Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. Understanding the Linkages Between Precarious Working Conditions, Financial Security and Financial Wellbeing A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Psychology at Massey University, Albany, New Zealand. Sacha Louisa Welch 2025 1 Abstract Precarious Working Conditions, characterised by their insecure and unstable nature, have consistently been found to negatively impact one’s Wellbeing. However, their relationship to Financial Wellbeing remains unexplored. This study developed a model which explored the links between Objective and Subjective Working Conditions, Financial Security and Financial Wellbeing within an Aotearoa New Zealand context. Participants (N = 90) completed an online questionnaire assessing each construct. Based on the emerging nature of Financial Wellbeing research, an Exploratory Factor Analysis was conducted on existing measures. This identified two distinct factors: Making Ends Meet and Comfort. Path analyses using linear and non-linear regression revealed that Financial Security fully mediated the link to Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’ and partially mediated the link between Subjective Working Conditions and Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’. The findings extend upon the growing literature on employment precarity and financial vulnerability. They demonstrate that the perceived inadequacy of financial resources from one’s employment significantly undermines an individual's sense of Financial Security. This constrains both their capacity to meet immediate and ongoing financial obligations and their capacity to plan. The results offer timely insights into the financial consequences of Precarious Work, with implications for labour policy in increasingly volatile employment landscapes. 2 Acknowledgements I want to begin by expressing my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Stuart Carr. Your unwavering guidance, patience, and support have been instrumental in helping me achieve this milestone, which I once doubted was possible. I am incredibly grateful for your insight and expertise on such a relevant and meaningful topic. To my partner James, thank you for standing by me through this longer-than- expected journey to completing my Master's. Your patience, support, and countless sacrifices have meant the world to me, and I am endlessly grateful. I cannot wait for our little family to grow in this next chapter of our lives, with the arrival of our first child in November. To my parents, Jane and Gordon, thank you for your ongoing encouragement and support, not only through my Master’s but across my entire academic journey. Your kindness, generosity and understanding have helped carry me through more moments than I can count. I am deeply grateful and fortunate to have parents like you in my life. I want to thank my brothers, Liam and Joe, and Joe’s partner, Kathryn, for their steady support and encouragement. I am equally grateful to my partner’s family for the love and care they have shown me throughout this process. 3 Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... 2 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 6 List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................. 8 Chapter 1 – Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 9 Critical Literature Review .................................................................................................................... 10 Financial Wellbeing ........................................................................................................................... 10 Working Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 11 Objective Working Conditions and Precarious Work .......................................................... 12 Objective Working Conditions of Precarious Work and Financial Wellbeing ............ 17 Subjective Working Conditions ..................................................................................................... 18 Subjective Working Conditions and Precarious Work ......................................................... 19 Subjective Working Conditions of Precarious Work and Financial Wellbeing .......... 22 Financial Security ............................................................................................................................... 24 Linking Precarious Working Conditions and Financial Security ..................................... 27 Financial Security and Financial Wellbeing ............................................................................. 30 Chapter 2 - Method ................................................................................................................................... 34 Participants................................................................................................................................................ 34 Measures ..................................................................................................................................................... 34 Financial Wellbeing ........................................................................................................................... 35 Objective Working Conditions....................................................................................................... 36 Subjective Working Conditions ..................................................................................................... 36 Financial Security ............................................................................................................................... 37 Procedure ................................................................................................................................................... 38 Chapter 3 - Results .................................................................................................................................... 39 Data Clean .................................................................................................................................................. 39 4 Data Reduction ......................................................................................................................................... 39 Kempson and Poppe’s (2018) Financial Wellbeing Measure ............................................ 40 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Financial Wellbeing Measure ......................... 41 Seubert, Hopftgartner & Glaser Subjective Experience of Work-Related Precariousness (SEWP). ................................................................................................................... 44 Rhode et al. (2015) Financial Security Measure. .................................................................... 45 Correlation ................................................................................................................................................. 46 Financial Wellbeing ........................................................................................................................... 48 Objective Working Conditions....................................................................................................... 49 Subjective Working Conditions ..................................................................................................... 49 Financial Security ............................................................................................................................... 49 Regression .................................................................................................................................................. 50 Linear Regression ................................................................................................................................... 50 Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’ as the Criterion, Testing for Mediation ......................... 51 Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’ as the Criterion, Testing for Mediation .... 54 Moderation Testing ................................................................................................................................ 56 Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’ – Linear Regression: Moderation .................................... 56 Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’ – Linear Regression: Moderation ............... 58 Non-Linear Regression ......................................................................................................................... 60 Salary as the Predictor, SEWP Factor of Reproductive Materials as the Criterion ... 61 Hourly Rate as the Predictor, SEWP as the Criterion ........................................................... 63 Path Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 64 Remaining Links ...................................................................................................................................... 64 Chapter 4 – Discussion............................................................................................................................ 66 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................................. 66 Explanation of Findings ........................................................................................................................ 67 Subjective Working Conditions ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ and the Link to Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’ ....................................................................................................... 68 Financial Security Partially Mediating the Link Between Subjective Working Conditions ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’ ............. 69 Subjective Working Conditions ‘Reproductive Material’ and the Link to Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’   ......................................................................................................................... 70 5 Financial Security Partially Mediating the Link Between Subjective Working Conditions ‘Reproductive Materials’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’ ..................... 71 Financial Security Fully Mediating the Link Between Subjective Working Conditions ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’................ 72 Financial Security Fully Mediating the Link Between Subjective Working Conditions ‘Reproductive Materials’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’ ....................... 73 Limitations ................................................................................................................................................. 74 Implications and Future Research .................................................................................................... 75 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 78 References ..................................................................................................................................................... 80 Appendix A .................................................................................................................................................... 98 Appendix B ................................................................................................................................................. 122 Appendix C ................................................................................................................................................. 123 6 List of Figures Figure 1. Potential Links Between Core Constructs ..................................................................... 13 Figure 2 The Mediating Link of Financial Security for Subjective Working Conditions Factor ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’. ............................... 52 Figure 3 The Mediating Link of Financial Security for Subjective Working Conditions Factor ‘Reproductive Materials’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’. ...................................... 53 Figure 4 The Mediating Link of Financial Security for Subjective Working Conditions Factor ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’. .......... 54 Figure 5 The Mediating Link of Financial Security for Subjective Working Conditions Factor ‘Reproductive Materials’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’. .................. 55 Figure 6. The Moderating Link by Financial Security of the Link Between Subjective Working Condition Factor ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’. ......................................................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 7 The Moderating Link of Financial Security on the Link Between Subjective Working Condition Factor ‘Reproductive Materials’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’. ............................................................................................................................................................................. 57 Figure 8 The Moderating Link of Financial Security on the Link Between Subjective Working Condition Factor ‘Reproductive Materials’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’. ...................................................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 9. The Moderating Link of Financial Security on the Link Between Subjective Working Condition Factor ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’. ...................................................................................................................................................... 59 7 Figure 11 Quadratic Function Distribution for Salary and SEWP ‘Reproductive Materials’. ........................................................................................................................................................ 62 Figure 12 A LOESS Curve Function Fit with a Tension Parameter of 50% for Salary and SEWP ‘Reproductive Materials’. ............................................................................................................. 63 Figure 13 A Kite Diagram Depicting the Remaining Links Between the Key Constructs from the Initial Model in Figure 1. ......................................................................................................... 65 Figure 10 Distributions of Hourly Rate and Salary within the Current Sample............. 123 8 List of Tables Table 1 Factor Solution for Kempson and Poppe’s (2018) Financial Wellbeing Measure ............................................................................................................................................................................. 42 Table 2 Factor Solution for the Combined Financial Wellbeing Measures ......................... 43 Table 3 Factor Solutions for the Subjective Experiences of Work-Related Precariousness Measure (SEWP)........................................................................................................... 45 Table 4 Spearman’s Rho Correlation Matrix for Variables in Figure 1 ................................. 47 9 Chapter 1 – Introduction Since the advent of the Washington Consensus which gave birth to a neoliberal work agenda in the 1980s, labour market policies have arguably been shifting in a way that has made working conditions less and less decent for most workers (van der Hoeven, 2000). With this shift in the labour market, accessing stable and secure employment has become increasingly difficult for most people (Allan et al., 2021). Many employers adopt a dual labour market approach, under which core employees are permanently employed (Seo, 2021). However, the remainder of employees are hired under ‘flexible work contracts’, otherwise identified as non-permanent, cheap, and easily disposable labour. Poor working conditions like these, including for example irregular hours and poor pay, are often incurred at the expense of employee Wellbeing (International Labour Organization (ILO), 2011). One such aspect of Wellbeing that has come into sharp relief recently, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, is Financial Wellbeing. Relatively unexplored as a research topic, this thesis explores potential links between objective work conditions, their subjective interpretation, their links with overall sense of Financial Security, and the ways in which all of the above link to Financial Wellbeing. A theoretical model which has been developed for this thesis can be seen in Figure 1. The criterion variable is Financial Wellbeing and is a relatively new construct in the research literature. In everyday life, it is akin to feeling free from money worries, after appraising one’s resources and means (Financial Security and Subjective Work Conditions). Due to the events of the COVID-19 pandemic, finding and conducting new research within this area has become increasingly relevant. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic had a substantial effect on the global economy and its labour markets, with an 10 increase in the number of financial shocks one experienced, including businesses shutting down and sudden losses (Naseer et al., 2023; Olufadewa et al., 2021). Hence, the model in Figure 1 is both tentative and exploratory in understanding how such variables of Objective Work Conditions, Subjective Work Conditions and Financial Security may be linked to Financial Wellbeing; a critical analysis of the current literature and research will now be conducted. Critical Literature Review Financial Wellbeing The focal construct of Financial Wellbeing, as seen in Figure 1, is a domain of general Wellbeing which encompasses happiness, comfort, and satisfaction with one’s financial circumstances (Vlaev & Elliot, 2014). It is focally associated with an individual’s self-appraised feelings of freedom from financial worry or stress (Salignac et al., 2020). In that sense, according to Sabri et al. (2019), Financial Wellbeing entails one’s felt ability to (a) meet ongoing financial commitments, (b) maintain a sense of Financial Security to ensure resilience for the future, and to (c) make free choices which bring enjoyment to everyday life. An illustrative study which identifies the importance of Financial Wellbeing (as seen in Figure 1) for general subjective Wellbeing was conducted by Vlaev and Elliot (2014). In their UK-based study, Financial Wellbeing outcomes were driven by an overall “sense of financial control” of one’s money. Additionally, Financial Wellbeing outcomes “financial satisfaction” were linked to experiencing a decent “quality of life” (Vlaev & Elliot, 2014). However, little research has been conducted on the predictors of Financial Wellbeing, especially so in the context of employment. Thus, the construct of 11 Financial Wellbeing has been incorporated into the model in Figure 1, with potential predictors that include conditions of work. Working Conditions Working conditions are representative of the contractual and environmental demands and characteristics of one’s employment (Fried & Ferris, 1987). Research has consistently shown that working conditions are significantly linked to an employee's personal and work-based outcomes (Wall et al., 1978). For example, through interviews and survey responses, Ravalier et al. (2020) found employee Wellbeing for UK-based social workers was much lower when exposed to poor working conditions. The poor conditions were linked to high work demands (e.g., long hours and dealing with verbally abusive clients), low levels of control, little to no change of working conditions, negative managerial relationships, and limited peer support. The findings from this study reinforce previous findings of poor working conditions negatively impacting employee Wellbeing (Allan et al., 2021). However, few studies have assessed the link between working conditions and Wellbeing in the context of income. In particular, how these components link to the recent construct of Financial Wellbeing. With the continual shift in labour-market flexibility and the associated policy changes, we see an increase in non-standard working arrangements (e.g., part-time, fixed-term, contractor) (Kalleberg & Vallas, 2018). This form of employment is frequently referred to as ‘Precarious Work’. It is operationalised as (a) insecurity in the continuity of work (job insecurity), (b) limited control and power within the workplace, (c) economic insecurity through limited income or limited access to benefits, and (d) reduced social protections and rights (Allan et al., 2021; Kalleberg, 2009). Though Precarious Work has emerged as an impactful employment arrangement that broadly 12 affects employee Wellbeing, further investigation is required to understand its link to Financial Wellbeing outcomes and address its unique challenges. Accordingly, the current model (Figure 1) has incorporated Objective and Subjective Working Conditions, specifically capturing the working conditions of those under Precarious Work contracts (any form of non-permanent full-time work). Objective Working Conditions and Precarious Work Objective Working Conditions refers to the factual, quantifiable, and unbiased conditions of one’s employment circumstances (Eurofound & ILO, 2019). These are commonly represented by the contract-based components and characteristics of one’s employment, e.g., contract type, place of work (environment), work hours and income level (Kalleberg, 2009). Recent policy regulation changes and business cost-cutting methods have led to an increase in Precarious Work (Burgess & Campbell, 1998). Though the shift in employment standards has benefited employers, there are significant consequences for the employees (Quinlan & Mayhew, 1999). There was a shift in employment legislation towards non-standard employment contracts to improve the unemployment rates in the decades following the Second World War (Brady, 2019). Utilising data from the Statistics Bureau, Management and Coordination Agency in Japan, Osawa et al. (2013) found, in comparison to those in permanent employment, Precarious Work contracts (e.g., part-time, casual) were exposed to limited wages, fewer social protections (including an inability to apply for employment insurance) and reduced political safeguards, making employees more vulnerable to sudden dismissal and or income loss. Although Precarious Work was introduced to circumnavigate the previously high unemployment rates, the evidence suggests it has resulted in significant consequences for the employees and the 13 Figure 1. Potential Links Between Core Constructs Note. Potential links between the core constructs of Objective Working Conditions, Subjective Working Conditions, Financial Security, and Financial Wellbeing. 14 working conditions they experience. To explore the role of poorer working conditions associated with Precarious Work as an antecedent to individual outcomes and to bridge the gap in understanding their link to Financial Wellbeing, I have indirectly linked Objective Working Conditions to Financial Wellbeing within Figure 1. The shift in employment legislation towards Precarious Work contracts has resulted in significant consequences for employees' Psychological Wellbeing (Jaramillo et al., 2022). This is supported by the findings from the study by Lopez et al. (2021). They assessed Objective Working Conditions within Precarious Work (job security, wages, social security benefits, and working schedules) and their link to Psychological Wellbeing (anxiety and depression) in Chile (N = 1,900). Their analysis utilised central tendency and dispersion indicators in combination with bivariate ANOVA. Their findings indicate that for every one-unit increase in each Precarious Working Conditions subscale, there was a 14% increase in symptoms of anxiety/depression and a 35% increase in the overall precariousness scale. Though many studies have explored the link between Precarious Working Conditions and Psychological Wellbeing, relatively few have assessed these conditions in the context of Financial Wellbeing. Thus, to understand further the influence of Precarious Working Conditions on Wellbeing outcomes, an indirect link has been placed between Objective Working Conditions and Financial Wellbeing, as seen in Figure 1. Labour governments have argued that the shift in employment legislation towards Precarious Work increases employment flexibility, with employees having greater control over their working schedules (Hayman, 2009). However, a review of Precarious Work research within Australia found that employees under Precarious Work contracts (e.g., casual and part-time) often experienced increased variability of 15 hours worked and lacked control over their working schedules (Bohle, 2016). Bohle (2016) suggests that variability and lack of control over hours worked may place financial pressure on employees due to an inability to source adequate income. Thus, employees may experience difficulty in meeting ongoing financial commitments. As a component of Financial Wellbeing, I seek to understand whether one’s ability to meet ongoing financial commitments (e.g., regular bills) is altered by Precarious Working Conditions. Therefore, a focus has been placed on the Objective Working Conditions of Precarious Work and their indirect link to Financial Wellbeing (Figure 1). The ‘increased flexibility’ of employment and contract types due to the shift in employment legislation has allowed for the creation of various new roles (e.g., casual employee, contractor), with employers able to increase and reduce their workforce when needed (Rubery et al., 2016). Verick (2009) assessed employment during the financial crises in Spain, Norway, Finland, Sweden and Japan from 1977-1991. Compared to those aged 25-54 years, young men and women <24 years reported higher unemployment rates during an economic crisis. This was linked to the increased rate of employment under a Precarious Work contract (i.e., contractor, part-time, fixed term, casual etc.) within this age group. Those within permanent employment saw significantly lower unemployment rates during a financial crisis. Suggesting that those subjected to a Precarious Work contract are more likely to experience uncertainty around their employment and income continuity in a time of crisis. Hence, I will specifically assess the Objective Working Conditions of Precarious Work contracts (Objective Working Conditions in Figure 1) and their link to Financial Wellbeing outcomes. 16 As with a lack of control over working hours, Precarious Work often exposes employees to lower wages than those within permanent employment (Kalleberg, 2000). Laß and Wooden (2019) used data from the Australian Household, Income and Labour Dynamics Survey (HILDA), sampling 151,502 responses. Explanatory factors (e.g., weekly work hours, hourly wage, secondary employment, etc.) were used to identify potential income disadvantages, and a Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition was used to quantify the results. Not surprisingly perhaps, there were significant income gaps for casual workers (AUD $11,643), temporary agency workers (AUD $6,51) and fixed-term workers (AUD $1,378) compared to those in permanent employment, where income levels were higher. An assessment of how income levels associated with Precarious Work link to Financial Wellbeing will be incorporated into the current study through Objective Working Conditions (Figure 1). The New Zealand Court of Appeal's decision in Rasier Operations BV v E tū Inc [2024] highlights significant findings regarding Precarious Working Conditions within the gig economy. Under the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA), the court determined that Uber drivers are employees rather than independent contractors, as Uber defines them. This case emphasised the high level of control Uber exercised over its drivers, including unilateral control over contract terms and the inability of drivers to establish their own business goodwill, work quantity, and revenue. This decision underscores the nature of the gig economy, where workers lack control and security over their working conditions. Consequently, it reinforces precarious employees' vulnerability and lack of legal protection. It emphasises the need for further research into the employment conditions associated with Precarious Work contracts and employee outcomes. Thus, I have focused on the link between Precarious Working 17 Conditions through Objective Working Conditions and Financial Wellbeing within the current study (Figure 1). Objective Working Conditions of Precarious Work and Financial Wellbeing With the immature state of the Financial Wellbeing construct, there are few studies which have assessed its link to Precarious Working Conditions. An early study on Financial Wellbeing was conducted by Buchler et al. (2009). Using data from wave 1 (2001) of the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Buchler et al. (2009) assessed the difference in Financial Wellbeing outcomes for those in casual employment and permanent employment (N = 6,020). Using logistic regression, Buchler et al. (2009) found that those within casual employment were 1.51 times more likely to experience an inability to pay bills on time than those in permanent employment. Casual employees were also more likely to seek alternative sources of financial aid to assist with paying bills on time. Using Multiple Linear regression, casual employees were more likely to report experiencing financial difficulty making ends meet (r = .22, p<.001) compared to permanent employees (r = .02, p>.05). Casual employees also reported a lower level of financial satisfaction (r = -.60, p<.001) compared to those in permanent employment (r = .08, p>.05). This study indicates there is a significant reduction in Financial Wellbeing factors for those in casual employment, compared to those in permanent employment. However, Buchler et al. (2009) did not evaluate whether alternative conditions, besides contract type, impacted the link to Financial Wellbeing. Thus, to further understand the impact of Precarious Working Conditions, Figure 1 posits an indirect link between Objective Working Conditions of Precarious Work and Financial Wellbeing within the current model (Figure 1). 18 The limited employment security and control over work schedules associated with Precarious Work can sometimes lead to sudden job loss and/or income loss (Allan et al., 2021). Focusing particularly on a time of global crises, a cross-sectional study by Botha et al. (2021) assessed sudden income loss’ effects on Financial Wellbeing during the Covid-19 pandemic. They assessed income through labour market shocks and Financial Wellbeing for 2,078 Australian residents. The online survey found those who experienced labour market shocks, such as a reduction in salary/wages and hours worked, reported significantly reduced levels of Financial Wellbeing. However, this study was conducted in the Australian context, and little focus was placed on everyday employment factors that could influence wages and perceptions of employment conditions (e.g., employment security). Hence, Figure 1 posits for empirical exploration, a potential link between Objective Working Conditions, Subjective Working Conditions and Financial Wellbeing, in Aotearoa New Zealand, as the country emerges from the pandemic. Though Objective Working Conditions provide factual and quantifiable information about employment circumstances, employment literature suggests that objective components are rather ambiguous in their ability to explain employee outcomes (Helbling & Kanji, 2018). Thus, Objective Working Conditions were linked to Financial Wellbeing through Subjective Working Conditions (Figure 1). Subjective Working Conditions Unlike Objective measures, Subjective measures encompass and are influenced by an individual’s experiences, perspectives, values and viewpoints (Dolan et al., 2017; Muckler & Seven, 1992). As Seubert et al. (2021) have argued, Wellbeing is first and foremost a subjective state or set of states; and one’s appraisal of Objective Working 19 Conditions are too. However, few studies have examined the link between Subjective Working Conditions and Financial Wellbeing. Linking Objective Working Conditions and Subjective Working Conditions Employee outcomes may be better explained by subjective perceptions of one’s Objective Working Conditions (De Witte & Näswall, 2003). A recent study on the Job Demands and Resources model by Li et al. (2022) assessed the link between Objective and Subjective (perceived) employment characteristics for an Australian sample of N = 2,049 across 97 jobs. Using multilevel modelling with lagged and multisource data, Subjective (perceived) Working Conditions mediated the link between Objective Working Conditions and employee outcomes (exhaustion, physical health and work engagement). Subjective perspectives consider an individual’s life circumstances, more accurately, representing the effects of Objective Working Conditions. Based on the current assumptions, a more proximal link was placed between Subjective Working Conditions and Financial Wellbeing in Figure 1 than Objective Working Conditions. Subjective Working Conditions and Precarious Work Prior research suggests working conditions associated with Precarious Work are linked to Psychological Wellbeing outcomes (Robone et al., 2011). The study by Vives et al. (2013) assessed individuals from Spain in Precarious Work (temporary contracts) and their mental health (N = 5,679). Data was captured using the Employment Precariousness Scale (subjective and objective factors) and the 5-item Mental Health scale (MH), which assesses feelings of anxiety, Psychological Wellbeing and depression. Their multivariate regression found that higher levels of Precarious Working Conditions (low wages, instability, vulnerability, reduced rights, etc.) were linked to a greater prevalence of poor mental health. Suggesting that in some instances, a link exists 20 between the conditions of Precarious Work and Wellbeing outcomes. However, few studies have extended their assessment of experiences of Precarious Work to Financial Wellbeing. To close this gap, we focus on individuals’ perceptions of Precarious Working Conditions through Subjective Working Conditions and their link to Financial Wellbeing (Figure 1). Focusing on specific aspects of Precarious Work, research on economic scarcity suggests that those in low-wage employment are at an increased risk of experiencing financial deprivation, worry, and stress due to a lack of financial resources (Meuris & Leana, 2015). Yao et al. (2017) assessed perceived wage effectiveness in a Aotearoa New Zealand context (N = 606), collecting qualitative data through online surveys. At the time of this study (2014), individuals who earned low wages (less than the living wage of $18.08NZD an hour) were more likely to report having trouble meeting their basic needs (e.g., rent, mortgage repayments, fuel) and/or saving for the future. Additionally, low wages negatively impacted individuals’ sense of security, quality of living, and Psychological Wellbeing (stress and worry). Those who perceived they were earning a fair or decent wage reported they could meet their basic needs and had an increased sense of financial freedom and choice. However, few studies have assessed how these conditions link to the construct of Financial Wellbeing. In a time of high inflation and a cost-of-living crisis (Broadbent et al., 2023; Müller, 2023), we must understand how the perceptions of low wages and Precarious Working Conditions link to Wellbeing outcomes, particularly, Financial Wellbeing. Hence, the links presented in my model (Figure 1). Alongside reduced wages, the unpredictable nature of Precarious Work can make it challenging to plan for future expenses, save for long-term goals, or manage 21 unexpected financial obligations (Lei & Mai, 2024). Chesters and Cuervo (2019) explored how young adults (ages 26-29) perceive Precarious Working Conditions and their impact on financial planning. Quantitative and qualitative data were obtained through surveys from the Life Patterns project in Australia (N = 520). The qualitative responses indicated that those in Precarious Work experienced increased feelings of job insecurity (job continuity), difficulty with financial planning, and an inability to plan for the future (e.g., buying a house or supporting their families). Their assessment further identified Precarious Work was linked to increased feelings of financial worry and stress (e.g., the ability to pay unexpected bills and commit to personal and/or home loans). Building upon these findings, I posit a direct link between Subjective Working Conditions and Financial Wellbeing as illustrated within my model (Figure 1). It is widely acknowledged in the literature that the uncertainty inherent in Precarious Work is associated with increased rates of job insecurity and fear of job loss, compared to those in permanent positions (Gunn et al., 2021). Wilson et al. (2020) sought to understand the links between subjective job insecurity (fear of job continuity/job loss), financial concerns, and mental health (anxiety) from a sample of N = 474 employed U.S. residents during the COVID-19 outbreak. Their results suggest job insecurity is directly related to mental health, in particular, anxiety. An indirect pathway was found, with financial concerns (indicating financial situations were likely to worsen within the next 12 months) partially mediating the link between job insecurity and mental health (anxiety). These findings identify an essential relationship between job insecurity and financial concerns, though this study is limited by its lack of measures for the construct of financial concern. To clarify why this link may occur, I have incorporated a more comprehensive construct of financial worry into my model (Figure 22 1), Financial Wellbeing, with a direct link from Subjective Working Conditions of Precarious Work. A core component of employment-related insecurity stems from one’s ability to obtain a secure and stable income, as identified in the qualitative study by Bosmans et al. (2023). They conducted (N = 250) interviews in 2021 with workers in non-standard employment (not working full time or having a permanent contract) from Belgium, Chile, Spain, Sweden and the US. Employment precariousness was assessed using the Employment Precarity Index (EPI) and the Employment Precariousness Scale (EPRES), focusing on employment insecurity, income inadequacy and a lack of employment rights and protections. Their findings indicate that despite significant differences in each country's welfare states, similar themes emerged from the narratives. Perceptions of insecurity with the continuity of employment, Financial Security due to inadequate wages, and insecurity due to unpredictable working schedules were common themes that emerged from the interviews. Feelings of anxiety towards income continuity and little power to negotiate terms due to income insecurity were mentioned throughout the interviews. These findings indicate that non-standard or Precarious Work employees are likely to experience income and job insecurity. However, little is understood about the specific conditions which elicit feelings of insecurity in Precarious Work and whether they are linked to Financial Wellbeing outcomes. To address this gap in the literature, a link has been placed between Subjective Working Conditions for Precarious Work and Financial Wellbeing in Figure 1. Subjective Working Conditions of Precarious Work and Financial Wellbeing One’s income and perceived satisfaction with their financial circumstances are key determinants of Financial Wellbeing (Mahdzan et al., 2019). Those who perceive 23 they cannot ascertain adequate and/or stable financial resources from employment are more likely to experience negative feelings such as financial stress, anxiety, and fear (Rodrigues et al., 2023). Research has shown those in Precarious Work are in a more volatile position and more likely to experience material hardship due to income fluctuations, compared to those who have a steady and stable income (Schneider & Harknett, 2017). At the time of this study, there has not been an investigation into the perceptions of Precarious Working Conditions and how they are linked to Financial Wellbeing outcomes. Hence, the direct link presented between these two components within my model (Figure 1). Though few studies have assessed how the perceptions of Precarious Work conditions are linked to Financial Wellbeing outcomes, a study by To et al. (2020) did assess the link between perceived job security and personal Financial Wellbeing for service workers within China (N = 334). Using structural equation modelling on survey response data, To et al. (2020) found perceived job security was negatively and significantly linked to personal Financial Wellbeing. With those who felt insecure within their current role or within their employment sector reporting a lower level of Financial Wellbeing. These findings align with the existing literature which suggest those with limited financial resources are more likely to experience an increased level of financial stress and worry about their financial circumstances (Friedline et al., 2021). However, this research does not bridge the gap within the literature on how types of employment can influence Financial Wellbeing. Thus, I have focused on the everyday components of a particularly insecure form of employment, Precarious Work, and its link to Financial Wellbeing within my model (Figure 1). 24 Research on Precarious Work has consistently identified links between Precarious Working Conditions and health-related and Wellbeing outcomes (Gunn et al., 2021). However, few studies have assessed the link between Precarious Working Conditions and social outcomes, particularly an individual’s financial standing. Utilising data from Sweden (N = 401), Matilla-Santander et al. (2022) assessed the link between Precarious Employment Relations and Social Precarity (risk of social exclusion through living conditions (i.e. financial resources and financial constraints) and working life (i.e. job security) through generalised linear models and quartile analysis of Employment Precariousness Scale (EPRES-Se) scores. Their analysis found that as EPRES-Se scores increased, so did the outcome of living conditions. Those who reported an increased rate of Precarious Working Conditions were more likely to experience difficulty meeting regular expenses and an inability to afford social activities. The findings from the study by Matilla-Santander et al. (2022) suggest there may be a link between Precarious Working Conditions and components of Financial Wellbeing, as previously defined. I will expand upon these findings by directly linking Subjective Working Conditions of Precarious Work and Financial Wellbeing within my model (Figure 1). Financial Security Osberg (1998, p. 23) defines Financial Security as “the anxiety produced by a lack of economic safety, i.e. by an inability to obtain protection against subjectively significant potential economic losses”. Financial Security is a multifaceted construct (Bossert & D’Ambrosio, 2013) relating to an individual's or household's current and future financial circumstances and or status (Lee & Kim, 2016). It is characterised by the awareness of financial resources one can access, e.g., savings, credit cards and other personal loans (Corman et al., 2012). It is also linked to one’s ability to cope with and or 25 financially recover from adverse events (Jacobs, 2007). A formal definition has not yet been developed. However, the literature may be converging on summarising Financial Security as the certainty of material or monetary conditions that alter one’s sense of economic safety (Hacker et al., 2010; Stiglitz et al., 2009). Financial Security is a basic psychological need which influences subjective Wellbeing, as demonstrated in the study by Weinstein and Stone (2018). They assessed the link between Financial Security, Psychological Need Satisfaction and Wellbeing in a UK sample from the market research agency Harris Interactive (N = 2,079). Using regression analysis, Weinstein and Stone (2018) found Financial Security was both directly and indirectly (through psychological need satisfaction) linked to Wellbeing outcomes. Financial Security accounted for lower Wellbeing and Psychological Need Satisfaction. The study by Weinstein and Stone (2018) highlights the importance of Financial Security for Psychological Need Satisfaction and Wellbeing. However, the antecedents of the link between Financial Security and Financial Wellbeing remain unclear. Individuals continue to face job insecurity and uncertainty (Kalleberg, 2009). Therefore, it is essential to investigate how these employment conditions affect one’s perceived Financial Security and overall Financial Wellbeing. Hence, Financial Security will be tested as a mediating variable between Subjective Working Conditions of Precarious Work and Financial Wellbeing (Figure 1). Perceptions of receiving adequate financial resources, including wages, significantly influence one’s ability to meet one’s economic needs (Meuris & Leana, 2015). This is particularly true for those who are exposed to low wages, who often feel they are unable to maintain financial stability and comfort. Kendall et al. (2019) examined the relationship between Financial Security and the factors of income (annual 26 household disposable income) and wealth (total value of assets minus total debt). Data was obtained from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Studies (HILDA); 2002, 2006 and 2010. Income and wealth were both linked to perceptions of Financial Security. However, income was found to better explain perceptions of Financial Security, with higher income linked to increased Financial Security. Based on the findings of this study, I have incorporated wages as income within this study's model (Figure 1), represented as Objective Working Conditions. I specifically examine the interaction within the context of Precarious Working Conditions, a type of employment often linked to low wages (Vanroelen et al., 2021). Wages are a significant financial resource for households as they constitute the primary source of income for many families, with higher-income households having a greater level of financial resources and buffers compared to low-income households (Friedline et al., 2021). Munyon et al. (2020) assessed the link between household income and perceptions of Financial Security across two studies (Study 1 consisted of business students N = 254, Study 2 consisted of real estate agents, N = 71). Through multilevel analysis and correlation assessments, Munyon et al. (2020) found that family income was positively linked to Financial Security. Higher levels of income correlated with higher levels of perceived Financial Security. However, research has not yet assessed perceptions of income as wages in the context of Precarious Work (e.g., low- wage conditions) and the link to Financial Security. Thus, a direct link has been placed between Subjective Working Conditions of Precarious Work and Financial Security within the current study's model (Figure 1). 27 Linking Precarious Working Conditions and Financial Security Labour market precarisation has led to a rise in low-wage work, resulting in an increase in the number of low-income households (Trlifajová & Hurrle, 2019). Lee and Kim (2016) assessed Financial Security of Low-Income households in the United States, using data from the 20120 Survey of Consumer Finances (N = 2,433). They selected households with incomes no greater than 3 times the 2009 poverty threshold to focus on the influence of poverty and low income. They focused on liquid (monetary) assets (savings, income flow), debt-to-income ratios and solvency ratios (debt burden in relation to liquid assets). Through logistic regression and multivariate analysis, Lee and Kim (2016) found that as poverty levels increased, the debt-to-income ratio and solvency ratios increased, with households in the lowest poverty level less likely to meet the liquidity ratio thresholds. The ability to meet the thresholds increased as income levels increased. These findings suggest that lower wages place additional financial pressure on households and decrease their level of Financial Security. However, this study focused on the objective conditions of one’s financial circumstances rather than perceptions of their financial circumstances. In addition, this study did not identify the forms of employment held by the individuals within the household. Therefore, I have focused on Precarious Working Conditions (low-wage work) and wages in my model (Figure 1) to determine if this form of employment is more likely to be associated with a decreased perception of Financial Security. Expanding on the role of income, the irregular working schedules associated with Precarious Working Conditions can interfere with one's ability to ascertain a stable and secure income (Golden, 2015). Using data from the General Social Survey in the U.S. (N = 3,564), Lambert et al. (2019) assessed Precarious Work schedules for low to 28 moderate-income groups and the link to Financial Security. Those with fluctuating and inconsistent hours (hourly-based pay) reported significantly lower Financial Security levels than those paid via salary. Individuals working more than 45 hours per week reported higher levels of Financial Security compared to those working fewer hours. Within the current study, I seek to understand what types of employment contracts create these conditions and how they link to one’s perceptions of Financial Security. Accordingly, conditions of employment related to Precarious Work contracts and their link to Financial Security have been incorporated into the current model (Figure 1). While changes in employment legislation have created a more flexible workforce, Precarious Work increases workers’ vulnerability to job insecurity, which can heighten perceptions of financial threat regarding income continuity (Oddo et al., 2021). Alcover et al. (2022) assessed the interaction between perceived job security (Job Insecurity Scale) and perceived financial threat (Financial Threat Scale) using an online survey in Chile (N = 592). The bivariate Pearson correlation indicated perceived job insecurity was significantly positively correlated with perceived financial threat (r = .576, p <.01), indicating that those who reported a high level of job insecurity are likely to report a higher level of financial threat. However, what is not yet understood is how the perceived threat of income loss due to job insecurity links to the construct of Financial Security. Hence, I have placed a direct link between Subjective Working Conditions of Precarious Work and Financial Security within my model (Figure 1). The insecure nature and low wage conditions associated with Precarious Work can place employees in financially vulnerable positions and generate feelings of uncertainty and insecurity (Gutiérrez-Barbarrusa, 2016). Narisada and Schieman (2016) assessed whether perceived job security and Financial Security would moderate 29 the link between perceived underpayment and job dissatisfaction. Narisada and Schieman (2016) assessed public sector and private sector workers from the U.S. using survey data from the 2005 Work, Stress and Health Study (N = 1,498). Through logistic regression and multivariate analysis, job security and Financial Security were found to moderate the link between being underpaid at work and job dissatisfaction. Those with greater Financial Security and job security reported they were less dissatisfied with their job. While this study identifies a significant relationship between working conditions, Financial Security, and individual outcomes, Narisada and Schieman’s (2016) assessment relied heavily on Financial Wellbeing measures to assess Financial Security. In the current study, I aim to disentangle the construct of Financial Security and Financial Wellbeing. I will explore these constructs within the context of perceptions of employment conditions in Precarious Work, using Subjective Working Conditions, as illustrated in my model (Figure 1). Numerous studies have explored the relationship between job security, Financial Security, and employee Wellbeing, offering valuable insights into individual outcomes within the context of Precarious Work. Using data from the 2001 – 2008 HILDA survey, Green and Leeves (2013) assessed the links between job security, Financial Security, and employee Wellbeing for men within Australia (N = 17,621). Utilising structural equation modelling, they identified that a lack of job security was more prominent among those in casual employment. Casual employment was also negatively linked to employees’ perceptions of Financial Security. However, this study only focused on two measures for Financial Security: “how often do you pay off monthly credit card balances” and “how often they seek financial support from friends/family?” (Green & Leeves, 2013, p.134). The questions used in the study by Green and Leeves (2013) were unlikely to accurately capture perceptions of Financial Security, as they focused on 30 quantitative aspects of financial behaviours rather than individuals’ perceptions of their current financial situation. Additionally, the study only examined job security in terms of the likelihood of losing or quitting one’s job within the next 12 months. There remains a gap in the literature regarding the connection between employment conditions in Precarious Work and perceived Financial Security. To address this gap (see model in Figure 1), I employ more accurate and comprehensive measures to capture Precarious Working Conditions and perceived Financial Security. The shift in labour market structures towards a highly adaptable workforce has led to an increase in Precarious Work contracts, which offer fewer legal and social protections (Tompa et al., 2007). This is particularly true for those in developing countries where flagship social assistance programmes are being introduced in an attempt to counteract the consequences of Precarious Working Conditions (Harris and Scully, 2015) Joyce et al. (2019) assessed European platform workers (on-demand online work), exploring the interaction between working conditions and social protections. Findings indicate platform workers within Europe experienced limited access to social protections and reduced worker rights. Of the respondents, 76% indicated there were no protections for housing, and between 68% and 82% of platform-dependent workers did not have access to social protections such as sickness insurance/ leave, housing benefits, maternity leave, and protection for unemployment. However, what is not yet understood is how the conditions associated with Precarious Work contracts link to perceptions of Financial Security. Thus, a direct link has been placed between Subjective Working Conditions within Precarious Work and Financial Security within the current model (Figure 1). Financial Security and Financial Wellbeing One challenge within the Financial Security literature is its entanglement with the construct of Financial Wellbeing. An example of this entanglement was illustrated 31 in the study by Howell et al. (2013), where they used four samples (N = 1,438) within the U.S. to investigate the links between economic standing (income, savings, investments debt), Financial Security (measured by the in-charge financial distress/financial wellbeing scale), Psychological Need Satisfaction (Basic Need satisfaction life scale) and life satisfaction (Satisfaction of life scale). Financial Security strongly mediated the relationship between economic standing and life satisfaction. Financial Security was also positively linked to Psychological Need Satisfaction. However, the questions within the In-Charge Financial Distress/Financial Wellbeing Scale tend to focus on the constructs of Financial Wellbeing rather than Financial Security. To provide clarity within the literature and to understand how these components link to Precarious Working Conditions, I will both include and separate the constructs of Financial Security and Financial Wellbeing within the current model (Figure 1). Further entanglement between the construct of Financial Security and Financial Wellbeing can be seen within the study by Netemeyer et al. (2018). They conducted three studies with U.S.-based samples, looking at the antecedents and consequences of perceived Financial Wellbeing. Utilising survey-based data and hierarchical regression, Netemeyer et al. (2018) found there were several antecedents for perceived Financial Wellbeing. They suggest these antecedents fall into two separate constructs which represent perceived Financial Wellbeing; current money management stress and expected future Financial Security. The antecedents linked to future Financial Security were positive financial behaviours, perceived financial self-efficacy, willingness to take investment risks, planning for money long-term, and positive financial behaviours. Current money management stress was linked to late or minimum payments, lack of 32 self-control, materialism, and perceived financial self-efficacy. Income was found to act as a resource for these antecedents. Thus, higher wages lead to increased feelings of future Financial Security and a reduction in money management stress. This study further entangles the constructs of Financial Security and Financial Wellbeing, by suggesting Financial Security is a component of the Financial Wellbeing construct. Rather, I suggest Financial Security is an antecedent of Financial Wellbeing within the current study. Hence, I have placed a link between Financial Security and Financial Wellbeing within my model (Figure 1). A study that has differentiated the two construct of Financial Security and Financial Wellbeing is the survey-based study by Schneider and Harknett (2019). They examined work schedule instability among U.S. service-sector workers (N = 27,792), focusing on hourly-based employment. Over 40% of the respondents reported income variations week-to-week and 26% reported they had experienced difficulty with paying bills. From the U.S.-based sample, 65% reported they had experienced material hardship within the last 12 months, and 54% reported they would be unable to cope with an emergency expense exceeding $400. Based on their regression analysis, unpredictable schedules and varying hours were significantly linked to an increase in psychological distress (e.g., feeling sad, restless, hopeless etc.). These conditions, alongside low wages, were further linked to a reduction in Psychological Wellbeing. Financial Security was found to partially mediate the link between work schedule instability and an employee’s Psychological Distress/Wellbeing. In the current study, I seek to further understand and assess this indirect pathway between Working Conditions, Financial Security and Financial Wellbeing (Figure 1). However, I focus specifically on the conditions of Precarious Work. 33 In summary, the aim of this paper is to understand the links between Precarious Working Conditions, Financial Security, and Financial Wellbeing. To do so, an exploratory approach will be adopted and administered within the Aotearoa New Zealand context. To rationalise this study, this paper first discussed existing observations and theories within previous research. The information presented provided justification for the current model within this study and the potential links (Figure 1). 34 Chapter 2 - Method Participants The online survey originally obtained 169 individual responses. However, after a quality check of the data, only N = 90 responses completed the attitudinal component of the survey. Thus, 78 incomplete responses were removed from the dataset, leaving a sample size of N=90. The final sample comprised 92% female, 7% male, and 1% LGBTQ. Ages ranged from 18-64 years, with 30% between 18-24 years, 36% 25-34 years, 14% 35-44 years, 16% 45-54 years, and 4% 55-64 years. Ethnically, 10% were Māori, 77% New Zealand European, 2% Chinese, 3% Indian, 2% Canadian, 2% Polish, 2% British, 2% Hispanic. Thus, the sample was heavily skewed on gender and self-reported ethnicity. When asked about their role as an income provider (n = 79) 18% of the participants were the sole income providers, 2% were the main income providers, 42% equally shared financial responsibilities and 38% were the secondary income providers. Participants were further asked about their employment contract type, with 44% in Part-time employment, 17% Casual, 21% Self-employed, 8% Fixed-term, 1% Temporary work, 6% On-call, and 3% were Home-based. Hence, the sample was predominantly part of a dual-income household, not on fixed, secure and stable employment. Measures A complete copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix A. 35 Financial Wellbeing Two separate measures were utilised to capture participants Financial Wellbeing (Figure 1). The first measure comprised of 11-items (e.g., How confident do you feel about your financial situation over the next 12 months?), across three sub- components/factors: meeting commitments, being financially comfortable and resilience. The items were graded using a frequency scale, various 5-point scales and a 3-point scale (all of it; some of it; none of it). High scores indicated a positive outcome (low score = negative outcome), with six items (survey questions 2, 4, 7, 8, 10 and 11 from the Financial Wellbeing section in Appendix A) reverse-coded to ensure the data met this criterion. This measure was developed using Principal Components Analysis from a Norwegian sample survey (Kempson & Poppe, 2018). However, the measure has never been verified outside of Norway, including in Aotearoa New Zealand. The researchers gave permission to use the measure for this exploratory study (E. Kempson, personal communication, October 4, 2021). A complementary measure of Financial Wellbeing (Figure 1) was developed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) (2015). The 10-item measure splits into two subcomponents/factors: Security and Freedom of Choice. Data was collected for this measure using two standardised 5-point Likert scales (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree) with high scores indicating a positive outcome (low scores = negative outcome). As with the supporting measure, four items have been reverse-coded (survey questions 12,13,15 and 19 from the Financial Wellbeing section in Appendix A) to meet this criterion. The measure has been incorporated into a range of studies, such as the cross-sectional study by Roll et al. (2022) with 200,000 tax filers from low- to moderate-income households in the U.S. Their findings suggest a supporting Financial 36 Wellbeing measure is required to further account for day-to-day financial circumstances, for which this study accommodates. This measure has not, to my knowledge, been applied to a sample of Precarious Workers from Aotearoa New Zealand. Objective Working Conditions As recommended by Seubert et al. (2021), Objective Working Conditions were captured using quantifiable components found within other Precarious Work literature. The objective components of Precarious Working Conditions that have been commonly measured were hours worked and wages (Allan et al., 2021; Helbling & Kanji, 2018; Kalleberg, 2009). Contract type was incorporated, though participants were only asked about the various Precarious Work contracts they may work under (Sampling criteria, Chapter 2). Subjective Working Conditions The Subjective Experience of Work-Related Precariousness (SEWP) measure was developed by Seubert, Hopfgartner and Glaser (2021). This 15-item SEWP theoretically consisted of five dimensions: Reproductive materials (income from work and employment), Social communicative (social networks and work-related communication), Legal-institutional (the legal aspects of health and safety, labour and social security), Status and recognition (appreciation and recognition in the workplace), and Meaningful subject related (experienced fulfilment and meaningfulness at work). All questions within each dimension were measured using a 5-point applicability scale (not at all, rather not, somewhat, rather yes, completely). Low scores indicated a positive outcome (high scores = negative outcome), with participants having experienced less Precarious Working Conditions. Validation studies were conducted with students from the 37 University of Innsbruck, using correlation and confirmatory factor analysis (Seubert et al., 2021). As of yet, however, little or no published testing has been conducted within a Aotearoa New Zealand context. Indeed, the measure itself was described as experimental by its authors, who gave the researcher permission to use it for this exploratory study (L. Hopfgartner, personal communication, September 15, 2021). Financial Security A recent measure for Financial Security was developed by Rohde et al. (2015). The six items within this measure were developed using data from the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey, waves 2001 – 2011. The items (Appendix A) assess both Subjective and Objective aspects of Financial Security and are scored using mixed word Likert and applicability scales, independent of one another e.g., frequency, likelihood, and satisfaction scales (see the full range of scales in Appendix A). This measure was scaled so high scores would indicate a positive outcome (low score = negative outcome, indicating low levels of Financial Security). To fit this criterion, items 1, 2, 4, and 5 within the Financial Security section were reverse-coded Rohde et al. (2015) tracked their measure across various datasets from Australia (i.e., longitudinal and cross-sectional) and applied a range of econometric techniques to help further develop their model and measure of Financial Security. This measure is limited in its application throughout the existing literature and has not yet undergone reasonable validity testing. The researchers permitted this exploratory study to use the measure (N. Rohde, personal communication, October 1, 2021). 38 Procedure Given this study's use of Human participants, an application was submitted to and accepted by the Massey University Human Ethics Committee during 2021 (Reference Number NOR 21/68, November 29th, 2021). Next, quantitative data was collected through an online survey, using the Qualtrics XM survey maker software. The online survey was distributed via the pragmatic method of network sampling. A link was shared to Facebook community groups throughout Aotearoa New Zealand and to direct contacts of the researcher via email. The communications encouraged individuals to pass on the link to members within their own networks, so to initiate a snowball effect. The direct contacts of the main researcher were informed of their ineligibility to take part in the survey. Once participants had voluntarily selected the survey link, they were directed to an information page (Appendix A). Participants were also informed of a Koha which would be presented at the end of the survey in appreciation for the participants' efforts. The Koha was an unconditional gift where participants were given the opportunity to enter a draw to win one of fifty $20 supermarket vouchers, totalling $1,000 worth of prizes. 39 Chapter 3 - Results Data Clean The data was checked to ensure any irregular and unrelated responses were removed (e.g., random letters and symbols). Responses with incorrect formatting (e.g., “10 hours” rather than “10”) were re-coded in SPSS, for consistency. High scores on Financial Wellbeing and Financial Security always indicated a positive outcome. To meet this criterion, several items (indicated above) were reversed using the transformation tool in SPSS. These items were reverse-coded as their wording and corresponding answers initially associated a low score with a positive outcome. Thus, going against the criterion set above. Given that the data output was quantitative, value labels were allocated to the response scores accordingly. The Subjective Working Conditions measure obtained applicability scores from 1 – 5, value labels were applied as 1 = not at all, 2 = rather not, 3 = somewhat, 4 = rather yes, and 5 = completely). The same process was carried out for each measure according to their corresponding scoring criterion and scales (Appendix A). To help preserve statistical power for this relatively small sample, any missing data was handled using a pairwise rather than listwise deletion command in SPSS. Data Reduction The first step for my data analysis was to reduce the items to a parsimonious and reliable set of measures for each variable in Figure 1 (Chapter 1). Given the immature state of this research field and with this study focusing on the new explanatory model (and measures) in Figure 1, an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was deemed the most 40 appropriate method for data reduction compared to Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) was chosen as it is an effective method for data reduction which does not place restrictive assumptions (e.g., multivariate normal distribution) on the data, unlike other methods such as maximum likelihood factor analysis (Fabrigar et al., 1999). Eigenvalues (and linked Scree plots) were utilised under the Kaiser’s criterion of >1 for factor extraction. Given considerations of statistical power, each measure was initially factor analysed separately rather than together with the other measures (Tavakol & Wetzel, 2020). Rotation was conducted using Oblique (Direct Oblimin) methods, to allow for correlation between factors. A minimum cut off score of >0.3 was assigned to retain items for each factor (Kline, 1994). If questions loaded onto multiple factors, it was assumed the largest loading was representative of the best fit (unless loadings were similar, in which case the item was deleted, see below). Thus, items which loaded highly on more than one factor were deleted, and the EFA was repeated. Cronbach’s Alpha scores were calculated under the criterion of >0.8 (Kaiser & Rice, 1974). Items which increased Alpha if deleted were considered for removal from the measure, and another factor analysis was conducted, if appropriate (e.g., if at least 3 items were retained, which is the minimum number of items for a factor (Lloret-Segura et al., 2014). Once determined, data reduction was completed by one of two methods: (1) if the items were all on the same scale, by totalling and dividing by the number of items; and/or (2) if the items were not on the same scale, by saving factor scores from the EFA. Kempson and Poppe’s (2018) Financial Wellbeing Measure An exploratory PAF solution resulting from applying the above EFA protocol is presented in Table 1. From Table 1, the solution was clear, and interpretable, although file:///C:/Users/19037587/Downloads/199361-Texto%20del%20artÃ�­culo-1044421-1-10-20170924%20(1).pdf 41 just 58% of the variance was explained. The pattern of loadings as well as item content suggested that the two factors were nonetheless tentatively representative of Financial Security rather than Wellbeing per se, albeit with the factor inter-correlation also being quite high (at .67). In Table 1, the highest-loading item reflecting ‘Making Ends Meet’ factor was found to increase Cronbach’s Alpha (to .906). If this item was removed (protocol, above), the two factors in Table 1 collapsed into one, a less readily interpretable cluster of items (explaining 52% of the variance). However, two items are not normally enough to constitute or define a factor (Lloret-Segura et al., 2014). For that reason, it was decided to keep all items, and tentatively two factors, rather than one (see Protocol, above). Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Financial Wellbeing Measure This secondary Financial Wellbeing measure extracted two factors, which together accounted for a combined 55.95% of the total variance. However, the second factor was under-represented, with just two items (correlating at .51). Hence it was decided to run this second measure alongside the previous measure, in its entirety, through the full PAF/EFA protocol (above). 42 Table 1 Factor Solution for Kempson and Poppe’s (2018) Financial Wellbeing Measure Items Factor Perceived Financial Security Making Ends Meet How long could you cope with a fall of income by a third without having to borrow funds? .860 How good/bad is your current financial situation? .844 How often do you have money left over from your income at the end of each month? .784 What savings do you have in terms of number of months income? .716 How confident do you feel about your financial situation over the next 12 months? .618 How much could you cover of an unexpected expense of one month’s income? .569 How much would you need to borrow to cover unexpected expense? .501 My finances allow me to do the things I want and enjoy in life? .463 How often do you find yourself with no money for food and expenses? .898 In the past 12 months, how often have you been unable to pay bills or loan commitments at the final reminder due to lack of money? .804 Which one of the following statements best describes how well you are meeting your bills and credit commitments at the moment? .470 Eigen Value 6.123 1.086 % of Variance 52.07% 6.29% Cronbach’s Alpha .90 .83 Note. Loadings <.4 have been suppressed (n = 84-90). The resulting factor solution is presented in Table 2. It is clear and interpretable, with no factor overlap and reasonable Alphas. Because the items and measures used a variety of scales, the reduced data from Table 2 were therefore saved as factor scores. Interestingly, one factor (1) is more clearly related to security than Wellbeing, and for that reason was retained as an alternative measure of Financial Security. 43 Table 2 Factor Solution for the Combined Financial Wellbeing Measures Items Factor Financial Security 1 – Buffer Financial Wellbeing - Comfort Financial Wellbeing - Making Ends Meet What savings do you have in terms of number of months income? .950 How often do you have money left over from your income at the end of each month? .754 How long could you cope with a fall of income by a third without having to borrow funds? .746 I have money left over at the end of the month .742 I could handle a major unexpected expense .670 I am just getting by financially .669 How much would you need to borrow to cover an unexpected expense? .535 How much could you cover of an unexpected expense of one month’s income? .504 Giving a gift for a wedding, birthday or other occasion would put a strain on my finances for the month .429 How confident do you feel about your financial situation over the next 12 months? .827 I am securing my financial future .618 My finances allow me to do the things I want and enjoy in life? .602 I am concerned that the money I have or will save won’t last .563 How good/bad is your current financial situation? .533 I can enjoy life because of the way I’m managing my money .430 My finances control my life .402 In the past 12 months, how often have you been unable to pay bills or loan commitments at the final reminder due to lack of money? .861 How often do you find yourself with no money for food and expenses? .764 Which one of the following statements best describes how well you are meeting your bills and credit commitments at the moment? .539 I am behind with my finances .520 Eigenvalue 10.85 1.37 1.26 %age of Variance 52.42% 4.83% 4.56% Cronbach’s Alpha .94 .88 .86 Factor Scores 3.74 3.23 4.75 44 Note. Red Items are from the Kempson and Poppe (2018) measure and Black Items are from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Loadings <.4 have been suppressed (n = 79-90). Seubert, Hopftgartner & Glaser Subjective Experience of Work-Related Precariousness (SEWP). The factor solution extracted four factors which accounted for 65.01% of the variance. The Cronbach’s Alpha scores increased for the ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ factor if “I can identify with my work to a limited extent only” was removed (increased to a=.916). The same occurred for the status and recognition factor when the item “I receive less recognition for my work by society” was removed (increased to a=.885). As previously exclaimed, a factor requires a minimum of three items to be loaded, the removal of the items indicated above would have left each factor with two items (Lloret- Segura et al., 2014). Given the removal of the items did not significantly increase Alpha, and that all factors initially scored a=>.80, it was deemed appropriate to leave all items and factors within the measure (as seen in Table 3). The factor analysis somewhat reflected the original structure developed by Seubert, Hopfgartner and Glaser (2019). Factor 1 represented ‘Meaningful Subject Related’, factor 2 ‘Reproductive Materials’, and factor 4 was found to represent ‘Status and Recognition’, each from the original measure. However, factor 3 has been represented as ‘Organisational and Social Inclusion’, an adaptation of two constructs from the original measure. The factors and their item loadings are depicted in Table 3. 45 Table 3 Factor Solutions for the Subjective Experiences of Work-Related Precariousness Measure (SEWP) Items Factor Meaningful Subject Related Reproductive Materials Organisational and Social Participation Status and Recognition I experience no fulfilment in my work .985 I often see no meaning in my work .783 I can identify with my work to a limited extent only .659 I can’t afford much .935 I keep thinking about how to get by financially in the future .702 Nothing is usually left of my income by the end of the month .693 I do not get sufficient information about important things .797 I am not seen as an equal colleague at my workplace .765 My organisational participation rights are limited .594 Workplace health and safety regulations (e.g., education about risks) are neglected for me. .544 Fewer opportunities for vocational development are available to me. .468 I am not integrated well into the social networks at work .437 I receive less recognition for my work by friends .930 I receive less recognition for my work by my family .833 I receive less recognition for my work by society .432 Eigen Value 5.34 1.94 1.70 1.47 % of Variance 33.23% 10.51% 9.03% 8.00% Cronbach’s Alpha .88 .82 .80 .83 Note. Loadings <.4 have been suppressed (n = 87-90). Rhode et al. (2015) Financial Security Measure. The Financial Security Measure developed by Rhode et al. (2015) was factor analysed following the protocol mentioned above. The Financial Security measure obtained a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Score of KMO = .612. This is below the minimum 46 requirement of KMO = >.70, as stated in the data reduction protocol above. For this reason, this measure was not factor analysed. This measure will not be utilised further within this study. Instead, therefore, the factor Financial Security, from Table 1, served as the key measure of the Financial Security construct for this study (Figure 1). Correlation These were performed as a prelude to potential regression. Prior to checking all inter-factor (PAF) score correlations, all reduced data from the factor analysis was checked for normality. The Shapiro-Wilk scores indicated in Appendix B found reduced scores for all variables except Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’ were non-normally distributed. Accordingly, a Spearman correlation calculation was conducted on the scores derived from Tables 1-3. Pairwise deletion was applied to the sample to preserve as much statistical power as possible. Demographic variables of gender, age and number of children were incorporated into the analysis as control variables (Table 4). All variables were entered into the correlation assessment. Only statistically significant results were presented in Table 4 to simplify the interpretability of the correlation output. 47 Table 4 Spearman’s Rho Correlation Matrix for Variables in Figure 1 Financial Wellbeing – Comfort Financial Wellbeing - Making Ends Meet .609** (n = 57) Financial Security .720** (n = 57) .692** (n = 57) Subjective Working Conditions - Meaningful Subject Related -.479** (n = 55) -.391** (n = 55) -.399** (n = 55) Subjective Working Conditions - Reproductive Materials -.733** (n = 55) -.592** (n = 55) -.797** (n = 55) .352** (n = 85) Subjective Working Conditions - Organisational and Social Participation .452** (n = 85) .219* (n = 87) Subjective Working Conditions - Status and Recognition -.318* (n = 55) .544** (n = 85) .284** (n = 86) .456** (n = 86) Salary -.461** (n = 37) Hourly Rate .338* (n=45) -.275* (n=63) -.259* (n=64) Hours Worked within the Last Week .291* (n=57) -.390** (n=86) .605** (n=37) Gender Age -.241* (n=88) .438** (n=65) Number of Children Note. Spearman Correlation Significance *p <.05, **p <.01. 48 Financial Wellbeing In column 1 (Table 4), Financial Wellbeing 'Comfort’ was significantly and positively correlated with Financial Wellbeing 'Making Ends Meets’ (r = .61, p = <.01), Financial Security (r = .72, p = <.01), and the Objective Working Condition factor of Hours Worked Within the Last Week (r = .29, p = <.05). Evidence suggests hours of work and Financial Security are predictors of Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’. Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’ correlated significantly and positively with Financial Security (r = .69, p = <.01) and the Objective Working Conditions factor of Hourly rate (r = .34, p = <.05). The Subjective Working Condition factors of ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ (r = -.48, p = <.01), ‘Reproductive Materials’ (r = -.73, p = <.01) and Organisational and Social Participation (r = -.28, p = <.05) were significantly and negatively correlated with Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’. Subjective Working Conditions ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ (r = -.39, p = <.01), and ‘Reproductive Materials’ (r = -.59, p = <.01) significantly and negatively correlated with Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’. Thus, those who are exposed to less Precarious Working Conditions are likely to experience higher levels of reported Financial Wellbeing compared to those in more Precarious Working Conditions. The strongest predictors of Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’ and ‘Making Ends Meet’ were factors which conceptually represent ideas of financial resources; Financial Security and the Subjective Working Condition factor of ‘Reproductive Materials’. Suggesting less Precarious Working Conditions and a greater sense of Financial Security are linked to higher levels of reported Financial Wellbeing. 49 Objective Working Conditions In column 8 (Table 4), Salary was significantly and positively correlated with Hours Worked Within the Last Week (r = .61, p = <.01). Hourly rate was significantly and positively correlated with Age (r = .44, p = <.01), suggesting as one gets older their hourly rate will increase. Subjective Working Conditions The Subjective Working Conditions factors significantly and positively correlated with one another (Table 4). ‘Reproductive Materials’ significantly and negatively correlated with the Objective Working Conditions factors of Salary (r = -.46, p = <.01), Hourly rate (r = -.28, p = <.05), and Hours Worked Within the Last Week (r = -.39, p = <.01). In column 6 Organisational and Social Participation was significantly and negatively correlated with Hourly rate (r = -.26, p = <.05) and Age (r = -.24, p = <.05). Finally, Status and Recognition correlated with all factors except Gender (column 7, Table 4). Financial Security Financial Security significantly and negatively correlated with three of the four Subjective Working Conditions factors: ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ (r = -.40, p = <.01), ‘Reproductive Materials’ (r =-.80, p = <.01) and Status and Recognition (r = -.32, p = <.05). The Subjective Working Conditions factor of ‘Reproductive Materials’ was the strongest predictor of Financial Security, with this being the strongest correlation between all factors in Table 4. This link suggests that one’s financial resources obtained through work are a significant predictor of one’s Financial Security. 50 Given the significance of the existing links previously described, there was reasonable grounds to further assess the links between the predictor variables and the outcome variable of Financial Wellbeing. Thus, a regression analysis was conducted. Regression Based on the exploratory nature of this study and on the correlation output, it was deemed reasonable to proceed with exploring possible multiple linear and non- linear regression(s). As noted in Chapter 1, additional non-linear tests were mainly reserved for testing the potential of pay to predict SEWP, based on nascent literature in this domain of the model in Figure 1. Due to considerations of power, and the exploratory nature of the thesis question, all regressions proceeded one criterion variable at a time, and worked backwards, in Figure 1, from each of two promising factors of Wellbeing separately. For SEWP, there were two factors that usefully predicted Financial Wellbeing, these were each tested separately. Hence when SEWP was re-considered as a criterion in itself, with Objective Working Conditions like pay as the predictor, there were two separate sets of regression analyses, linear and non- linear, that were computed. Linear Regression With respect to linearity, checks were first done to rule out multicollinearity as there were multiple predictor variables with correlations exceeding .70 (Table 4). Multicollinearity was assessed using Variance Inflation Factors (VIF), with VIF values being small, <2 (O’Brien, 2007). Thus, multicollinearity was not present within the data and the assumptions for proceeding with linear regressions were generally met. For each linear regression, the default regression of ‘enter’ was applied in SPSS. Demographic variables (age, gender, number of children) were excluded as statistical 51 controls, as their link to the two factors of Financial Wellbeing were not statistically significant (in Table 4 above). Mediation was tested separately from, and before moderation, for each criterion (Wellbeing factor). An analysis of the variables in Figure 1 and their potential links was conducted using a mediation assessment in IMB SPSS. The PROCESS tool was used under the Model 4 model. 95% confidence intervals were calculated with the default bootstrapping sample size of 5,000. Financial Security was tested as the mediating variable. and then as a potential moderator of the link between Subjective Working Conditions and the two factors of Financial Wellbeing. Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’ as the Criterion, Testing for Mediation From Figure 2, the predictor was the Subjective Working Condition factor of ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ and the potential mediator was Financial Security. The criterion variable was Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’. 52 Figure 2 The Mediating Link of Financial Security for Subjective Working Conditions Factor ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’. Note. The sample size reduced to n = 55 for the mediation assessment, as participants were able to skip some individual questions in the survey. Whenever a participant skipped an item, their data was lost. It was not possible to calibrate the mean score per item as a means of retaining these participants because the items in the Financial Wellbeing measures, in each factor, used different scales. Hence, due to small sample size, the findings in Figure 2 must be interpreted with great caution (see Discussion, Chapter 4). Figure 2 shows a significant negative indirect link between Subjective Working Conditions factor ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’, through Financial Security, b = -.18, 95% BCa CI [-.38, -.03]. There was also a significant negative direct link between the Subjective Working Conditions factor ‘Meaningful Subjective Working Conditions ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ Financial Security Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’ b = -.31, p = .01 b = .59, p = .00 b = -.23, p = .01 Indirect Effect b = -.18, 95% BCa CI [-.38, -.03] n = 55 = Direct Link = Mediating Link 53 Subject Related’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’, b = -.23, p = .01. The total effect of the model was b = -.41, p = .00. The indirect effect accounted for 43.90% of the total effect. Thus, Financial Security partially mediated between Subjective Working Conditions ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’. Figure 3 The Mediating Link of Financial Security for Subjective Working Conditions Factor ‘Reproductive Materials’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’. From Figure 3, the predictor was the Subjective Working Condition factor of ‘Reproductive Materials’, and the potential mediator was Financial Security. The criterion variable was Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’. Within Figure 3, a significant negative indirect link occurred between Subjective Working Conditions factor ‘Reproductive Materials’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’, through financial Security, b = -.19, 95% BCa CI [-.37, -.04]. There was also a significant negative direct link between Subjective Working Conditions factor ‘Reproductive Materials’ and Financial Wellbeing Subjective Working Conditions ‘Reproductive Materials’ Financial Security Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’ b = -.73, p = .00 b = .27, p = .04 b = -.49, p = .00 Indirect Effect b = -.19, 95% BCa CI [-.37, -.04] n = 55 = Direct Link = Mediating Link 54 ‘Comfort’, b = -.49, p = .00. The total effect of the model equated to b = -.69, p <.001. The indirect effect accounted for 27.54% of the total effect. Thus, Financial Security partially mediated between Subjective Working Conditions ‘Reproductive Materials’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’. Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’ as the Criterion, Testing for Mediation In Figure 4, the predictor was the Subjective Working Condition factor of ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ and the potential mediator was Financial Security. The criterion variable was Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’. Figure 4 The Mediating Link of Financial Security for Subjective Working Conditions Factor ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’. From Figure 4, there was a significant negative indirect link between Subjective Working Conditions factor ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’, through financial Security, b = -.17, 95% BCa CI [-.38, -.03]. There Subjective Working Conditions ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ Financial Security Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’ b = -.34, p = .01 b =.56, p = .00 p=….. b =-.03, p = .73 Indirect Effect b = -.17, 95% BCa CI [-.33, -.03] n = 55 = Direct Link = Mediating Link 55 was no direct link between Subjective Working Conditions factor ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’, b = -.03, p = .73. The total effect of the model was b = -.20, p =.06. Thus, Financial Security fully mediated between Subjective Working Conditions ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’. In Figure 5, the predictor was the Subjective Working Condition factor of ‘Reproductive Materials’, and the potential mediator was Financial Security. The criterion variable was Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’. Figure 5 The Mediating Link of Financial Security for Subjective Working Conditions Factor ‘Reproductive Materials’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’. From Figure 5, there was a significant negative indirect link between Subjective Working Conditions factor ‘Reproductive Materials’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’, through Financial Security, b = -.33, 95% BCa CI [-.51, -.10]. There was no Subjective Working Conditions ‘Reproductive Materials’ Financial Security Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’ b = -.73, p = .00 b =.45, p = .00 b = -.17, p = .25 Indirect Effect b = -.33, 95% BCa CI [-.51, -.10] n = 55 = Direct Link = Mediating Link 56 direct link between the Subjective Working Conditions factor ‘Reproductive Materials’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’, b = -.17, p = .25. Thus, Financial Security fully mediated the link between Subjective Working Conditions ‘Reproductive Materials’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Making Ends Meet’. Moderation Testing Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’ – Linear Regression: Moderation Financial Security was the only potential moderating variable in Figure 1, a possibility that was explored using the PROCESS tool Model 1 model. To avoid multicollinearity, mean-centering was adopted (Iacobucci et al., 2017). The exploration of possible moderation(s) of the link between SEWP factors ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ and ‘Reproductive Materials’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’, by Financial Security, are summarised in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. Figure 6. The Moderating Link by Financial Security of the Link Between Subjective Working Condition Factor ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’. Subjective Working Conditions ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ Financial Security Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’ b = -.04, p = .58 b = -.24, p = .01 n = 55 = Direct Link = Moderating Link 57 In Figure 6, the moderating link of Financial Security was not statistically significant for the link between Subjective Working Conditions factor ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’ (b = -.04, se = .08, t = -.56, p = .58). R- Squared was 57% with R-squared change from .57 (comparing what with what) as 0%, p = .58. Thus, moderation of Subjective Working Conditions factor ‘Meaningful Subject Related’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’, by Financial Security, did not occur. Figure 7 The Moderating Link of Financial Security on the Link Between Subjective Working Condition Factor ‘Reproductive Materials’ and Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’. Figure 7 depicts the moderating link of Financial Security for the link between the predictor variable of Subjective Working Conditions factor ‘Reproductive Materials’ and the criterion variable of Financial Wellbeing ‘Comfort’ was not statistically significant (b = -.02, se = .08, t = -.24, p = .58). R-Squared was 64% with R-squa