The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Unemployment and Mental Health: Some Evidence from Panel Data Author(s): Anders Bjrklund Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Autumn, 1985), pp. 469-483 Published by: University of Wisconsin Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/145679 . Accessed: 04/09/2012 11:23
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Wisconsin Press and The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Human Resources.

http://www.jstor.org

UNEMPLOYMENT SOME EVIDENCE

AND MENTAL HEALTH: FROM PANEL DATA*

ANDERS BJORKLUND

ABSTRACT Microdataare used in this paper to analyze the effects of unemployment on mental health. The analysis is done in two steps. First, cross-section dataof laborforceparticipants analyzed.It appearsthat the unemployed are have worse mental health than the employed. Next, panel data are used to control for "fixed"effects, that is, unobserved omitted variables that are constantover time. The model is also specifiedto allow both the occurrence of and durationof unemploymentto affectmental health. Then we cannot rejectthe hypothesisthat there are no effectsof unemploymenton mental health. However, some sensitivity tests indicate that the precision of our estimates is ratherlow. In most Western countries there is public concern about the individual welfare consequences of unemployment. A common view is that unemployment represents a suffering per se irrespective of the income losses that might be a consequence of a spell of unemployment. In particular, it is argued that unemployment can have severe consequences on mental health. Despite these widely held views, evidence on the presence, magnitude, and nature of such effects is quite meager. Some attempts have been made to detect effects by examining aggregate time-series data on unemployment and various health indicators, such as done by Brenner for England [3] and the U. S. [2]. In both studies it is claimed that unemployment has sizable effects on various types of illness. However, the methodology used in these studies have several pitfalls.
The authoris an Economistwith the IndustriensUtredningsinstitut (Industrial Institutefor Economic and Social Research),Stockholm. * Useful comments from Robert Moffittand participantsin the workshopin Sociology and Demographyat the University of Stockholmare gratefullyacknowledged. [ManuscriptreceivedAugust 1983;acceptedApril 1985.]

The Journal of Human Resources

XX

0022-166X/85/0004-0469$01.50/0 ? 1985 by the Regentsof the University of Wisconsin System

470

THE JOURNALOF HUMAN RESOURCES

Because ratherlong time-series have to be used, one has to control for all improvementsin health care that have taken place over time. If this is not done appropriately,omitted variables can bias the results. In addition, the results can be sensitive to the lag structureof the effects of unemployment. In a carefulexamination of Brenner'sstudy of British data, Gravelle et al. [6] found that the results were very sensitive to both the choice of time period and the lag structure. They concluded by recommending microdatain generaland panel data in particularas the most promising means of analyzing the problem. The purpose of this study is to exploit the opportunity that panel data provide for establishing a clearer idea of the linkage between unemployment and increased mental health problems. The Swedish Level of Living Surveys are useful because both unemployment and mental health are measuredat three points in time. Panel data help avoid a common pitfallin all causalanalyses,namely the presence of omitted variables that can be correlatedwith the independent variableof interest.This advantagehas been exploited in several studies of the determinantsof wages. The basic idea is to analyzechanges in the dependentvariable and thereby eliminate the potential bias from omitted variablesthat are constant over time. In this study a variant of this method, recentlydeveloped by Chamberlain[4, 5] is used, since the dependent variablesare qualitative ratherthan continuous. The empirical analysis begins with an examination of cross-section data on labor force participants.These data show that the unemployed have poorermentalhealth than the employed,even thoughthe differences are rather small. The panel data are used to examine whether mental health has deterioratedbecause of unemployment. Two types of results emerge. On the one hand, we cannot rejectthe null hypothesis that there are no effectsof unemployment.On the other hand, neithercan we reject the hypothesisthat true estimates are obtained in the cross-sectionanalysis. Consequently,the precision of our estimates is not high enough to allow any strong statements about the nature of the observed mental health differentialbetween the unemployed and the employed. Ourmethodological conclusionis that panel data probablyare needed for progressin research in this field, but that large samples with good measures of health and unemployment are needed to obtain results with high levels of statistical significance. MODEL SPECIFICATION How can unemployment affect mental health?The basic reason for adverse effectsis that unemploymentcan representa stressfulsituation for

Bjorklund

471

the individual. The stress can be caused both by income losses and by stigmatizingeffects of unemployment per se. Income losses might force the unemployed to reduce their living standards drastically which, of course, could influence both the physical and mental health of unemployed workers.In the work- and sucess-orientedWestern societies, unemployment in itself can also be stigmatizing because of loss of selfesteem and social contacts. However, there is no reason to believe that the unemployed constitute a homogeneous group as far as the effects on mental health are concerned. Instead, it is likely that certain groups of unemployed suffer more than others. Actually, this heterogeneityis of interest in itself because if the groups that suffermost can be identified, they can be made targetsfor labor market policies of various types. and "duration" One importantdistinction is between "occurrence" effects of unemployment.'By .theoccurrenceeffectwe mean, in this context, that simply becoming unemployed represents a shock for the individuals affected. By the duration effect, on the other hand, we mean that mental health deterioratesas a result of, and hence duringthe period of, unemployment. The reason for becoming unemployed may well be crucial in this respect.Permanentlayoffsare likely to be more importantthan voluntary quits. Unfortunately,our data do not include information of this type, but other data indicate that relatively few of the unemployed in Sweden quit theirjobs voluntarily(Bjorklund[1]). Consequently,it is reasonable to regardunemployment as an exogenous event for the individual. It also seems reasonableto hypothesize that the incidence of mental effects depends on such variables as age and sex; it might be more humiliating for a prime-agedman to become unemployed than for a teenager.And finally,mental health is likely to depend on a host of personal characteristics. These considerationscan easily be incorporatedinto an estimating equation for mental health. Denoting mental illness for individual i by MS,, personal characteristicsby PCi, unemployment occurrenceby Ui, and unemployment duration (weeks) by UWi, we can write:
(1) MS, = at + a,PCi + o2U, + a3 UW, + a4(PCi*Ui)
+ oa5(PCi*UWi) + ei

If being unemployed is all that matters, only a2 (and perhaps a4) are

positive. If the length of the unemploymentspell matters,a3 (and perhaps as) will be positive. Of course, both types of effects can be present simultaneously.
1 This distinctionhas also been made in other studiesof the effectof unemployment.See, for example, Bjorklund[1] and Heckmanand Borjas[7].

472

THE JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES

ECONOMETRIC SPECIFICATION AND ESTIMATION

It is obvious that estimates of equation (1) can be plagued by omitted variable bias even if we could control for several measurablevariables representing personal characteristics.Let us introduce time-invariant omitted variables-so-called fixed effects. We denote these variables ci. The remaining error term will now capture the influence of temporary factors. Hence, we advance the following model for our qualitative dependent variableMSti, where t denotes a specificpoint of time and where both the durationand interactioneffectsof unemploymentare suppressed in b.
(2a) (2b) (2c) denoted s:2 (3a) (3b) (3c) MS* = MS, = 1 MSsi = 0
t'Xi + 6'i + ci + Ei

I MSS*= 3'Xti + MS,i = MS,t =0

8 Uti + C-+ i

Eti

if MSt> 0 if MS*< 0

But we can also advance a similar model for an earlier point in time,

if

Ms*> 0 0

if Ms*<

If the index of mental health, MS*, were continuous and observable, we could get rid of the omitted variable ci by simply differencing(2a) and (3a). Then the bias caused by the correlationbetween U and c would be avoided. However, in our case the observed dependent variable is qualitative and another technique to avoid this potential bias, one developed by Chamberlain[4, 5], must be used. A logit model for our qualitative variable is assumed: Prob(MSti = 1 , -y,Xti, Uti, ci)= F( 'Xti + y Uti + ci) (4) + v,i 8'x,, -,' + eP'X,+YU,i+c, +c;
1 + ef'X,i+YU,"+c'

where F denotes the cumulative density function of the logistic equation. The basic idea of Chamberlain'stechnique is to focus only on those who have changed mental status between two subsequent surveys, that is, those who have values (0,1) and (1,0) on the dependent variables at two surveys. All other observations are deleted from the estimation. Next, consider the equation for the following probability:
2 To save parameters assume that the f and y coefficientsare constantover time even we though it is not necessaryfor the techniqueused.

Bjorklund (5) Prob[(0, 1)(0, , ) or(l,0) ] Prob(O,1) Prob(0, 1) + Prob(1,0)

473

Because in our case Prob (0,1) and Prob (1,0) are equal to

(
(

1 + e:'+yu+c")( i+e
e ti+Y'Ui"+ci i'X
e: xi+y '+ci

1 + e 'x+yU+c')
A
1+

and
d

1
e/'x"+y/U,i+c

'1 +

respectively, it turns out that P'(X, x,,)+ Y'( - U,i) re U,, (6)\ (6) = e Prob[(0,1) (0, 1) or (1,0)] -)(-) 1 + e1 '(XtX x)? Y'(U Ui) Hence the problematic omitted variables ci have disappeared and we have a straightforward logit model to estimate. Given that mental health has changed between the two surveys, our model (5) explains the probability that mental health has worsened. In so doing, however, we obtain estimates of the parameters of interest, purged of omitted-variable-bias created by the time-invariant omitted variables. THE DATA The data analyzed are from the Swedish Level of Living Survey that has been conducted three times, in the late spring of 1968, 1974, and 1981, by the Institute for Social Research (see Vuksanovic [8]). These data are based on a representative sample of the Swedish population between 15 and 75 years of age; the sample size is about 6500 individuals. Questions about mental health were asked in each survey. These include questions about symptoms of mental illness and questions about somatic problems. The questions about symptoms are: "Have you during the last twelve months (1) been mentally tired? (2) had difficulties with sleep? (3) had nervous problems? (4) been deeply depressed?" We define the variable "mental symptom" (denoted MS,) to equal 1 if the answer by individual i to any of these questions is yes; otherwise the variable is 0. The questions about somatic problems are: "Have you during the last twelve months (1) suffered from high blood pressure? (2) had stomach pains?" We define the variable "somatic problem" (denoted SP,) to equal 1 if the answer by individual i to either of these questions is yes; otherwise the variable is 0. Two types of unemployment information are available. First, the respondents are asked whether they are unemployed-basically according to a standard search criterion-at the time of the survey and, in that case, how many weeks they have been unemployed. Second, retrospective

474

THE JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES

questions are asked about unemployment experience during the whole precedingyear. Informationabout the number of unemployment weeks during the year is available. Two types of unemployment variables are constructed from this information. Unemployment occurrenceequals 1 if the individual was unemployedat the time of the survey or at any time duringthe preceding year; otherwise unemployment occurrenceequals 0. This variable is denoted U8081ifor the last survey, indicatingthat unemploymentoccurred during 1980 and/or 1981. For the other waves it is denoted U6768i and
U7374i.

Unemploymentdurationis the total numberof unemploymentweeks during the precedingyear plus the weeks during the survey year for the spell experienced at the time of the survey. This variable is denoted UW8081i, UW7374i,and UW6768i,respectively. The analysiswill be done on two samples. The firstconsists of those who were labor force participantsin 1967-68 and 1973-74; the second consists of those who were labor force participantsduring 1973-74 and 1980-81. By focusing upon labor force participantswe hope to capture the effect of not having a job. RESULTS of It is informativeto begin by looking at the characteristics the two basic samples, which are presented in the Appendix tables. A clear pattern emergesfromAppendixTablesA-i and A-2, namely that the unemployed have poorermental health than the othersin both samples and according to both measures of mental illness. The proportion with mental symptoms in 1974 and 1981 is 0.303 and 0.297, respectively, among those who experiencedunemployment,but 0.238 and 0.219 among those who have not. The correspondingfigures for psychosomatic symptoms are 0.317 and 0.361, respectively, for the unemployed and 0.278 and 0.273 for the others. Even though the absolute differencesare not very large, the overall pattern appearsunambiguous. We have applied a standardtest for independence between mental illness and unemployment experience. The calculatedchi-squarevalues are also presented in the tables. These imply that the hypothesis of independence can be rejectedat less than a 5 percent level of significance during 1981 for both measures of mental illness. During 1974 we can reject the independence hypothesis for "mental symptoms" at the 10 percent level. However, for psychosomatic symptoms we cannot reject the independence hypothesis in 1974 even though the unemployed are overrepresented among those with somatic problems. The basic issue addressedin this paper is whether these differences

Bjorklund

475

are attributable causaleffectsof unemploymentor merelyto correlation to between unemploymentand mental illness. Before consideringthe estimates based on panel data, it is prudent to examine whetherthese differencesremain aftercontrollingfor obvious personal characteristicssuch as age and sex on cross-section data. Such estimates of logit models are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Variables capturingthe effects of both occurrenceand duration of unemployment are included in addition to controls for age and sex. The results in columns (la) and (2a) in both tablesreveal that the unemployedhave poorer mental health even aftercontrollingfor age and sex. We test this by using a likelihood-ratiotest for the null hypothesis that both unemployment coefficientsare 0 againstthe alternativehypothesis that at least one coefficientdiffersfrom 0. However,againwe cannot-at conventional levelsreject the hypothesis that the psychosomatic problems are equal for the employed and the unemployed during 1974 (Table 1, col. la). On the other hand, it appears that the t-values of the two unemployment coefficientsare ratherlow. In one sense this is not surprising because the two variables are by definition positively correlated.By deleting one of them, the t-value of the remaining coefficient increases to levels above 2 in three of four cases (compare columns la and lb, 2a and 2b, respectively,in the two tables). The results show that only unemployment occurrence matters during 1981, whereas unemployment duration is more important during 1974.3 We also investigatewhether any interactioneffectswith age and sex can be found in the cross-section data. We confine ourselves to interactions with unemployment occurrenceduring 1981 and to unemployment duration during 1974 since these unemployment variables were most importantat the two points in time. In the equations presentedin columns (Ic), (Id), (2c), and (2d) such interactions are included. The main result is that a significant interaction effect between age and unemployment occurrencecan be found during 1981. The coefficients in columns ( d) and (2d) in Table 2 imply that the differencein health status between the unemployed and the employed peaks at the ages of 32 and 45 for psychosomaticand mental problems, respectively. Next we will examine whether the differencesbetween the unemployed and the employedremainaftercontrollingfor unobservedomitted variables by means of panel data. These results are presented in Table 3. Arethe unemploymentcoefficientssignificantly The differentfrom O?
3 The averagenumberof unemploymentweeks for those affectedby unemploymentwas around 18 in both samples.

TABLE 1 EST LABOR FORCEPARTICIPANTS1967-68 AND 1973-74: CROSS-SECTION size: 2413; t-statistics in parentheses) (Sample (la) SP74 Dependent variable Independent variables -0.943 Constant (-5.64) 0.046 U7374 (0.17) 0.009 UW7374 (0.92) -0.002 Age (-0.63) 0.152 Women (1.62) Age*UW7374 Age2*U9W7374 Women* UW7374 Log-likelihood -1417.0 -1417.0 (Ib) SP74 -0.944 (-5.61) 0.010 (1.46) -0.002 (-0.64) 0.159 (1.65) (Ic) SP74 -0.945 (-5.59) 0.011 (0.39) -0.002 (-0.64) 0.169 (1.78) 0.000 (0.22) -0.015 (-1.04) -1416.5 (Id) SP74 -0.942 (-5.57) 0.043 (0.46) -0.002 (-0.62) 0.153 (1.63) -0.002 (-0.37) 0.000 (0.37) -1417.0 (2a) MS74 -1.871 (-10.28) 0.196 (0.72) 0.009 (0.95) 0.008 (2.21) 0.797 (8.21) (2b) MS74 -1.848 (-10.22) 0.014 (2.05) 0.008 (2.14) 0.796 (8.20) -

-1296.0 -1296.1

Likelihood-ratio test of unemployment coefficientsa

2.1

2.0

3.1

2.1

4.6

4.4

Notes: SP74: dummy for somatic problems 1974. MS74: dummy for mental symptoms 1974. U7 unemployment occurrence1973-74. UW7374:unemploymentweeks during 1973-74. See the tex 9.21 and 11.3 (1 percent).

the variables. a Critical chi-square values with two and three degrees of freedom: 4.61 and 6.25 (10 percent), 5

TABLE2 1973-74AND 1980-81: PARTICIPANTS LABOR FORCE CROSS-SECTION EST (Sample size: 3261; t-statisticsin parentheses) (la) SP81 Dependent variable Independentvariables -1.032 Constant (-6.78) U8081 0.410 (1.71)
UW8081 0.000

(lb) SP81 -1.029 (-6.80) 0.411 (2.33)

-

(Ic) SP81 -1.105 (-7.11) 1.822 (2.60)

-

(Id) SP81 -1.111 (-7.17) -2.000 (-0.82)

-

(2a) MS81 -1.907 (-11.31) 0.479 (1.88)

0.001

(2b) MS81 -1.901 (-11.03) 0.409 (2.26)

-

Age Women
Age*U8081 Age2*U8081 Women*U8081

(0.02) -0.002 (-0.73) 0.333 (4.21)

-

-0.001 (-0.043) 0.319 (4.01)

-

-0.000 (-0.13) 0.312 (3.85)

-0.041

-0.000 (-0.12) 0.323 (4.08)

0.172

(0.06) 0.007 (2.00) 0.680 (7.94)

-

0.007 (1.86) 0.689 (7.92)

-

(-2.35)
0.186

(1.33)
-0.003

(-1.65)
-

Log-likelihood

-1911.4

-1911.4

(0.50) -1908.1

-1906.6

-1693.7

-1693.8

Likelihood-ratiotest of unemployment coefficientsa

5.5

5.5

13.1

16.0

6.8

6.6

Notes: SPS1: dummy for somatic problems 1981. MS8 1: dummy for mental symptoms 1981. U80

unemploymentoccurrence1980-81. UW8081:unemploymentweeks during 1980-81. See the tex the variables. a Criticalchi-squarevalues with two and three degreesof freedom:4.61 and 6.25 (10 percent), 5 9.21 and 11.3 (1 percent).

TABLE 3 SUBSAMPLES WITHCHANGES MENTAL IN HEALTH: PANEL DATAESTI (Asymptotic t-ratiosin parentheses) (1) Dependent variablea Sample size Independentvariables Constant U8081-U7374 UW8081-UW7374 Age*(U8081-U7374) Age2*(U8081U7374) (U7374-U6768) (UW7374-UW6768) -640.6 Log-likelihood x2 value for likelihood-ratio test that all unemployment coefficientsare Ob 3.0 641.2 1.8 -570.8 1.2 S081 931 -0.161 (-2.44) 0.029 (0.10) 0.015 (1.17) (2) S081 931 -0.160 (-2.39) 0.004 (0.00) 0.023 (0.20) -0.000 (-0.25) (3) MS81 831 -0.209 (-2.99) 0.320 (1.10) -0.008 (-0.67) (4) MS81 831 -0.209 (-2.95) 0.390 (0.21)
-0.012

(-0.11)
0.000

(0.11)
-

-571.0 0.8

-4

TABLE3 (Continued) (1) x2 value for likelihood-ratio test of differencesbetween estimates of unemploymentcoefficients based on panel data and on cross-sectiondata in Tables 1 & 2 (2) (3) (4)

1.8

3.0

1.4

17.0

a The dependentvariable = 1 if an individual had a mental problem 1981 (1974) but not 1974 individual had a mental problem 1974 (1968) but not 1981 (1974). b Criticalchi-squarevalues with two and three degreesof freedom:4.61 and 6.25 (10 percent), 5 9.21 and 11.3 (1 percent).

480

THE JOURNALOF HUMAN RESOURCES

answer is no in all our cases.4 The highest chi-square is obtained for

somatic problems for 1974 in column (5) (3.4 with two degrees of freedom), but it is far from the critical value at the 10 percent level of significance.In addition, the negative coefficientfor unemployment occurrence and the ratherlow coefficient for unemployment duration in this equation imply that unemployment improves mental health for unemployment duration of up to 33 weeks.5 These results definitely suggestthat cross-sectionresults can be misleading. But can the issue be addressed in another way? Can the point estimates obtained with cross-section data be rejected when panel data are used? This hypothesis is also tested here by means of a likelihoodratio test, and the log-likelihoodobtained in the unconstrainedequations in Table 3 are comparedwith the log-likelihoodobtained when the coefficients of unemployment are constrained to those obtained on crosssection data. The calculatedchi-squarevalues are presentedin the table for all equations except the one for somatic problems in 1974 which did not have significantunemployment coefficients in the cross-section. In one case the cross-sectionestimates can be rejected, namely the rather stronginteractioneffectswith age which were found for mental symptoms 1981 (column 4). However, in all other cases we cannot reject the hypothesis that the cross-section estimates are correct even after having controlled for time-invariantomitted variablesby means of panel data. Therefore our conclusions must be that the precision of our estimates are not high enough to allow any strong statementsabout the reasons for in the differentials mental healthbetween the employed and unemployed.
FINAL REMARKS

It is an important task for future researchto explain these differentials. If it is an effect of unemployment, then there are important policy imeven if the differentials plications. Furthermore, appearsmall in our data, there can be severe effects of unemployment for certain groups. How can the analysis of this issue be improved? To address this it can be fruitful to look at sample characteristicsof the subsamples with changes in mental health-that is, the subsamples used in our "change equations." These are presented in Appendix Tables A-3 and A-4. The informationprovided by these samples obviously is not rich enough, but improvements can be obtained in at least two ways.
4 Note that age and sex are not includedin the equations.This is equivalentto assuming that the coefficients these variablesare constantover time. Actually,we have checked of the inclusion of these variablesin the "changeequations"and found that it does not changethe results substantially. 5 The total effect(-0.579 + 0.0174 times duration)implies improvementup to 33 weeks.

Bjorklund

481

First, the sample sizes can be increased. An attempt has been made to increase the sizes of the samples with changes in mental health. The two measures of mental health were aggregated into one, that is, the qualitative variable was equal to 1 if either mental or somatic problems were present, and 0 otherwise. In this way the sample sizes were increased by only slightly more than 100 individuals and the results were basically the same. Second, measures can be taken to increase the variation in the independent and/or the dependent variables. An attempt was made to merge the three waves of the panel data and to estimate a variant of our basic models based on trivariate logit models. In this way it was hoped that more variation in both the dependent and independent variables could be obtained. However, this approach was not successful because sample attrition reduced the samples substantially. In principle, more variation can be obtained by measuring both mental health and unemployment more frequently than was done in the Swedish Level of Living Surveys. Another option is to improve the measures of mental health. The measures used in this study are crude in one important respect since each individual either has a symptom or does not have one. Obviously there must be some variation among both those who have and those who do not have symptoms that can be captured by better measurement of mental health. REFERENCES 1. Anders Bjorklund.Studies in the Dynamics of Unemployment.Stockholm: StockholmSchool of Economics, 1981. 2. H. Brenner."Estimatingthe Social Costs of National Economic Policy: ImWashplicationsfor Mental and Physical Health and CriminalAggression." ington:U. S. Congress,Joint Economic Committee, 1976. . "Mortalityand the National Economy: A Review and the Expe3. rience of Englandand Wales, 1935-76." The Lancet (September1979). 4. Gary Chamberlain. "Analysisof Covariancewith QualitativeData." Review of Economic Studies 47 (January1980): 225-38. . "PanelData." In Handbookof Econometrics,Vol. II. Amsterdam: 5. North-Holland,1984. 6. H. Gravelle, G. Hutchinson, and J. Stern. "Mortalityand Unemployment: A Critiqueof Brenner's Time-SeriesAnalysis."TheLancet(September1981). 7. James Heckman and George Borjas. "Does Unemployment Cause Future Unemployment?"Economica 47 (May 1980):247-83. 8. M. Vuksanovic. Codebook the Level of Living Survey 1974. Stockholm: for Institute for Social Research, 1979.

482

THEJOURNAL HUMANRESOURCES OF APPENDIX TABLEA-1 LABOR FORCE PARTICIPANTS 1967-68AND 1973-74 No Unemployment Unemployment Experience Experience 1973-74 1973-74 2268
0.238

All Sample size Proportionwith mental symptoms 1974 (x2 value for
test of independence = 3.40)a

2413
0.242

145
0.303

Proportionwith psychosomatic symptoms 1974 (x2 value for

test of independence = 1.35)a

0.275

0.272

0.317

a Criticalchi-squarevalues for one degree of freedom:2.71 (10 percent),3.84 (5 percent),and 6.63 (1 percent). APPENDIX TABLEA-2 LABOR FORCE 1973-74AND 1980-81 PARTICIPANTS No Unemployment Unemployment Experience Experience 1980-81 1980-81
3105 155

All
Sample size 3261

Proportionwith mental symptoms 1981 (x2 value for test of independence = 4.78)a Proportionwith psychosomatic symptoms 1981 (x2 value for
test of independence = 5.67)a

0.223
0.277

0.219
0.273

0.297
0.361

a Criticalchi-squarevalues with one degree of freedom:2.71 (10 percent), 3.84 (5 percent),and 6.63 (1 percent).

Bjorklund
APPENDIX TABLE A-3 WITH CHANGESIN MENTALHEALTHSTATUS SUBSAMPLES BETWEEN1968 AND 1974 Change in Mental Symptoms Sample size Those with unemployment experience only, 1967-68 Those with unemployment experience only, 1973-74 Those with unemployment experience in both 1967-68 and 1973-74 603 24 24 14

483

Change in Psychosomatic Symptoms 678 33 39 17

APPENDIX TABLE A-4 WITH CHANGESIN MENTALHEALTHSTATUS SUBSAMPLES BETWEEN1974 AND 1981 Change in Mental Symptoms Sample size Those with unemployment experience only, 1973-74 Those with unemployment experience only 1980-81 Those with unemployment experience in both 1973-74 and 1980-81 831 49 46 8 Change in Psychosomatic Symptoms 931 56 40 9