Neoliberal Economic Policies' Effects on Perceptions of Social Justice and Sociopolitical Participation in Portugal.

Contemporary societies challenge long-standing projects of the "good society" and social equality through neoliberal economic policies. Social forms of uncertainty generated by financial deprivation, precarity, and inequality seem to have effects on agency and coping and so socioeconomic and psychological consequences. This study aims to test these relationships, as well as a hypothesis on the potential impact of these constructs on beliefs of sociopolitical control and social dominance, which have implications for social justice. A mediation model explores the effects of financial access (the manifest benefit of work) on psychosocial uncertainty (which reflects the perception of uncertainty in the social context and the experience of its consequences within work, relationships, and the adoption of self-defeating beliefs) and on emotional coping strategies towards uncertainty, and their effects on personal agency, sociopolitical control (SPC), and social dominance orientation (SDO). Data are derived from a study of 633 participants in Portugal. Although personal agency is influenced by financial access and psychosocial uncertainty, it is not proved as a significant mediator for SPC and SDO. Nevertheless, financial access, psychosocial uncertainty, and emotional coping significantly contribute to the model, supporting the hypothesis that financial access protects against psychosocial uncertainty. Both have an impact on SPC and SDO. Therefore, financial deprivation and psychosocial uncertainty potentially contribute to extremism and populism in societies characterised by socially created forms of uncertainty. Implications of results for psychological intervention, namely in vocational/professional counselling, are discussed.

Factorial validity and measurement invariance of the uncertainty response scale.

This study presents the adaptation of the Uncertainty Response Scale (Greco & Roger, Pers. Individ. Differ, 31:519-534, 2001) to Portuguese. This instrument was administered to a non-clinical community sample composed of 1596 students and professionals, allowing a thorough validity and invariance analysis by randomly dividing participants into three subsamples to perform: an exploratory factor analysis (sample one: N = 512); a preliminary confirmatory factor analysis to identify the final solution for the scale (sample two: N = 543); and the confirmatory factor analysis (sample three: N = 541). Samples two and three were also used for multi-group analysis to assess measurement invariance, invariance across gender, sociocultural levels, and students versus active professionals. Results showed the scale reflects the original factorial structure, as well as good internal consistency and overall good psychometric qualities. Invariance results across groups reached structural invariance which provides a confident invariance measurement for this scale, while invariance across gender and sociocultural levels reached metric invariance. Accordingly, differences between these groups were explored, by comparing means with multi-group analysis to establish the scale's sensitivity toward social vulnerability, by demonstrating the existence of statistically significant differences regarding gender and sociocultural levels on how individuals cope with uncertainty, specifically in terms of emotional strategies, as a self-defeating strategy. Thus, females scored higher on emotional uncertainty, as well as low sociocultural levels, compared with higher ones. Therefore, it is proposed that this scale could be a sound alternative to explore strategies for coping with uncertainty, when considering social, economic, or other environmental circumstances that may affect them.

Factorial validity and measurement invariance of the uncertainty response scale

Abstract This study presents the adaptation of the Uncertainty Response Scale (Greco & Roger, Pers. Individ. Differ, 31:519-534, 2001) to Portuguese. This instrument was administered to a non-clinical community sample composed of 1596 students and professionals, allowing a thorough validity and invariance analysis by randomly dividing participants into three subsamples to perform: an exploratory factor analysis (sample one: N = 512); a preliminary confirmatory factor analysis to identify the final solution for the scale (sample two: N = 543); and the confirmatory factor analysis (sample three: N = 541). Samples two and three were also used for multi-group analysis to assess measurement invariance, invariance across gender, sociocultural levels, and students versus active professionals. Results showed the scale reflects the original factorial structure, as well as good internal consistency and overall good psychometric qualities. Invariance results across groups reached structural invariance which provides a confident invariance measurement for this scale, while invariance across gender and sociocultural levels reached metric invariance. Accordingly, differences between these groups were explored, by comparing means with multi-group analysis to establish the scale's sensitivity toward social vulnerability, by demonstrating the existence of statistically significant differences regarding gender and sociocultural levels on how individuals cope with uncertainty, specifically in terms of emotional strategies, as a self-defeating strategy. Thus, females scored higher on emotional uncertainty, as well as low sociocultural levels, compared with higher ones. Therefore, it is proposed that this scale could be a sound alternative to explore strategies for coping with uncertainty, when considering social, economic, or other environmental circumstances that may affect them.

Attachment and posttraumatic growth after breast cancer: A dyadic approach.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer poses unique challenges for the couple relationship. From a relational perspective, successful adaptation may be less dependent on the circumstances of being the "patient" or the "caregiver" than on how couples successfully integrate cancer into their relationship. In this article, we study posttraumatic growth through attachment theory, which provides a useful framework to explore the role of intimate processes dyadically. METHOD: The sample comprised 84 heterosexual married and cohabitating couples. Women were in adjuvant treatment for breast cancer or in the posttreatment phase. Both members of the couple completed measures of attachment and posttraumatic growth. Path models were used to examine associations between the constructs through the application of the actor-partner interdependent model. Moreover, time since diagnosis was examined within the actor-partner interdependent model as a possible moderator affecting the attachment-posttraumatic growth associations. RESULTS: Partners' attachment security was an important predictor of individual posttraumatic growth for both members of the couple, while individuals' own attachment security was not associated with their posttraumatic growth for either member of the couple. The partner's effects were equal across gender. Additionally, time since breast cancer diagnosis did not affect the pattern of results. CONCLUSION: Findings support the assessment of the couple dyadically and corroborate an attachment approach of the couple as an interdependent unit. Implications of the study for interventions assisting couples in oncological setting are discussed.