Disability Behavior: Income Change and Motivation to Work

Disability Behavior: Income Change and Motivation to WorkAuthor(s): Saad Z. Nagi and Linda W. HadleySource: Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Jan., 1972), pp. 223-233Published by: Cornell University, School of Industrial & Labor RelationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2521757 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 02:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cornell University, School of Industrial & Labor Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Industrial and Labor Relations Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.96 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 02:46:38 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cschool

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2521757?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


DISABILITY BEHAVIOR:

INCOME CHANGE AND MOTIVATION TO WORK

SAAD Z. NAGI and LINDA W. HADLEY

IT MIGHT be considered a truism that disability affects the incomes of the

afflicted and their families, especially when it is defined in terms of inability to engage in gainful activity. Effects are manifested in either or both levels and sources of income. One population of disabled people was reported to have virtu- ally no private sources of income and to be dependent on the spouse's earnings, relatives, and public programs.' Indica- cations are, however, that the financial impact of disability may vary consider- ably, depending on certain characteristics of the disabled and of their families.2

Income also has been linked to work motivation. Some literature points out that work serves other functions in addition to remunerations When people

Investigation of changes in the level and sources of family income of disabled workers lends some support to the hypothesis that motivation to return to work is influenced by economic considerations. In a sample of applicants for disability insurance benefits, more of those whose family incomes had declined sharply exhibited strong motivation to return to work than those of whose incomes had remained stable. Overall, family incomes declined more than 50 percent with incapacity of a wage earner. Work- ing spouses made the highest contribution to postdisability family incomes.

Saad Z. Nagi is Mershon Professor of Sociology and Public Policy and Linda W. Hadley is a research assistant, The Ohio State University. The research for this article was supported in part by the Social and Rehabilitation Services Administration, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.-EDITOR

were asked whether they would work in the absence of economic need, the great majority preferred to work.4 Disabled people also expressed similar attitudes toward work.5 On the other hand, literature concerning the issue of "secondary gain" would lead to different conclusions about the relationships among disability, income, and work motivation. Essen- tially, the concept of secondary gains has been used to refer to advantages associated with the state of being sick or disabled. The focus has been primarily on sociopsychological gains such as the ability to control the actions of others, the receipt of emotional support, the satis- faction of dependency inclinations, and so forth. The assumption is that secondary gains motivate people toward sick- ness and disability behavior and limit

'Lawrence D. Haber et al., The Disabled Worker Under OASDI, Research Report No. 6 (Washington: U. S. Social Security Admini- stration, Division of Research and Statistics, 1964), p. 65.

2lbid., p. 90. 3E. A. Friedmann and R. J. Havighurst,

"Work and Retirement," in Sigmund Nosow and William H. Form, eds., Man, Work, and Society (New York: Basic Books, 1962), pp. 41-55.

4Nancy C. Morse and Robert S. Weiss, "The Function and Meaning of Work and the Job," American Sociological Review, Vol. 20, No. 2 (April 1955), pp. 191-199.

"S. Olshansky et al., "Employer Attitudes and Practices in Hiring Ex-Mental Patients," Men- tal Hygiene, Vol. 42, July 1958, pp. 391-401.

'Talcott Parsons, The Social System (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1951), pp. 428-479.

223



224 INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS REVIEW

their willingness to relinquish such roles once assumed.

Some literature also links disability behavior to economic considerations such as those involved in insurance and compensation benefits.7 "Compensationitis" is a label sometimes applied by rehabilitation personnel to persons believed to lack motivation to return to work because of pending compensation payments. This line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that when incomes with compensation payments are likely to stay the same or increase, workers will tend to adopt disability behavior when afflicted with mild impairments. The converse would hold if incomes were negatively affected.

The purpose of this article is threefold: (a) to describe changes in the individual and family incomes of a sample of disabled workers, (b) to identify some of the important factors in these changes, and (c) to examine the relationships between income change and motivation to work of workers in the sample.

Sources of Data Data used in this analysis were derived

from a larger study of applicants for disability benefits under the social security program.8 Included in the study were persons under 65 years old who had been engaged in gainful work activity for periods sufficient to qualify them for seeking these benefits. They were non- institutionalized applicants whose pri- mary impairments were of cardiovascu- lar, respiratory, neurological, or muscu-

7L. Lewis, "Social Dynamics in Medical As- pects of Workmen's Compensation." Paper presented at the National Institute of Rehabilita- tion and Workmen's Compensation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1962.

8Saad Z. Nagi, Disability and Rehabilitation: Legal, Clinical, and Self-Concepts and Measure- ment (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State Univer- sity Press, 1969).

loskeletal nature. Persons with these characteristics comprised over 90 percent of the total applicants in this program.9

Random methods were used in select- ing the study sample, which included applicants from the New Orleans Stand- ard Metropolitan Statistical Area; the Minneapolis-St. Paul SMSA; and twenty- one counties in central Ohio, including the Columbus SMSA. Data collection took place over a three-year period (1961- 1964).

In addition to the usual procedures followed in evaluating cases and process- ing claims for disability benefits, applicants in the sample were given extensive independent evaluations by clinical teams in each of the three states. The teams included specialists in the assess- ment of disability and potential for rehabilitation (namely, physicians, psy- chologists, social workers, vocational counselors, and occupational therapists). Data were obtained through interviews, physical examinations, laboratory and psychological tests, and consultants' clinical observations. Assessments of applicants were made by each of the specialists individually and later by the clinical team as a whole. Data were recorded on research schedules which provided the basis for the present analysis.

Changes in Income Levels and Sources

Changes in the levels of family income before and after disability occurred in a large number of cases, as shown in Table 1. While the family monthly income for 41.1 percent of the sample was $500 or more before disability, only 9.4 percent received such incomes after disability. Conversely, only 9.0 percent of those represented in the sample reported monthly

9Ibid., pp. 34, 35.



INCOME CHANGE AND MOTIVATION TO WORK 225

Table 1. Percentage Distribution of Applicants by Level of Family Monthly Income Before and After Disability.

Income after Income before Disability Disability Below $100-199 $200-299 $300-399 $400-499 $500 Total

$100 and Over

Below $100 (N =592) 75.0 70.5 46.9 31.0 26.1 9.9 27.5 $100-199 (N = 533) 20.0 25.5 35.5 39.1 27.1 14.0 24.7 $200-299 (N=366) 5.0 1.7 14.3 20.9 26.3 15.6 17.0 $300-399 (N=264) 1.7 3.0 7.5 11.1 20.4 12.3 $400-499 (N = 197) - 0.3 0.9 8.1 18.2 9.1 $500 and over (N= 202) - 0.6 0.6 1.3 21.9 9.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (N = 2,154) (N= 20) (N=173) (N=335) (N=345) (N=395) (N=886)

family incomes less than $200 before disability as compared with 52.2 percent after disability. Similar incomes before and after disability were reported by 16.7 percent of the sample; a reduction in income occurred in 81.7 percent of the cases, and only 1.5 percent reported an increase in family income after disability.

The disabled in this sample also experienced major shifts in sources of income. Table 2 shows the numbers of families receiving care from various sources before and after the onset of disability. It also presents median incomes from the various sources and the proportion each source contributed to the total income of families in the sample. Median total family income declined by more than half (from $482 to $220 per month) after the onset of disability. As would be expected, the greatest change occurred in "personal work or business," which ceased to be a source of income for 95 percent of the sample. Contributions from this source to the total income of families represented in this study fell from 76.3 percent to 2.8 percent. While 83 spouses were reported to have ceased gainful employment (probably because of the applicants' health conditions and need for care), 161 spouses were reported

to have joined the labor force after the applicant's disability. The disabled indi- viduals in these cases tended to be older and less educated than the rest of the sample. One would expect their wives to share some of these characteristics, which might help explain the drop in median income from "spouses' work."

Other sources of income than personal work or business were reported more frequently after disability than before its onset. As would be expected, the number of times income-maintenance programs were cited showed the largest increase (from 177 to 1,215). The actual amounts received through pensions, insurance, compensation, and welfare payments after disability were ten times as much as before. Before disability, these sources made up 1.4 percent of the income of families in the sample, as compared to 32 percent of their income after disability. Distributions in Table 2 also show greater reliance on savings and bonds after disability, which indicates a liquidation of such investments. Also, a number of families moved to less ex- pensive residences, mostly on a rental basis. In turn, by way of supplementing income, they leased their own homes at higher rents.




Table 2. Relative Contribution of Income Sources to Total Family Income Before and After Disability.

Before Disability After Disability Income Source Number Median Percent Number Median Percent

of Families Income Contribution of Families Income Contribution

Personal work or business 1,901 $370 76.3 83 $143 2.8 Spouse's work 699 306 23.2 777 277 51.1 Children, parents, other relatives 77 147 1.2 191 93 4.2 Savings bonds, investments, etc. 254 17 0.5 330 18 1.4 Property rental 125 97 1.3 208 96 4.7 Workmen's compensation 2 - 174 166 6.9 Pensions and insurance 62 95 0.6 494 123 14.4 Welfare agencies 18 81 0.2 325 84 6.5 VA pensions 95 63 0.6 222 79 4.2 Other 74 95 0.8 256 88 5.4

Total 1,913 482 100.0 1,913 220 100.0

Note: Medians were calculated following the method for grouped data described by Hubert M. Blalock in Social Statistics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960), pp. 55-57.

Percent contribution was calculated as follows: N X median income from specific source Total N (1,913) X median total income

Percentages do not total exactly 100 because of the use of medians rather than means in the calculations.

Factors Associated with Income Change Data presented so far represent the

total sample. They show only in a general way the influence of disability on income and the role of income-maintenance programs and other sources in assisting the disabled and their families. To further specify the picture of income change and to delineate some of the important factors in that change, the sample was divided into two major groups according to predisability income levels:(l) a lower- income group whose family monthly incomes were less than $500 (N = 1,027), and (2) a higher-income group whose family monthly incomes were $500 or more (N = 886). Each of these groups was further divided into three categories as follows: Lower-income group

A-no decline in family incomes (N = 198) B-moderate decline in family incomes,

that is, a drop of $100 from the ranges of $400 to 499 and $300 to 399 (N - 116)

C-sharp decline in family incomes, which includes all others in the lower-incomtie group (N - 713)

Higher-income group D-no decline in family incomes (N

194) E-moderate decline in family incomes,

that is, a drop of $100 from the range of $500 and over (N = 161)

F-sharp decline in family incomes, that is, a drop of $200 or more (N = 531)

Table 3 relates sources of family income before and after disability to change in income levels. The distributions, combined with the relative contributions of the various income sources (Table 2), show that spouses' gainful employment is perhaps the most significant factor in predisability income differentials and in the maintenance of income levels after its onset. The proportion having income from spouse's work in- creased from 36.5 percent to 40.6 percent for the total sample, but in category A the increase was from 16.7 percent to 42.4




k e 4 o. e > oo o 1 : V4 l

Cs~~~~~~~~~~ cn Ln " N C\ O

>,- 4 Ci 6 CS Ci C Ci Fc VO t n -

Q IItg , t o FO no u

V) S I

U ~ ON Cl '- >FNN

S ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~00 r- ' CN C\

u

o , , O t 4 cn o o cn O 4 o)

~-Ccf! O~ ON~ U~C

a~~~~~~~~~~~\ \, \0 0 \ r N inoC

O w ON tt0 NL \O \O 0 c9 _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\ cli 6 cn i Cli

~~~~~~< ~ ~ ~~c

ct 1

00 cn~~~~~

*-) R II 0 X F X N O O 0 n \ z~~~~~~~~~~~0 c; 0 Ne U: G o m : Un c

Z f i. cq cn Ln > 4N n Ln o o: < u 2 > F o. 4 X X e : J N o. r; C

~OC ? S o

:;~o, 0 m? st cn 0 o

0 X S m ?~~~~~~~~~~c 00 o >4n 4;

CZ: \0 16 C6 6 cl

C4 u E o F m 4 o o. m m o m ,cli 1 ...

o oocsov o o 0 N *a

U 0;

; ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ E 4 =n8=

0 0

4-- a aX a

, 0 0 a V O

0 2V 0 0 V ~~~~~~~~~~ S ~~~1 V .. 44a

k 0~~~~~~~~~~~& 4& 0 04 0 - <-

cn 0




percent. A drop in the proportion of working spouses occurred only in category F, that is, families with higher levels of predisability incomes who experienced sharp declines. Categories D and E include a preponderance of two- income families-a fact which accounts at least in part for the greater stability in their incomes. A much greater proportion of families in the higher-income group derived income from earnings on savings bonds, investments, and property rental. Sharp declines in income within this group occurred for families which were less likely to have been receiving income from these sources before or after disability-an indication of relatively lower accumulation of assets. Postdisabil- ity welfare payments were concentrated primarily among families with lower predisability incomes and, to some extent, among those who experienced sharp declines from the higher income levels. The reader is reminded that these data were collected before decisions regarding disability benefits under social security programs were effected.

Sources of postdisability income varied according to demographic characteristics. Although all but 4 of the 161 applicants whose spouses began gainful employment after the onset of disability were males, spouses' work as a source of income was reported more often by female applicants (53.8 percent) than by males (36.4 percent). Females also proportionally out- numbered males who derived earnings from savings bonds and other investments. As would be expected, male applicants were more often the recipients of income through workmen's compensation and veterans' pensions. The ratio of males receiving welfare payments was also higher.

When the sample is divided into two age groups (below 50 years of age, and

50 years and over), the distributions of postdisability income sources proportionally favor the older applicants in incomes from spouses' work, pensions and insurance, earnings on savings and investments, and property rental. Greater percentages of the younger applicants reported income from workmen's compensation, veterans' benefits, and welfare agencies.

The sample also was divided into two groups on the basis of years of schooling (below high school, and any high school years or above). Educational differentials showed primarily in earnings on savings and investments, which were reported more often by those with higher education, and in receipt of welfare payments, which was more characteristic of applicants with lower education. Spouses' work as a source of family income was slightly more prevalent among those with more schooling.

As would be expected, only the married (including common-law cases) reported income from spouses' work; none of the divorced or separated mentioned receiving income from that source. Other major marital status differentials in sources of income showed in a greater representation of single persons among recipients of income from pensions, insurance, and earnings on savings and investments. The widowed, separated, and divorced were proportionately the most frequent recipients of welfare payments, with married persons being lowest.

Another Viewpoint

Looking at the relationships of demographic factors and sources of income after disability somewhat differently, it is evident that applicants whose spouses contributed to family income were more likely to be older females with higher education. Relatives' support was dis-




tributed fairly evenly with the exception of single persons, who named this source much less often. Earnings on savings bonds and investments were more characteristic of the single, older persons, females, and those with more schooling. No major differences appeared in property rental as a source of income except in regard to age, where it was mentioned much more often by the older (14.6 percent) than the younger applicants (3.9 percent). Workmen's compensation was more prevalent among males and younger applicants. Pensions and insurance payments as an income source were more characteristic of the older applicants, the single, and the married. Wel- fare payments were mentioned by larger proportions of males, younger applicants, and those with lower education. These payments also tended to be concentrated more heavily among the divorced, separated, widowed, and the single. Veterans' benefits were more prevalent among males and those in the younger age groups.

Combining information about the distribution of postdisability sources of income by demographic characteristics and about the levels of income from each of the sources before and after disability (Table 2) leads to the expectations that (a) the "higher-income" group would incorporate greater proportions of females, married persons, older applicants, and those with higher education and (b) the decline in income would be more prevalent among applicants with the op- posite characteristics.

Distributions presented in Table 4 bear out the first set of expectations. The higher-income category included 53.4 percent of the females compared to 44.1 percent of the males, 48.2 percent of the older applicants compared to 42.9 percent of the younger, 54.4 percent of ap-

plicants with higher education compared to 40.3 percent of those with lower education, and 56.2 percent of the married compared to 16.3 percent of the single, widowed, divorced, separated, and other.

Comparisons of groups A and C and of D and F-that is, of applicants whose incomes remained stable with those whose incomes declined sharply-reveals some contradictions of the second set of expectations mentioned above. Slightly more older applicants are represented in the groups whose incomes declined sharply than in the groups whose incomes remained stable. This can be at- tributed to the significance of income from personal work for the older group. Applicants' personal earnings constituted a greater portion of family incomes for the older than the younger members of the sample. The loss of this source of income after disability resulted in the greater representation of older applicants among those whose incomes declined sharply.

The other anomaly concerns the level of education and its relationship to income change. While more schooling was clearly associated with income stability among the higher-income applicants, the lower-income group depicts the reverse pattern. This seeming contradiction can be explained by the range of predisability family incomes in this group, the associa- tion of income and education, and the effects of income-maintenance programs. Predisability monthly incomes for families in the low-income group ranged from under $100 to $499. Variations were associated with levels of education: applicants with more schooling were more heavily represented in the upper portions of the income range and vice versa. In- come-maintenance programs, such as welfare and workmen's compensation, are more likely to offset the effects of losses




Table 4. Percentage Distribution of Applicants by Selected Demographic Characteristics and Family Income.

Characteristics Lower Family Income Higher Family Income Total of Applicants A B C D E F (N= 1,913)

(N = 198) (N = 116) (N =713) (N = 194) (N = 161) (N =531)

Age Less than 50 years 38.9 39.7 36.0 33.5 36.0 30.5 34.8 50 years or more 61.1 60.3 64.0 66.5 64.0 69.5 65.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (x2 = 0.9302, df = 2, p < .35) (x2 = 1.9222, df 2, p < .25)

Education Less than high

school 71.7 60.3 63.8 32.5 52.2 57.8 58.6 High school or

more 28.3 39.7 36.2 67.5 47.8 42.2 41.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

(x2 = 5.4510, df = 2, p < .05) (x2 = 36.4096, df = 2, p < .001)

Sex Male 66.7 69.8 83.7 52.1 49.7 86.1 75.7 Female 33.3 30.2 16.3 47.9 50.3 13.9 24.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (X2 = 33.5961, df = 2, p < .001) (x2 = 130.0031, df = 2, p < .001)

Marital Status Single 4.5 3.4 9.3 1.0 0.6 3.0 5.1 Married 66.7 75.9 57.6 97.0 90.1 89.6 75.3 Separated, divorced,

or widowed 18.2 6.9 22.0 1.0 5.6 3.8 12.1 Other 10.6 13.8 11.1 1.0 3.7 3.6 7.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (x2 = 26.6225, df = 6, p < .001) (x2 = 10.6184, df = 6, p < .10)

in earnings when the latter are low than when they are high.

Income Change and Motivation to Work

A second objective of this analysis is to examine the relationship between changes in family income levels when workers withdraw from the labor market because of impairments and the motivation of these workers to relinquish disability behavior. In the larger study from which the information presented here was drawn, vocational counselors made evaluations of applicants' motivation to return to work on the basis of detailed

work histories, psychological testing, and interviews. These evaluations were made without knowledge of changes in income, since data on income were collected by other persons. Each of the three clinical teams (in Louisiana, Ohio, and Minne- sota) included one vocational counselor who made these evaluations. In other words, they do not represent the compos- ite judgments of two or more counselors.

This raises the question of possible influence of individual judgments on the part of the counselors. Such influence could not be fully controlled in clinical assessments which by definition rely heavily on judgmental components. To utilize




a group of counselors would not over- come possible professional biases which may only be obscured by intercounselor consistency. Theoretical fit was the most effective test of validity for judgments on motivation to return to work which was applicable in this analysis. If the assessments of the counselors were highly idiosyncratic, the theoretically expected relationships between motivation to work and the independent variables would not show consistency when data for the three study locales were analyzed separately. A separate analysis was undertaken for this purpose and, although different in degree, the relationships were consist- ently in the expected direction for the subsamples of Louisiana, Ohio, and Min- nesota. Motivation to return to work was reported on a five-point scale, which is condensed in this analysis into two categories: applicants with "higher motivation" and those with "lower motivation."

Work motivation is used here as an indicator of attitudes toward relinquish- ing disability status. If income change influences behavior in the way hypothe- sized earlier in this article, we should expect applicants whose family income underwent sharp decline after disability to be more highly motivated to return to work than those whose income remained stable. The analysis was controlled for severity of physical impairment, since this might be expected to influence motivation to return to work. The hypothesis is that when physical limitations become severe, income change loses significance as a factor in work motivation. Table 5 presents data on the relationship of predisability income level, income change after disability, and motivation to return to work, controlling for severity of impairment.

The data lend support to the hypothe-

sized influence of severity of impairment on the relationship of change in income to work motivation. Although no relationship between income change and motivation to work can be discerned for applicants with severe limitations, significant differences are apparent for applicants with moderate physical limitations. Applicants with slight physical limitations exhibit even greater differences. Groups C and F, which include applicants whose family incomes experienced sharp declines, include greater proportions of persons with high motivation to work than groups A and D, whose levels of family income were not negatively affected by disability. It should be noted also that motivation to return to work was generally greater among applicants in the predisability higher-family- income category than among those with lower income levels.

Attempts were made to identify specific conditions under which the relationships between income change and disability behavior do or do not hold. Controls were applied for a number of variables -including age, education, sex, number of household members dependent on the incomes reported, and sources of family income after disability. With three exceptions, the same pattern of relationships between income change and motivation to return to work were found to exist in the different categories which resulted from controlling for these variables. The three exceptions included (a) persons in the higher education and lower predisability income category, (b) those with lower education and higher predisability income, and (c) younger persons with higher predisability income levels. In the first two categories no differences in motivation toward return to work were exhibited between applicants whose fam-




Table 5. Family Income Change and Motivation Toward Return to Work with Severity of Physical Limitations Controlled.

Severity of Limitations Lower Family Income Higher Family Income and Work Motivations A B C D E F Total

Applicants with slight limitation

Number 35 12 122 30 19 71 289 Percent with high

motivation 20.0 25.0 40.2 26.7 31.6 54.9 38.8 (x2 = 5.41, df = 2, p < .05) (x2 = 8.19, df = 2, p < .01)

Applicants with moderate limitation



Applicants with severe limitation



ily incomes remained stable and those whose incomes declined sharply. For the younger applicants with higher predisability family incomes there was a slight reversal from the general pattern. While 66.7 percent of those whose incomes remained stable were strongly motivated to return to work, 60.8 percent of the applicants who experienced sharp decline in incomes showed high motivation. Ex- planations for these exceptions were sought in differences in number of dependents and in the proportions of women applicants whose husbands' earnings constituted the main source of family support. Neither variable provided an explanation except in the case of the applicants with higher education and lower income. In that group the average number of dependents was sub- stantially greater for persons whose family incomes remained stable than for

those whose incomes showed sharp declines. In other words, the presence of many dependents counteracted the general tendency for income stability to de- press motivation for these applicants.

Conclusions This analysis has focused on changes

in levels and sources of family incomes of a sample of disabled workers and on the relationship of these changes to motivation toward resuming work. With loss of the earnings of the disabled workers, median monthly family income decreased by 54 percent. Working spouses made the most significant contribution to postdisability family incomes, followed by various income-maintenance programs. Cer- tain demographic characteristics were found to be associated with higher levels of income before disability. Income stability was associated with employment




of spouses, particularly husbands, in the higher-income segment of the sample and with income-maintenance programs in the lower-income segment.

Regarding motivation to relinquish the role of the vocationally disabled and return to work, it was found that for applicants with severe physical limitations, income changes had no bearing on motivation. However, as severity decreased, income changes played a greater part in motivation. Proportionately more applicants whose family incomes had declined sharply exhibited high motivation to return to work than those whose incomes remained stable. These relation-

ships persisted while controlling for a number of relevant variables. Such factors as level of income before disability and number of dependents appear to modify these relationships.

In conclusion, these findings lend some support to the hypothesis that disability behavior may be affected by economic considerations. It is necessary, however, to be cautious in generalizing these re- sults. Persons studied in this analysis constituted a sample of applicants for social security disability insurance benefits and do not represent the total population of disabled people.



Documents

Disability Behavior: Income Change and Motivation to Work