The Effect and Policy Implications of Heuristics Acting Upon Unemployment

Iryna Iziumska, September 2021

Abstract 
This paper examines how unemployment is lengthened  through the availability heuristic, status quo bias, and framing effect affecting unemployed, employers, and culture, as well as how it leaves lasting effects on individuals and the economy. These effects include but are not limited to mental health issues due to loss of the status quo, employment bias, and stress buildup due to the framing of information. These heuristics, however, can be combated through policy and initiatives such as UI benefits, job training, and awareness training of employers and the general population in order to increase general economic stability, improve the health of the people, and decrease unemployment duration while minimizing the need for trade-offs.

1.0 Introduction and Background 
Unemployment and the policies used to regulate it have both been topics of heated debate for economists and policymakers as any other decision which requires the allocation of significant funds. As of July 2021, the national unemployment rate is 5.4%, down significantly from the 14.8% unemployment in April 2020 (Unemployment Rates, 2021). Eighty five percent of these individuals, in normal pre-pandemic times, have unemployment spells within 46 weeks and 5% have then longer than 73 weeks (Chodrow-Riech and Coglianese, 2019).  Although the current state of affairs is still debated with arguments rising up and politicians furiously debating the extent and amounts of funds to use, especially for emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the general system of unemployment policy is set in its most significant aspects. Currently, an unemployed person, defined as an individual available for and without a job while actively searching for one within the last 4 weeks, can receive unemployment insurance (UI) benefits if they meet the requirements and file a claim for the benefits which are between roughly $40 and $450 weekly (in California, USA)(CA Policy Basics, 2021). However, these benefits are only available for unemployed individuals through no fault of their own, ready to accept any jobs, and physically able, among other requirements (Eligibility Requirements, 2021). Before the pandemic, only roughly 28% of unemployed individuals claimed unemployment benefits (Chodorow-Riech and Coglianese, 2019) The value of unemployment benefits is determined by dividing the highest quarter of earnings earned by twenty-six to result in the weekly payments an individual is eligible for and paid out for twenty-six weeks (Unemployment Benefits in California, 2021). Despite the federal guidelines, states have the ability to decrease and increase the requirements as well as the base duration of the UI benefits. UI benefits experience a lag time due to the requirements of filing a claim and proving the conditions met; despite this, the general UI benefits claimed satisfy their purpose of providing enough income for individuals and families to survive unemployment while also supporting consumer demand and spending to support the economy. These purposes lead the way for extra measures to be available at times of high unemployment. Through the Extended Benefits(EB) program, the base weeks can be extended by 13 or 20 weeks when the unemployment rate is unusually high in certain states. However, this system has been known to be inefficient and has been able to be replaced by more effective temporary extensions of weeks by federal lawmakers who can choose to lengthen the benefits up to the point where they are no longer needed rather than a set extra amount of time (Policy Basics, 2021). 
This system has been modified by other acts during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the high unemployment rates and low chances of reemployment. With the beginning of the pandemic, the CARES act was enacted, which granted extended weeks to eligible individuals as well as an increase of $600 to the UI benefits received each week (Policy Basics, 2021). However, this act was created based on calendar dates, not tied to economic situations, and in the end, caused great uncertainty as well as issues in the distribution of the relief to unemployed individuals. Under the CARE Act, the Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC) became the extended weeks, and the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) was founded to aid individuals not eligible for benefits (with conditions such as physical issues, self-employment, and insufficient work history) (Policy Basics, 2021). Overall, the pandemic caused a great increase in unemployment support to combat the quickly rising unemployment rate while also drawing much controversy over the amounts of benefits and their efficacy to combat the problem. 
The effect of unemployment itself on the economy, community, and personal life of  unemployed individuals is not to be underestimated. Quite shockingly, unemployed individuals generally have a 1-1.5 year reduction to their lifespan as well as a 15% increased chance that their child will repeat a grade due to lack of support needed to succeed in life, shattering the foundation for their future and possible contributions (Bivens, 2014). These changes themselves are strikingly evident in involuntary unemployment much less than in long-term unemployment that the government often focuses on amending (Bivens, 2014). These individuals are, strikingly, highly educated and not slobs that many might see the unemployed as. In France and Germany, 75% of unemployed individuals have finished secondary education and 50% of unemployed in the UK have finished higher education (Tatsiramos, 2004). When returning to the workforce, all of these generally well-qualified applicants also have a rather significantly lower salary starting from 6 months of unemployment, a figure below multitudes of the 85% of individuals whose unemployment spells last 46 and below weeks(Bivens, 2014)(Chodrow-Riech and Coglianese, 2019). These displaced workers go into the job force earning roughly 5 to 15% less in comparison to similar workers who did not experience unemployment with the effect more dramatically affecting blue-collar workers (Nichols, 2013). This in turn damages the economy and the extent to which it can grow sustainably. All in all, unemployment affects the future and present surrounding the unemployed in a very significant and direct way. Possibly, these effects can be minimized through understanding and taking advantage of the causes of these effects to optimize society and improve its well-being.
In relation to the psychological effect affecting unemployment, the three main heuristics covered in this paper are the availability heuristic, status quo bias, and framing effect. Heuristics themselves are often applied to learning and specific instances. However, this paper analyzes their cumulative effect on individuals and entities involved in affecting unemployment in their many instances. A heuristic itself is a shortcut that allows individuals to ease the cognitive strain by replacing a difficult question or problem with an easier one (Kahneman, 2011). However, despite being vital, heuristics can have built-in biases that impair problem-solving without the individual realizing it at all. The availability heuristic is the tendency of individuals to measure the probability of something occurring based on how easily they can recall it (Kahneman, 2011). A very classic example is the judgment that airplanes are more dangerous than cars; due to the extensive national news coverage of airplane crashes, unless personal experience pulls the availability heuristic to its side, the frequency of news on airplanes would cause an individual to judge the airplane as more likely to crash and as such, more dangerous than a car despite cars killing enormous multitudes of people. Daniel Kahneman identified and studied this heuristic, detailing it in his studies and books (Kahneman, 2011). Next, the status quo bias is a preference for the current state of affairs and is closely tied to loss aversion (Kahneman, 2011). It is similar to common sense gained from time; users of a certain product become quite used to it and feel sad to have to give it up, and existing contract terms define reference points whose removal is interpreted by the brain as a loss rather than the truth of a completely separate contract. This bias is very applicable to all aspects of life as it is present in almost every decision made. Last mentioned is the framing effect which, in essence, means that the way something is phrased affects how an individual thinks of something (Kahneman, 2011). A very common example of this is in marketing and product advertising: there is a drastic difference between “10% off” and “only 90%”. Both statements mean the same thing, but the first phrases the situation as a gain, not having to pay 10%, while the second is phrased as a loss, mentioning the requirements to pay and lose money. These heuristics affect life and are not an exception to the realm of unemployment, often sidling up and slumbering quietly without notice while rather significantly affecting decision making. This paper will explore and analyze how different psychological heuristics affect the unemployed in their perceptions and actions as a result of policies, perceptions, and other individuals, finally proposing effective policies and initiatives which are sustainable in light of the evidence available on the topics.

2.0 Literary Analysis 
In studying unemployment, quite a lot of research has been done regarding the direct psychological effects on individuals as well as the effects of policies on individuals and the overall economy. While studies regarding psychological factors of unemployment often tie the effects to what occurs, they often do not fully enunciate why it occurs or how it can be effectively combated through policy. This paper aims to do just that: connect the research available on the topic and propose an effective policy based on the current system possibilities. 
In general, papers studying unemployment run into issues as in any study. Unemployment itself does not measure all unemployed individuals and does not account for discouraged workers, those who were hit hardest with mental effects, as well as other possible indicators of effects on individuals leaving work (Kahneman, 2011). There is also an absence of comprehensive and accessible data on mental health from unemployed workers, and the usable data is often from willing participants, which may comprise a skewed percentage of affected individuals. While these issues exist, the general trends and patterns can still be seen within studies conducted. Another issue, however, arises when applying this data to pandemic levels. Although inferences can be made, this causes the studies and information collected to apply more to general policy in the time of general order rather than significant distress; the policies presented are formulated to most efficiently regulate relatively peaceful and stable times.
In a short clarification of the contents of the paper, the term ‘heuristics’ is usually used to refer to learning and individual situations. However, these heuristics and biases are present in multiple cumulative decisions, which can snowball and become omnipresent over time. By illustrating this, the usage of heuristics will refer to shortcuts in decision-making over periods of time as the cumulative of smaller decisions.

3.0 Analysis
3.1 The Availability Heuristic
	The availability heuristic is one that is most prevalent throughout basic decision making as well as in its role of maintaining unemployment. This heuristic manifests itself as unemployment stigma, an innate bias towards the unemployed affecting the majority of the population. This stigma has been proven to gain traction and impact employer decisions; the decisions of employers falling to this stigma do not accurately assess the risk of unemployed individuals and skill deterioration due to the availability of negative information about unemployed individuals losing all of their skills and being of some fault in the entire process (Ho, 2011). This bias is also difficult to alleviate as many employers are confident in their experience and validity of judgment, often touting, while unaware of ingrained bias, the absence of any discrimination when hiring(Geoffrey, 2011). Yet, despite the shown insignificant disparity between the employed and unemployed, 80% of companies surveyed reported some difficulty in hiring skilled workers and 40% reported significant difficulty in hiring although many unemployed individuals actively searching for jobs have high school and even college degrees (Holzer, 2000). These startling statistics and extreme confidence companies have in themselves is often brought about by not very well-designed studies often done within companies and with little accuracy or enforcement to give credibility to these self-reported and often sub-par attempts at internal regulation and evaluation (Cappelli, 2014). The aversion employers often have towards unemployed individuals is present to an ungrounded extent and harms the chances and speed of individuals coming out of unemployment, extending labor shortages and also contributing to the perceived skill-shortage many companies argue for. The culmination of biases led on by the availability of information about the unemployed is significant and indeed affecting the labor market. 
This bias results in adverse effects; however, employers are not the only ones affected by the stigma of unemployment. Individuals who expect to be stigmatized and have negative expectations tend to place a greater value on becoming employed once again(Krug, 2019). Yet, these individuals instead are harmed in health and experience no difference in employability than those not conscious and expectant of bias against themselves; in a survey study conducted on a ten-point scale, a one point increase of stigma consciousness corresponds to a 2.6% increase in activity, but the success in gaining work and job interviews was not significantly different (Krug, 2019). This stigma consciousness is also tied to lower expectation, which in conjunction to how more optimistic individuals are more likely to exit unemployment, does not bode well on their chances or psyches (Krug, 2009)(Mueller, 2018). The bias of employers seems not to be affected by the ability nor enthusiasm of the individuals unemployed and grounded in a societally permeating bias. This stigma against the unemployed is best fought in the hiring workplace in order to more efficiently decrease unemployment and fill needed spots with sufficiently skilled individuals. As employers often assume intrinsic reasons for unemployment, whether in lay-offs or voluntary leaving and are not biased when the cause of leaving is specified as extrinsic, it is clear that the status of being unemployed is associated with individual faults unless extenuating circumstances occur(Ho, 2011). This can be combated by increasing representation and circulation of awareness in employers of the value and statistical abilities of unemployed individuals (Dimara, 2016). As the availability bias can be minimized with exposure to information and personal experience, job training for hiring jobs can also address the unemployment stigma explicitly and allow companies to take advantage of skilled labor to quickly fill the positions needed. This major barrier to removing unnecessary unemployment is solvable and not an immovable barrier; adequate awareness can allow multitudes of individuals to be better informed about a vast part of the population as well as optimizing the transition from unemployment to a matching job.

3.2 The Status Quo Bias
	While employers are affected by the availability heuristic, unemployed individuals themselves are greatly affected by the status quo bias. When losing a job, a person loses their status quo and is then inhibited from returning back towards it. Ample evidence also suggests that individuals in unemployment also do not adapt to the status of unemployment as their new status quo as life satisfaction generally stabilizes at the new set value and does not increase or decrease significantly after unemployment occurs(Clark, 2006). This discrepancy of being unable to return to the status quo dictated and established by society as well as accepted by the individuals themselves causes multiple problems. The loss of a job is well-known to cause psychological stress, damage to self-esteem, and decreased life satisfaction(Goldsmith, Diette, 2012)(Linn, 1985)(Mental Health, 2009)(Winkelmann). However, it has been demonstrated that individuals with support networks and greater amount of socialization in relation to other unemployed are less affected in self-esteem, physical health, and life satisfaction (Linn, 1985). This draws a clear line towards social inclusion playing a key role in alleviating the negative effects of unemployment. On the topic of social acceptance and rejection, the pain of being socially rejected can also exacerbate psychological ailments such as depression and inhibit individuals from searching for the right jobs(Weir, 2012). Rejection is also known for stimulating the anterior cingulate and anterior insula which are the same regions of the brain associated with feeling physical pain; this stimulation causes individuals to wish to reconnect but also be more prone to lashing out and impulsive decisions which greatly inhibit their ability to gain a job and calmly search for the best options (Weir, 2012). Individuals unemployed also do not generally reach their previous level of job satisfaction even after finding a job and spending 4 years at work, the previous level of life satisfaction is not reached.(Winkelmann). Similar to owning a house, losing it causes an individual to feel lost and dispirited. These issues can be combated by bringing as much normalcy to the lives of unemployed individuals. Related to the normalcy standard set by society, the most unemployable individuals are those most able to improve the most and be most beneficial to the economy when sufficiently aided in job search and skill training programs(Babcock, 2010). With such services available and offered to unemployed individuals, they can more quickly return to the labor force. With additional mental help, individuals can also be more effective and less psychologically burdened due to leaving the norm. The status quo bias causes mental distress in all unemployed, which can cascade into psychological and even physical problems, inhibiting the efficient functioning of individuals and disproportionately affecting individuals more distant from the norm of employment accepted by individuals from society with more sick days, depression, and anxiety(Linn, 1985); this bias and loss spirals into something affecting the job search as well as future prospects and abilities to advance to the positions where employers observe a skill shortage all while being solvable with mental health support as well as available job training to bring about a portion of the status quo.
The status quo bias has also been used to argue for the implementation of less or more unemployment benefits. The evidence showing the rise in unemployment benefits to an increase in length of unemployment is not to be debated, and evidence has shown that this increase is not significant while even resulting in better job placement as a result(Tatsiramos, 2004). According to a study done on the effect of benefits of unemployment duration, a 10% increase in benefits led to an increase of unemployment of around 5%; a couple days or a bit more than a week when considering the general duration of unemployment spells (Chodorow-Riech and Coglianese, 2019). The unemployment benefit system can be seen as a partial return to normality of receiving wages and having a sense of what to expect. Although the new situation is unusual and frightening, the individuals in the situation have a baseline knowledge of receiving income and budgeting it for their needs, so they do not experience as much psychological stress and instead recover from it and are able to focus more on searching for the right jobs while not feeling as far from normal as before. Individuals who stay for longer on UI benefits also experience greater stability in subsequent employment, helping to stabilize the economy and also allow for the growth and creation of skilled workers in the workforce with less frictional unemployment in later years. However, the amount of UI benefits has not been strongly correlated to the job placement and success of recipients but more to their overall ability to stay afloat(Card, 2015). It would seem to point to the UI benefits themselves, no matter the amount, benefiting individuals psychologically and increasing success in the job search. This, however, does not dismiss the livability required from the UI benefits for the individuals receiving them to sufficiently survive; from a utilitarian standpoint, the mere presence of UI benefits brings back part of the status quo perceived as the norm and longer times allow for better placement as long as the time period is within one year. The value of UI benefits is itself of no great consequence, but in dire situations, its increase may be of more importance due to the importance of preserving the lives of individuals still able to work. For a sustainable UI benefit plan, a value livable with ample time provided to receive it is sufficient to minimize the psychological and physical damage brought about by the loss of the status quo of employment.

3.3 Framing Effect and the Pandemic
Heuristics exist to relieve mental strain, and certain framing, as well as situations, exacerbate the effects by causing people to be readier to rely on them (Kahneman, 2011). The framing effect can be seen in the portrayal of unemployment and the situation in the media: unemployment is the loss of a job and only occurs with attention brought to it when something terrible occurs. This also contributes to the expedient formation of stigma against the unemployed, with many news articles portraying the plight of unemployed unable to find work or becoming homeless; the image of unemployed individuals is inevitably tied to the homeless and insufficient workers who are in trouble. There is also sufficient news coverage of people being fired as well as wrong actions of individuals, causing their job loss. This, in a similar fashion, once again paints the picture and helps to engrain the availability bias into individuals as these cases are what they think of when they hear unemployment. 
The media coverage, as well as the framing of unemployment as a negative, also impacts the psychological strength of individuals. Individuals undergoing stress go through multiple stages, and the presence of too much stress can reach burnout as well as collapse; this mental strain aids in the reliance on other heuristics. In the recent pandemic, negative news and the negative outpour of information of the terrors of unemployment served to make the situation much more associated with negative feelings, further removed from the status quo wanted, and a part of something that people protected against by being sure that they would not be next in due to their lack of fault. The increased stress as well as negative correlations heightened the effects of the availability heuristic and status quo bias and worsened the situation along with the raging pandemic. In times of such uncertainty and complete loss of status quo, which in the pandemic affected many individuals and caused many mental health issues, positivity and good news are paramount to mitigate the mental health impacts of such events. Although facts are important, negativity in any form when exceeding certain boundaries is bound to take a toll and affect other decision-making skills in everyone.

3.4 Solutions and Proposed Changes 
Unemployment Insurance Benefits
Based on the current status of support for the unemployed, UI benefits are the first to be discussed. In combating the psychological stress brought about by the displacement from the status quo, the mere presence of UI benefits has been shown to have a significant effect(Marinescu, 2021). The duration of unemployment benefits causes an increase in unemployment duration but a subsequent increase in job placement and stability. Meanwhile, the actual value of unemployment benefits has little effect on the mindset of individuals; the increased relief after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic brought about little change to the unemployment situation and did decrease job tightness which is considered to be good for workers and shown to generate significant returns to the economy(Holzer, 2000)(Marinescu, 2021). Increases in benefits do not have significant effects on the economic situation and may even worsen the employment of more vulnerable minorities which have trouble rising above the poverty line without the benefits and, in turn, increase social divides, which may very likely significantly affect the economy in future years and are best rooted out when still emerging at a manageable level(Marinescu, 2021). The UI benefits given to unemployed individuals are invaluable for keeping them afloat and minimizing the damages upon the individuals while their value can be kept at a rather low level, most favorably just enough to survive and come through the week, without compromising their most important advantage. The strength of the UI benefits lies in their ability to return a portion of the status quo by giving income and putting the individuals receiving them in a familiar situation of allocating income to meet needs and, in turn, alleviating the stress. The major requirements needed from the benefits to extrapolate their greatest values are existence and a value allowing for survival.
Job Skill Training
Despite the prominent psychological benefits of UI benefits, there are other concerns within individuals not addressed. Some other important deviations from the status quo due to unemployment are the loss of a structured workday, social connection, and status(Goldsmith, 2012). While status is relatively difficult to counter and involves a cultural mindset, the other two have viable solutions. Job training programs are possible solutions to incorporate social interaction with similar people as well as a structured day while also combating the stigma within unemployed that they have failed in some way by bringing them together with others and seeing their positive qualities reflected as well as possible successes. These programs can also demonstrate skills that employers might be wary of due to lack of usage, as that is their main goal while having a paired mental health course to encourage all unemployed workers to take and be informed of them. With the adverse mental health effects on individuals as well as the increased risks of individuals with low mental health being unemployed, it is easy for individuals to be affected and become discouraged workers and experience a decrease in stability of work, slipping back into unemployment due to the toll on their mental state. This makes it imperative to include mental health as an integral part of any job training and make it readily available, maybe even given by mandate to individuals leaving jobs in a handout as a free course as an addition to others sponsored by the government or local government. Rather than lack of skills that are learnable and can be polished at virtually any time, mental health can spiral down and become terribly difficult to reverse the negative effects; with effective and early intervention, mental health among the unemployed may be kept at a higher level and ensure greater economic stability as well as capability as they apply their skills and mindset to the job market. Social rejection and the loss of many coworkers due to unemployment is devastating to the psyche, and while those with support networks at home fare better than those without them, those without also must be accounted for and supported (Weir, 2012). A mental health program, especially free to account for minorities and less fortunate individuals, is vital as part of free job training as an initiative to support mental health while incorporating structure and social connection to unemployed individuals, further decreasing the heavy blow of unemployment on mental health and ability to reach a desired and matching job. However, there may be challenges in bringing these courses to workers as they are likely on a time crunch and may not immediately or tangibly see their benefit; through a pairing program as funded by the government, it could be more available and more accepted by individuals.
Social Perception
	While unemployed individuals have their share of psychological impediments to the job search, a vast portion of their lack of success stems from bias in employers, which is facilitated by the stigma of unemployment weighing heavily on society and individuals. Unemployed workers are often seen as somehow at fault for their loss of work unless specific external forces are specified, likely due to fear and belief that only those undeserving are removed from work (Ho, 2011). This belief is fuelled by the certainty that a person themselves will not have to leave work, loss aversion. so they avoid thinking of the possibility, and this skewed perception fuels the availability bias in generalizing unemployed individuals as troublesome. With certain concerns about the performance of unemployed individuals, it has been demonstrated that there are no significant gaps in skill while employers look for qualified candidates and workers are unable to find jobs (Cappelli, 2014)(Holzer, 2000). This bias is also supported by a stigma prevalent in society: unemployment is bad and reflects negatively on a person as an individual. There are multitudes of scenarios that cause a person to have to leave work; they are not always troublesome in some way. Work culture may be something very important to an individual, and they might be unable to work to their fullest potential in a certain environment but find their ideal environment as they search; their previous leaving of work may reflect badly on them when their performance is not too significantly different, and the only difference lies in attitude. To account for such types of situations, suitable media targeted at employers as well as incorporated into their training to draw attention to the availability heuristic and bias through the visualization of data would be optimal to touch the symptoms of the problem. Increased national news coverage of individuals in unemployment and explanations of the skill as well as external situations individuals have would be beneficial to social change but likely not largely effective. Cultural change is a slow process and can only be aided by campaigns that will not yield great results due to sad, negative news being much more earth-shattering to call people to attention. As it is more effective to target the segment most responsible for maintaining the unemployment rate, companies would benefit to initiate and be encouraged to give statistics to employers to combat availability bias from the social construct it has gained due to the great effects visualizing data has on combating the availability heuristic as well as creating and updating training programs to cover the topic and dip into a field rich with skills and opportunities. By targeting employers and their unconscious bias against the unemployed, they, unemployed workers, and the economy all benefit by increasing labor mobility and opportunities.

4.0 Conclusion 
In essence, there are multiple psychological factors preventing unemployment from decreasing, harming the economy, and dragging down the mental and physical health as well as abilities of individuals. The most prominent and observable heuristics affecting these factors are the availability heuristic, status quo bias, and framing effect. With the availability bias, it has been shown that a social stigma around unemployed individuals has been incubated by society and leaks through in the hiring process disproportionate to true concerns about loss of skills or an incompatible attitude. This heuristic significantly affects the employability of unemployed individuals and leads to a discrepancy of employers complaining of the lack of skilled workers with multitudes of job seekers unable to find work due to unconsciously presumed fault for leaving their previous work. Next comes the status quo bias, which comes into play as soon as individuals lose their work which was their status quo and can cause significant mental and health complications. The loss of a structured schedule, a familiar situation with income, and status, as well as the inhibition of returning to that point, strikes hard and while pushing these individuals to search for a job, does not make them significantly more fortunate in their job search. These effects are only exacerbated by the framing effect as the media covers negative stories of unemployment, individuals being fired, and other negative news already weighing and stressing individuals.
	However, these issues can be combated. As the availability heuristic mainly affects employers in the equation of employment, accurate information, as well as training to combat this heuristic, can allow for the bias to be mitigated to a more reasonable extent. While the general public would need to be much more fiercely battled, positive media coverage would be a wonderful place to start while also improving other parts of life. Regarding the status quo, the sheer presence of UI benefits for a sufficient time period is enough to decrease the psychological fear and stress from the loss, while job training also builds in a structured routine while also demonstrating to potential employers that the skills individuals have are true and not in disuse. With the aid of job training in the mental health aspects, provided by the government as a partner to other courses, a more direct picture of the situation can be seen, and more individuals can be saved before falling into the pits of discouragement as well as long-term unemployed workers, resulting in a more stable and healthy economy. Strong minds trained to be flexible and deal with stress and the loss with support networks are vital to maintaining employment stability and filling the jobs employers seem to be missing in more advanced positions. Support for the unemployed, information to employers, and shifts in public associations are the most suitable to fight the psychological heuristics interfering with the health of the economy through unemployment.
	In regard to future research to give greater insight on effective measures, there are multiple paths. Some paths could be to delve deeper into the exact reasons from psychological data of why unemployed individuals are less able to find jobs in comparison to their equally skilled counterparts, what biases are present in hiring that are still unknown, and what drives social change in perception and attitude in the most positive and effective way. These fields of interest can also be applied to other aspects of the economy as well as policy in aiming to reach efficacy. Although there is much left to be discovered, there is already room for improvement from the current pace that could significantly improve the lives of workers as well as increase the stability and health of the economy through focusing on the unemployed.

Works Cited

“A Guide to Unemployment Benefits in California During Covid-19”. Fisher Phillips, 2020. https://www.fisherphillips.com/news-insights/california-employers-blog/a-guide-to-unemployment-benefits-in-california-during-covid-19.html 

Babcock Linda, et al. “Notes on Behavioral Economics and Labor Market Policy”. 2010. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/1229_behavioral_econ_labor_market_policy.pdf 

Bivens Josh. “Long-Term Unemployment Has Not Damaged the Productivity of Workers”. Economic Policy Institute, 2014. https://www.epi.org/publication/long-term-unemployment-scarring/ 

Cappelli Peter. “Skill Gaps, Skill Shortages and Skill Mismatches: Evidence for the US”. NBER Working Paper Series, 2014. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w20382/w20382.pdf 

Card David, et al. “The Effect of Unemployment Benefits on the Duration of Unemployment Insurance Receipt: New Evidence from a Regression Kink Designed in Missouri, 2003-2013”. NBER Working Paper Series, 2015. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w20869/w20869.pdf 

Chodorow-Riech Gabriel, Coglianese John. “Unemployment Insurance and Macroeconomic Stabilization”. 2019. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ES_THP_CRC_web_20190506.pdf 

Clark Andrew. “A Note on Unhappiness and Unemployment Duration”. IZA DIscussion Paper Series, 2006. http://ftp.iza.org/dp2406.pdf 

Dimara Evanthia, et al. “Accounting for Availability Biases in Information Visualization”. 2016. http://dragice.fr/papers/AccountingForAvailabilityBias.pdf 

“Eligibility Requirements”. Employment Development Department: State of California, 2021. https://edd.ca.gov/Unemployment/Eligibility.htm 

Goldsmith Arthuy, Diette Timothy. “Exploring the Link Between Unemployment and Mental Health Outcomes”. American Psychological Association, 2012. https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/indicator/2012/04/unemployment#:~:text=In%20his%20view%2C%20prolonged%20helplessness,day%2C%20shared%20experiences%20and%20status 

Ho Geoffrey, et al. “The Stigma of Unemployment: When Joblessness Leads to Being Jobless”. Institute for Research on Labor and Employment UCLA, 2011. http://homepages.se.edu/cvonbergen/files/2013/11/The-Stigma-of-Unemployment_When-Joblessness-Leads-to-Being-Jobless.pdf 

Holzer Harry. “Worker Shortages and Tight Labor Markets”. Urban Institute: Elevate the Debate, 2000. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/64221/900253-Worker-Shortages-and-Tight-Labor-Markets.pdf 

Kahneman, Daniel. “Thinking, Fast and Slow”. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2011. Published on 18th West 18thStreet, New York 10011.

Krug Gerhard, et al. “The social stigma of unemployment: consequences of stigma consciousness on job search attitudes, behaviour and success”. Springer Open, 2019. https://labourmarketresearch.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12651-019-0261-4 

Linn M, et al. “Effects of Unemployment on Mental and Physical Health”. NCBI, 1985. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646287/ 

Marinescu Ioana, Skandalis Daphne, Zhao Daniel. “The Impact of the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation of Job Search and Vacancy Creation”. NBER Working Paper Series, 2021. ​​https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28567/w28567.pdf 

McClelland Alison, Macdonald Fiona. “The Social Consequences of Unemployment”. Business Council of Australia, 1998. https://library.bsl.org.au/jspui/bitstream/1/266/1/social_consequences_of_unemployment_AMcClelland.pdf 

Mueller Andreas, et al. “Job Seekers’ Perceptions and Employment Prospects: Heterogeneity, Duration Dependence, and Bias”. NBER Working Paper Series, 2018. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25294/w25294.pdf
 
Nichols Austin, et al. “Consequences of Long-Term Unemployment”. The Urban Institute, 2013. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/23921/412887-Consequences-of-Long-Term-Unemployment.PDF 

“Policy Basics: Unemployment Insurance”. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2021. https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/unemployment-insurance 

Tatsiramos Konstantinos. “The Effect of Unemployment Insurance on Unemployment Duration and the Subsequent Employment Stability”. IZA Discussion Paper Series, 2004. ​​http://ftp.iza.org/dp1163.pdf 

“Unemployment and Mental Health”. Institute for Work and Health, 2009. https://www.iwh.on.ca/summaries/issue-briefing/unemployment-and-mental-health 

“Unemployment Rates by State”. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021. https://www.bls.gov/bls/news-release/laus.htm 

Weir Kristen. “The Pain of Social Rejection”. American Psychological Association, 2012. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/rejection 

Winkelmann Rainer. “Unemployment and Happiness”. IZA World of Labor. https://wol.iza.org/articles/unemployment-and-happiness/long