**5. Synthesis and concluding remarks**

148 Social Welfare

(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Other relevant factors are salience (stimulus properties in a particular context), perception (which is selective), social comparison along different dimensions, interpretation of the situation (attribution), needs (general autonomy orientation) and general attitude to life (ideology). Negative feelings associated with inhibition or loss of autonomy can also be interpreted as the activation of deeper and more generalised *anxiety* related to personality and background, current circumstances (for instance too little/too much external structure), belonging, social exclusion, identity and fundamental existential issues. Such experiences can therefore also be elucidated from the perspective of anxiety theories (Roth, Noyes & Burrows, 1988–1992). Need and emotion

The experiences of the respondents may be understood more broadly in relation to the structure and culture of the society in which they live, i.e. *contextually*. It is a society for which commercialism (a system dominated by economic interests), materialism (Fournier & Richins, 1991) and consumerism (Bauman, 1998) are key characteristics (Hellevik, 1996). Money in this type of society exerts a wide-ranging and decisive influence on feelings of autonomy, and lack of money is in many ways an autonomy killer. This is the context in which relative poverty in affluent welfare states should be understood in relation to

Other groups may also experience inhibition or loss of autonomy due to such contextual factors, but the type of inhibited or lost autonomy reported by the respondents in this study is *poverty-related*, and in this sense their experiences are relatively exclusive. Since the questions put to them in the interviews concerned their experiences of their poverty-related situation, a control group of non-poor would have been irrelevant and meaningless. However, many of

The findings also need to be seen in connection with the study's *methodological* approach. In the interviews information was generated by both parties in conversation or dialogue. Now, there is good reason to ask if my own understanding and values, i.e. preconceptions, may have influenced the information that was created. I tried to act as an interested, concerned and empathic researcher, but also emphasised a professional and neutral approach and the use of open, non-leading questions. Whatever may have been non-verbally communicated is

It is also difficult to estimate the impact of the 1000 kroner promised for taking the trouble to take part. It may well be that it was perceived by respondents as such a large amount that they felt compelled to take part in the study. The rate of participation in this study was higher than usual in poverty research, despite this study's increased number of questions and time to complete it. The themes for inquiry were also both more personal and more intimate. The fact that none of the participants pulled out, and that after the interviews many said unprompted they were pleased with their own participation, may be taken to indicate that factors other than money contributed to them remaining in the study or even to

The study's external validity is low, and findings should not be generalised without great care to other people suffering from poverty either within the same socio-cultural bracket or

the same attributes exist among other socio-economically deprived groups.

theories are, however, as an interpretative basis, far too narrow.

experienced autonomy.

not easy to say.

them becoming respondents in the first place

The purpose of this summary is to conclude the study as a whole, to see it, as it were, from a bird's eye view. It offers in addition a synthesis of transformed meaning units into a consistent statement (Giorgi, 1985).

The 'psychology of poverty' has preoccupied me for a considerable time. I have studied experiences of inhibited or lost autonomy among the poor and attempted to understand what it means. During this process I have sometimes been physically distant from the phenomena under investigation (while reviewing the literature and analysing the data for example) and sometimes closer (I spent more than six months with the respondents, generally in their own homes). I was granted access to the subjectivity and life-worlds of the poor in the shape of lived everyday experiences (the 'taste and smell' of poverty), verbalised and reflected upon within a framework of a trustful dialogue. These experiences were fixed in the form of a transcribed text, selected excerpts from which I have attempted to explicate and interpret. The interviews were encounters between people whose lives, circumstances and horizons differed – between poor and non-poor, between the horizon of the lay person and that of the professional psychologist and researcher. Both of us existed, however, in the same society and historical period. The findings and interpretations are the product of the fusion of horizons made possible by these encounters.

Inhibition or loss of autonomy is a key meaning of relative poverty in affluent welfare states, generally accompanied by a sense of anger or sadness. This is a subjective reality for the poor. The sense of inhibited or lost autonomy is an existential verity for the poor in affluent welfare states. It is a psychological *essence* of this type of poverty. This does not mean that experienced inhibition or loss of autonomy is the only or most significant nucleus of the 'psychology of poverty'. Experiences of insecurity (Underlid, 2007), social devaluation (Underlid, 2005) and a besieged self-image or sense of worth (Underlid, 2004) are examples of other potential essences.

Whether the data from this in-depth study of a small number of respondents corroborate the claim that experienced inhibition or loss of autonomy is a psychological essence of relative poverty in affluent welfare states may of course be questioned. Nevertheless the study provides a platform on which to base further studies in the 'psychology of poverty' – either with the same methodology and theoretical perspectives or others. It is my hope that these tentative steps into largely virgin territory – for recent contributions, see for example Mullainathan´s (2011) excellent article - will inspire others to embark on similar research and that future studies will succeed in fitting the various pieces of the 'psychology of

Autonomy and Poverty – An Empirical Study of Long-Term Recipients of Social Assistance 151

Husserl, E. (1970). *Logical investigations*. New York: Humanities Press. (Original work

Jahoda, M. (1982). *Employment and unemployment*. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Kvale, S. (1996). *InterViews - An introduction to qualitative research interviewing*. Thousand

Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. (1984). *Stress, appraisal and coping*. New York: Springer Publ.

Lewis, A., Webley, P. & Furnham, A. (1995). *The new economic mind*. New York: Harvester

Maslow, A. H. (1970/1954). *Motivation and personality* (2th. ed.). New York: Harper & Row,

Nozick, R. (1981). *Philosophical explanations*. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Stjernø, S. (1985). *Den moderne fattigdommen* [Modern poverty]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

UN (2010). *Human development report*. New York: United Nations Development

Underlid, K. (2001). Fattigdommens psykologi The psychology of poverty. *Tidsskrift for* 

Underlid, K. (2003). *The concept of poverty – a challenge for psychological research*. Bergen,

Underlid, K. (2004). *The impact of poverty on self-image and self-esteem. An empirical study of 25* 

and Social Sciences, Bergen University College (unpublished manuscript). Underlid, K. (2005). Poverty and experiences of social devaluation: A qualitative interview

Underlid, K. (2007). Poverty and experiences of insecurity. A qualitative interview study of

Underlid, K. (2009). *Sosial rettferd. Fattigdom og rikdom i det modern Noreg* [Social Justice. Poverty and Wealth in Modern Norway]. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget.

Van Manen, M. (1992). *Researching lived experience*. London: The Althouse Press.

Norway, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Bergen University College

*long-standing recipients of social security payments*. Bergen, Norway, Faculty of Health

study of 25 long-standing recipients of social security payments. *Scandinavian* 

25 long-standing recipients of social security. *International Journal of Social Welfare*,

Townsend, P. (1979). *Poverty in the United Kingdom*. Harmondsworth: Penguin. UN (1995). *Report of the World Summit for Social Development*. Copenhagen 6-12 March.

Ricoeur, P. (1998). *Hermeneutics and the human sciences*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Edited, translated and with an introduction by John B. Thompson). Rooth, M, Noyes, R. & Burrows, G. D. (1988-1992). *Handbook of anxiety* (Vols. 1- 5).

Kvale, S. (ed.) (1989). *Issues of validity in qualitative research*. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Mullainathan, S. (2011). The psychology of poverty. *Focus*, *28* (1), 18-22.

Raz, J. (1986). *The morality of freedom*. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Murray, H. A. (1938). *Explorations in personality*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

published 1913).

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wheatsheaf.

Publishers.

Amsterdam: Elsevier.

*Norsk Psykologforening*, *38*, 917-919.

*Journal of Psychology*, *46*, 273-283.

(unpublished manuscript).

Programme.

*16*, 65-74.

Press.

Co.

poverty' puzzle together. The subject is challenging from a theoretical and methodological point of view and is important both socially and politically. Poverty is the oldest social problem in the world and is describes as the 'scar on humanity´s face' (Øyen, Miler & Samad, 1996). It concerns not only distribution of money and material assets, but also distribution of immaterial benefits like autonomy (freedom), which is one of the most hailed values and ideals in the world today. From a normative or ethical point of view, poverty is about human suffering and social justice (Underlid, 2009), and it demands effective political responses.

#### **6. References**


poverty' puzzle together. The subject is challenging from a theoretical and methodological point of view and is important both socially and politically. Poverty is the oldest social problem in the world and is describes as the 'scar on humanity´s face' (Øyen, Miler & Samad, 1996). It concerns not only distribution of money and material assets, but also distribution of immaterial benefits like autonomy (freedom), which is one of the most hailed values and ideals in the world today. From a normative or ethical point of view, poverty is about human suffering and social justice (Underlid, 2009), and it demands effective political

Argyle, M., Furnham, A. & Graham, G. (1981). *Social situations*. Cambridge: Cambridge

Bauman, Z. (1998). *Work, consumerism and the new poor*. Buckingham: Open University

In E. L. Deci, R. M. Ryan, D. Derryberry & D. M. Tucker (eds.), *Perspectives on motivation*. Nebraska symposium on motivation, vol. 38. Lincoln and London:

Ben-Ze´ev, A. (2000). *The subtlety of emotions*. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Deci, E. L. (1980). *The psychology of self-determination*. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality.

Doyal, L. & Gough, I. (1991). *A theory of human need*. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd. Dworkin, G. (1988). *The theory and practice of autonomy*. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Edwards, T. (2000). *Contradictions of consumption: concepts, practices and politics in consumer* 

Ely, M., Vinz, R., Downing, M. & Anzul, M. (2001). *On writing qualitative research*. London:

Fournier, S. & Richins, M. L. (1991). Some theoretical and popular notions concerning

Franken, R. E, (1994). *Human motivation* (3rd. ed.). Pasific Grove, California: Books/Cole

Freud, A. (2000). *The ego and the mechanisms of defence* (C. Baines, Trans.). Madison: International Universities Press, Inc. (Original translation published 1937). Gadamer, H. G. (1989). *Truth and method* (2th. rev. ed.). (J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall,

Giorgi, A. (1985). Sketch of a psychological phenomenological method. In A. Giorgi (ed.),

Hellevik, O. (1996). *Nordmenn og det gode liv: Norsk monitor 1985–1995* [Norwegians and the good life: Norwegian monitor 1985-1995*]*. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

*Phenomenology and psychological research*. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University

materialism. *Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 6*, 403–414.

Blumer, H. (1969). *Symbolic interactionism*. New York: Prentice-Hall.

*society*. Buchingham: Open University Press.

Haworth, L. (1986). *Autonomy*. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Braybrooke, D. (1987). *Meeting needs*. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

responses.

**6. References** 

Press.

Press.

Press.

Routledge Falmer.

Publishing Company.

Trans.). New York: Crossroads.

University Press.

University of Nebraska Press.


**Competition and Negotiation** 

Øyen, E., Miller, S. M. & Samad, A. A. (1996). *Poverty. A global review. Handbook on international poverty research*. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. **Part 3** 
