The Latent and Manifest Consequences of Work

Jahoda's (1979) distinction between manifest and latent consequences of work was tested on samples of employed and unemployed persons to determine if such a dichotomy can help explain the psychosocial effects of unemployment. Confirmatory factor analysis on data from 393 individuals from two large American cities failed to support the two consequences of work proposed by Jahoda. Instead, these data indicate that an intrinsic versus extrinsic model of work rewards can more accurately account for the patterns among ratings. The model of best fit was equally accurate for the employed and unemployed samples, suggesting that these groups have similar reactions to and reasons for working (or wanting to work). These results indicate that more than financial loss is suffered when jobs are lost involuntarily, and that we can fully understand the debilitating effects of unemployment only when we recognize the full scope of reasons why people work.