In a double‐bind: Time–space distanciation, socioeconomic status, and coping with financial stress in the United States

Abstract

Psychological research has shown that lower socioeconomic status (SES) individuals experience higher levels of stress and tend to cope in more present-oriented ways. While some research in the field has sought to, for instance, increase future-oriented ways of being among lower SES individuals, we argue that such approaches may come at significant cost. We consider the construct of time-space distanciation (TSD) -the normative way in which time and space are abstracted from one another at cultural and individual levels -as a way to complicate psychological research on social class, stress, and coping. Across four studies, we present research on US geographical regions (Studies 1-2) and US participants (Studies 3-4) suggesting that adopting normative high-TSD orientations represents a double-bind for lower SES individuals: it allows one to enact more proactive coping strategies in the face of financial stressors such as debt (Studies 1-3), but it is also a source of disproportionate stress itself (Study 4), given the burdens faced by lower SES individuals trying to navigate time and space in culturally hegemonic ways in spite of precarity and material insecurity. We discuss how TSD offers a means of situating psychological research into precarity within the broader structural context of flexible capitalism.

Of precarity and conspiracy: Introducing a socio‐functional model of conspiracy beliefs

“…In fact, the indicators we used to operationalize precarity, although imperfect, could be the basis for future psychometric precarity scales to be tested and validated properly (see Boateng et al, 2018 ), maybe in conjunction with indicators tapping into other subjective experiences of precarity (e.g. Time–Space Distanciation, see Schmitt et al, 2022 ). Moreover, the links we observed were systematically robust to adjustment on known predictors of conspiracy beliefs and on actual financial variables (e.g.…”

“…In fact, recent research suggests that a lack of ability to project oneself into the future (i.e. to exert Time–Space Distanciation) is a distinct psychological signature of precarity, because precarity renders future time projection too costly (induces stress, see Schmitt et al, 2022 ). Besides this ability to project oneself into the future, ontological security refers to a “ person's fundamental sense of safety in the world and includes a basic trust of other people” (Giddens, 1991 , p. 38).…”

A social‐psychological examination of academic precarity as an organizational practice and subjective experience

“…We acknowledge and experience inequalities and precarity in society at large (Fine, 2015 ; Hodgetts et al, 2016 ; Schmitt et al, 2022 ; Hakim et al, 2022 ; Rua et al, 2022 ) and are conscious of the reflections of societal precarity in different layers of academia. The penetration of all elements of higher education by neoliberalism and neoliberal thinking can be considered one of the most recent and forceful examples of this (Aydin, 2021 ).…”

Towards a social psychology of precarity

“…Whilst each paper approaches the exploration of precarity differently, they highlight the potential of this area of work for expanding our analyses of societies beyond the commonly used measures and analyses of socioeconomics and class, in both cases holding social justice implications. Schmitt et al ( 2022 ) look at how ‘flexible capitalism’ which expects people to be flexible in their use of time and space to cater to new labour practices, places extra stresses on lower socioeconomic groups in the United States, using the ‘time–space distanciation’ variable to analyse this. Not only does this study work to make visible the structural‐cultural contexts of neoliberal and flexible capitalism, it also challenges more mainstream individual‐focussed studies of decision‐making in conditions of scarcity which have pathologised the ‘present‐oriented mentalities’ of lower social class groups.…”

“…The special issue highlights the diversity of social psychological tools for developing understandings of precarity. The contributing papers draw on a range of social psychological concepts, theories and methodological approaches, including social representations theory (Mahendran et al, 2022 ), social identity theory and system justifications theory (Albayrak‐Aydemir & Gleibs, 2022 ) and time–space distanciation (Schmitt et al, 2022 ) and utilize quantitative (Adam‐Troian et al, 2022 ; Schmitt et al, 2022 ), qualitative (Hakim et al, 2022 ; Lukate, 2022 ; Mahendran et al, 2022 ), and participatory methods (Rua et al, 2022 ; Fine, 2022 ) to study precarity. More broadly, the contributions to the special issue highlight some interesting extensions to social science theorizations on precarity, drawing attention to questions of ontology and differential experiences in relation to time and positionality.…”