Financial Stress,Shaming Experiences and Psychosocial Ill-Health: Studies into the Finances-Shame Model

The aim of the study was to test the Finances-Shame model and its explanatory power regarding the prevalence of psychosocial ill-health. The Finances-Shame model postulates that (i) the greater the financial stress and the more experiences of having been shamed, the greater the risk for psychosocial ill-health, (ii) the lesser the financial stress and the fewer experiences of having been shamed, the lower the risk for psychosocial ill-health. The study was based upon a survey carried out during the period March 2000–May 2000 in a mid-Swedish region (n = 5,666). The response rate was 69%. The results of the study supported the hypotheses.     

The Concepts of Risk,Safety, and Security: Applications in Everyday Language

The concepts of risk, safety, and security have received substantial academic interest. Several assumptions exist about their nature and relation. Besides academic use, the words risk, safety, and security are frequent in ordinary language, for example, in media reporting. In this article, we analyze the concepts of risk, safety, and security, and their relation, based on empirical observation of their actual everyday use. The “behavioral profiles” of the nouns risk, safety, and security and the adjectives risky, safe, and secure are coded and compared regarding lexical and grammatical contexts. The main findings are: (1) the three nouns risk, safety, and security, and the two adjectives safe and secure, have widespread use in different senses, which will make any attempt to define them in a single unified manner extremely difficult; (2) the relationship between the central risk terms is complex and only partially confirms the distinctions commonly made between the terms in specialized terminology; (3) whereas most attempts to define risk in specialized terminology have taken the term to have a quantitative meaning, nonquantitative meanings dominate in everyday language, and numerical meanings are rare; and (4) the three adjectives safe, secure, and risky are frequently used in comparative form. This speaks against interpretations that would take them as absolute, all‐or‐nothing concepts.     

Social choice with procedural preferences

Participants in an aggregation procedure have preferences not only over outcomes but also over procedural features (such as preferring consensus, preferring to be in the majority, preferring not having to compromise, etc.) Such procedural preferences can be expressed in a framework that, contrary to the traditional Arrovian framework, has voting patterns rather than outcomes as comparison classes. The extended framework helps us to resolve several of the puzzles of social choice theory. The (more or less anti-democratic) political conclusions that some author have been willing to draw from results in the Arrovian framework are shown to rely on formal restrictions that are present in that framework but not in the extended framework that is presented here.     

Sense of coherence: definition and explanation

The present study is one of a few that have used 'sense of coherence' (SOC) as a dependent variable in an explanatory model. After studying three different samples – 680 students, 180 parents and 315 couples – we conclude that family relational and psychopathological variables contribute significantly to the explanation of SOC (explained variance between 10–27 and 26–50 per cent). In total, we obtained an explained variance of between 42 and 64 per cent. This leads us to the conclusion that in all three samples, SOC is multifaceted and thereby is more than simply an opposite state to depression. Context may play an important part in the explanation of SOC.     

Psychological and physiological stress responses during repetitive work at an assembly line

The association between psychological and physiological stress responses was examined in 20 male workers at an assembly line. Each worker was studied during a 2 h period on two consecutive days in their normal job and, in order to obtain physiological baseline values, during a corresponding paid 2 h period off the job on the third day. Self-reports of work demands, mood, etc., measurements of catecholamine and cortisol excretion and of systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate were obtained at the end of each of the three 2 h periods. Work induced a significant elevation in almost all psychological and physiological measurements. Levels were consistently lower in workers reporting a 'good' workday compared to those reporting a 'normal' or a 'bad' day. Correlations between self-reports and physiological values showed that catecholamine and cortisol responses, respectively, tended to be associated selectively with different psychological conditions, catecholamine values being associated with feelings of time pressure and pressure by demands, cortisol values with irritation, tenseness and tiredness. The results show that perceived stress at an assembly line is consistently reflected in cardiovascular and neuroendocrine functions of the workers.     

A procedural model of voting

The formal framework of social choice theory is generalized through the introduction of separate representations of preferences and choices. This makes it possible to treat voting as a procedure in which decisions are actually made by interacting participants, rather than as a mere mechanism for aggregation. The extended framework also allows for non-consequentialist preferences that take procedural factors into account. Concepts such as decisiveness, anonymity, neutrality, and stability are redefined for use in the new context. The formal results obtained confirm the universality of strategic voting.     

The independence condition in the theory of social choice

Arrow's theorem is really a theorem about the independence condition. In order to show the very crucial role that this condition plays, the theorem is proved in a refined version, where the use of the Pareto condition is almost avoided.A distinction is made between group preference functions and group decision functions, yielding respectively preference relations and optimal subsets as values. Arrow's theorem is about the first kind, but some ambiguities and mistakes in his book are explained if we assume that he was really thinking of decision functions. The trouble then is that it is not clear how to formulate the independence condition for decision functions. Therefore the next step is to analyse Arrow's argument for accepting the independence condition.The most frequent ambiguity depends on an interpretation of A as the set of all conceivable alternatives, while the variable subset B is the set of all feasible or available alternatives. He then argues that preferences between alternatives that are not feasible shall not influence the choice from the set of available alternatives. But even if this principle is accepted, it only forces us to require independence with respect to some specific set B and not to every B simultaneously. Therefore the independence condition cannot be accepted on these grounds.Another argument is about an election where one of the candidates dies. On one interpretation this argument can be taken to support an independence requirement which leads to a contradiction. On another interpretation it is a condition about connexions between choices from different sets.The so-called problem of binary choice is found to be different from the independence problem and it plays no essential role in Arrow's impossibility result. Other impossibility results by Sen, Batra and Pattanaik and by Schwartz are of a different character.In the last section, several weaker independence conditions are presented. Their relations to Arrow's condition are stated and the arguments supporting them are discussed.