrova,
Schlösser & Fetchenhauer, 2011). Considering that the unemployment norm is
a positive predictor of mental health leads to the idea that during this stage,
people use this new norm as a coping strategy that helps them regulate their
emotional state. Social norms have been reported to have a buffering effect on
mental health (Clark, 2003; Clark, Knabe, & Rätzel, 2010; Stavrova et al., 2011).
After 3 years, people do not show lower mental health, but negative perception
becomes an even more important predictor. Our results did not indicate any
buffer that was able to compensate for the negative aspects of this stage of
unemployment. Furthermore, the results of the ANOVA in which we compared
unemployment normalization across the stages of unemployment (Figure 1)
indicated that people who had been unemployed for more than 3 years
showed higher levels of negative perception and external justification, both of
which might result from the frustration people encounter after 3 years of
unemployment. This means that during this stage, people might attribute their
situation to external factors to a greater extent, but this attribution is not
intended to help them cope with the situation but rather to represent their
lack of control. People might feel frustrated and might perceive unemployment
negatively after all their job-seeking efforts were in vain. This might bring on the
need for a scapegoat, which might be the economic downturn or the companies
that are not recruiting (Amundson & Borgen, 1982; Kinicki & Latack, 1990).
Another reason might be that people still use coping strategies that are, however,
not effective during this stage. In Table 3, positive perception was not a signifi-
cant predictor for the group that had been unemployed for longer than 3 years.
However, the regression showed the highest predictive value for positive percep-
tion during this phase of unemployment. This might signal the inefficacy of this
strategy during this stage (Latack, Kinicki, & Prussia, 1995).

Limitations
This study has some important limitations. First, we administered the ques-
tionnaire to the unemployed at a public employment service. It is likely that
the results are biased by social desirability because the unemployed would
want to show their best behavior in a context that they are using to help
Thill et al. 15

them find new work. The use of a more neutral setting might be beneficial for
future research. Second, people were not equally distributed across the four
groups of different lengths of unemployment. The number of participants
decreased as the length of unemployment increased. This decrease might be
due to the fact that participation was voluntary. The first group of people, who
were unemployed for less than 6 months, might be more motivated, whereas
the people who were unemployed for more than 3 years probably had less
desire to participate. Finally, instead of a longitudinal design, we compared
psychological factors between different people who were grouped together by
the length of time they had been unemployed. It would be interesting to rep-
licate this study by conducting an analysis of intraindividual differences instead
of interindividual differences. Future research would benefit from the use of a
longitudinal design that is able to represent the effects of the unemployment
normalization process on mental health during the different stages of
unemployment.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Agence pour le développement de l’emploi (ADEM Luxembourg) and
Pôle emploi (France) for their assistance with this research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the National
Research Fund, Luxembourg, under grant number C13/SC/5885577 (UnemployNorm).

Notes
1. Mental health is defined by the World Health Organization (2018) as ‘‘a state of well-
being in which every individual realizes his or her own potential, can cope with the
normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a
contribution to her or his community.’’
2. According to the guidelines of the International Labour Organization, an unemployed
person is defined by Eurostat (2018) as someone who is between the ages of 15 and 74,
who is out of work during the reference week. The person is available to start work
within the following two weeks and has actively sought employment at some time
during the last four weeks.

ORCID iD
Steve Thill http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5654-3421
16 Psychological Reports 0(0)

References
Amundson, N. E., & Borgen, W. A. (1982). The dynamics of unemployment: Job loss and
job search. Personnel & Guidance Journal, 60(9), 562–564. doi: 10.1002/j.2164-4918.
1982.tb00723.x
Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (2002). Normalizing emotion in organizations: Making
the extraordinary seem ordinary. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2),
215–235. doi: 10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00047-5
Clark, A. E. (2003). Unemployment as a social norm: Psychological evidence from panel
data. Journal of Labor Economics, 21, 323–351. doi: 10.1086/345560
Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Sanfey, P. (2001). Scarring: The psychological impact of
past unemployment. Economica, 68, 221–241. doi: 10.1111/1468-0335.00243
Clark, A. E., Knabe, A., & Rätzel, S. (2010). Boon or bane? Others’ unemployment,
well-being and job insecurity. Labour Economics, 17, 52–61. doi: 10.1016/j.labeco.
2009.05.007
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY:
Taylor & Francis.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applica-
tions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
De Witte, H., Hooge, J., & Vanbelle, E. (2010). Do the long-term unemployed adapt to
unemployment. Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology, 12, 8–14.
Elster, J. (1989). The cement of society: A study of social order. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511624995
Eurostat. (2018). Glossary: Unemployment. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
statistics-explained/index.php?title¼Glossary:Unemployment
Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance ((Vol. 2)). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). What can economists learn from happiness research?
Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 402–435. doi: 10.1257/jel.40.2.402
Fryer, D., & Payne, R. (1984). Proactive behaviour in unemployment: Findings and
implications. Leisure Studies, 3(3), 273–295. doi: 10.1080/02614368400390231
Goldberg, D. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. London,
England: Oxford University Press.
Hepworth, S. J. (1980). Moderating factors of the psychological impact of unemploy-
ment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 53, 139–145. doi:
10.1111/j.2044-8325.1980.tb00018.x
Houssemand, C., & Meyers, R. (2011). Unemployment and mental health in a favorable
labor market. International Journal of Psychology, 46, 377–385. doi: 10.1080/
00207594.2011.554552
Houssemand, C., & Pignault, A. (2017). Unemployment perspectives and solutions.
Retrieved from https://www.intecopen.com/books/unemployment-perspectives-and-
solutions/unemployment-normalization-in-different-economic-contexts.
Jahoda, M. (1981). Work, employment, and unemployment: Values, theories, and
approaches in social research. American Psychologist, 36, 184–191. doi: 10.1037/
0003-066X.36.2.184
Jahoda, M. (1982). Employment and unemployment: A social-psychological analysis.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Thill et al. 17

Kinicki, A. J., & Latack, J. C. (1990). Explication of the construct of coping with invol-
untary job loss. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36(3), 339–360. doi: 10.1016/0001-
8791(90)90036-2
Langevin, V., François, M., Boini, S., & Riou, A. (2011). General health questionnaire.
Documents Pour Le Me´decin Du Travail, 128, 677–682.
Latack, J. C., Kinicki, A. J., & Prussia, G. E. (1995). An integrative process model of
coping with job loss. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 311–342.
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.
Leana, C. R., & Feldman, D. C. (1988). Individual responses to job loss: Perceptions,
reactions, and coping behaviors. Journal of Management, 14(3), 375–389. doi: 10.1177/
014920638801400302
Leana, C. R., Feldman, D. C., & Tan, G. Y. (1998). Predictors of coping behavior after a
layoff. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(1), 85–97. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-
1379(199801)19:1<85::AID-JOB838>3.0.CO;2-Y
Lesage, F. X., Martens-Resende, S., Deschamps, F., & Berjot, S. (2011). Validation
of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) adapted to a work-related context.
Open Journal of Preventive Medicine, 1(02), 44–48. doi: 10.4236/ojpm.2011.12007
Lucas, R. E., Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2004). Unemployment alters the
set point for life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 15, 8–13. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-
7214.2004.01501002.x
McKee-Ryan, F. M., Song, Z., Wanberg, C. R., & Kinicki, A. J. (2005). Psychological
and physical wellbeing during unemployment: A meta-analytic study. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 53–76. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.53
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (n.d.). Average duration of
unemployment. Retrieved from https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode¼
AVD_DUR
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, 595–621. doi: 10.1348/096317905X70823
Paul, K. I., & Moser, K. (2009). Unemployment impairs mental health: Meta-analyses.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 264–282. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2009.01.001
Pignault, A. (2011). Chômage et stratégies d’adaptation des personnes face à cette situa-
tion. [Unemployment and the adaptation strategies of individuals in this situation] In
P. Desrumaux, A.-M. Vonthron, & S. Pohl (Eds), Qualite´ de vie, risques et sante´ au
travail [Quality of life, risks, and health in the workplace] (pp. 209-218). Paris:
L’Harmattan.
Pignault, A., & Houssemand, C. (2013). Le chômage: une situation normalisée ? Etude
menée auprès de demandeurs d’emploi séniors. [Unemployment: A normal situation?
Study conducted among senior jobseekers]. In M. E. Bobillier Chaumon, M. Dubois,
J. Vacherand-Revel, P. Sarnin, & R. Kouabenan (Eds.), La question de la gestion des
parcours professionnels en psychologie du travail [The question about career manage-
ment in organisational psychology] (pp. 101–115). Paris: L’Harmattan.
Pignault, A., & Houssemand, C. (2017). Normalizing unemployment: A new way to cope
with unemployment. Basic and Applied Psychology. doi:10.1080/
01973533.2017.1373646
18 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Pignault, A., & Houssemand, C. (2018) An alternative relationship to unemployment:

Conceptualizing unemployment normalization. Review of General Psychology.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/gpr0000148
Salama-Younes, M., Montazeri, A., Ismaı̈l, A., & Roncin, C. (2009). Factor structure
and internal consistency of the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12)
and the Subjective Vitality Scale (VS), and the relationship between them: A
study from France. Health and Quality of life Outcomes, 7(1), 22. doi: 10.1186/1477-
7525-7-22
Stavrova, O., Schlösser, T., & Fetchenhauer, D. (2011). Are the unemployed equally
unhappy all around the world? The role of the social norms to work and welfare
state provision in 28 OECD countries. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32, 159–
171. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2010.11.002
Wanberg, C. R., Kanfer, R., Hamann, D. J., & Zhang, Z. (2016). Age and reemployment
success after job loss: An integrative model and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
142(4), 400. doi: 10.1037/bul0000019
Warr, P., & Jackson, P. (1984). Men without jobs: Some correlates of age and length of
unemployment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 57, 77–85.
doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1984.tb00150.x
World Health Organization. (2018). Mental health: A state of well-being. Retrieved from
https://www.who.int/features/facilities/mental_health/en/.

Author Biographies
Steve Thill is a PhD candidate at the Institute for Lifelong Learning and
Guidance (University of Luxembourg), funded by the National Research
Fund, Luxembourg. His main research interests include unemployment, well-
being and the meaning of work.

Claude Houssemand PhD, is a professor of Differential and Cognitive

Psychology and head of the research Institute for Lifelong Learning and
Guidance (University of Luxembourg). His main research interests include
unemployment, adaptability and flexibility at work and statistics.

Anne Pignault PhD, is an assistant professor of Work Psychology at the

University of Lorraine, (2LPN, Psychology and Neuropsychology Laboratory;
France) and associate researcher at the Institute for Lifelong Learning and
Guidance (Luxembourg). Her main research interests include unemployment,
well-being, work context and career development.