Why is there a growing interest in the BI?

The BI appears to strike a chord with many individuals and groups and for many reasons. In the following, we discuss five factors that make the BI appealing. The first factor is the discussion about the consequences that digitization, automatization, and computerization may have for overall employment. This is by no means a new discussion (see, for instance, the Ad Hoc Committee on the Triple Revolution, 1964; Keynes, 1930/Reference Keynes2010). In fact, research has shown that work hours per capita have been shrinking massively from the 19th century onward (Schildt, Reference Schildt2006). This shrinkage occurred in the course of the industrialization and is due to rationalization efforts and the ever-increasing use of machines, computers, and robots. However, the imminent wave of digitization, automatization, and computerization will probably not only reduce available paid work (i.e., technological unemployment) but may also eradicate entire classes of blue-collar jobs (e.g., truck drivers, warehousemen, cashiers). Such consequences are also expected to extend to white-collar jobs such as legal assistants, pharmacists, medical diagnosticians, stockbrokers (see Lowrey, Reference Lowrey2018), or human resource managers (when certain steps of the personnel selection process are done by machines). It is predicted that millions of jobs will be replaced and may be lost for good in the course of these developments. Although some predictions are rather optimistic (e.g., World Economic Forum, 2018), others anticipate a high level of technological unemployment (e.g., a controversial prognosis saw about half of U.S. jobs as threatened by technological advances, see Frey & Osborne, Reference Frey and Osborne2013; see also Brynjolfsson & McAfee, Reference Brynjolfsson and McAfee2014). Many people believe that the BI could be an effective response to the threat of technological mass unemployment. This is because the BI could help people who lost their jobs due to technological advancements meet their basic needs and it might also support them in undertaking new work activities while having a minimum financial security.

A second factor driving the interest in the BI concerns its potential as a solution to already existing poverty and inequality. Although continued economic growth was the leading economic and political doctrine for a long time, it has not been able to eradicate unemployment (at times and in various places of the world not even mass unemployment). Thus, poverty and economic inequality are and remain important contemporary problems in Western countries—even before the expected wave of technological unemployment will hit (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, Reference Brynjolfsson and McAfee2014; Frey & Osborne, Reference Frey and Osborne2013). Many people lack relevant and up-to-date occupational competencies and have been unemployed for several years. They will probably not be able to reenter the labor market under current conditions, with increasingly complex demands and highly specialized tasks. However, at least in Western economies, there are different social welfare instruments to target existing poverty and economic inequality. These instruments typically involve an application procedure and rely on means testing (e.g., availability of financial support from relatives). Both aspects may result in feared or actual stigmatization and possibly bring about negative emotions like shame or guilt in people applying for these benefits, which may prevent them from applying in the first place (i.e., resulting in a relatively low take-up rate). In contrast, a BI would be paid automatically and without means testing to all citizens (i.e., there would be no need to apply for it and no need to disclose one’s private financial situation in the process). Thus, a BI could be more effective in fighting poverty and inequality than existing means-tested social benefits (e.g., Standing, Reference Standing2017; Torry, Reference Torry2016; Van Parijs & Vanderborght, Reference Van Parijs and Vanderborght2017).

A third factor that makes the BI interesting also focuses on social justice aspects. It goes back to the early and very basic idea that the world and its natural resources are a common good and, thus, belong to all people (e.g., Ambrose, 1927; Vives, 1526/Reference Vives2010). Thus, earnings resulting from the use of worldly resources should be distributed, which could be realized with a BI as a regular dividend to all citizens (see Paine, 1796, for a very early suggestion). Although this idea appeals to many people, it has rarely been realized. However, there is one prominent example of such a redistribution of the earnings from collective resources: Since 1982, the state of Alaska pays its citizens a yearly dividend to let them participate in the earnings that are generated from the exploitation of Alaska’s immense oil resources.

It is this central notion underlying the BI—the world as a common good and the according obligation to distribute the revenues from its use to all people—that differentiates the BI from other widely discussed and implemented income-redistribution measures such as, for instance, the living wage. Rather than drawing on a philosophical justification and separating work and income, the living wage is awarded for concrete efforts to engage in paid work. It is designed to fulfill the central human right of a “just and favourable remuneration” that ensures “an existence worthy of human dignity” (Article 23 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948).

A fourth factor increasing the interest in the BI concerns a deep-rooted dissatisfaction with different facets of today’s working world. Many people want to work differently than they currently do. For instance, they would prefer to work fewer hours even if their salary shrank accordingly (e.g., about half of employees working full-time in Western Europe; Brauner et al., Reference Brauner, Wöhrmann and Michel2018; Fagan & Warren, Reference Fagan and Warren2001). However, under current conditions, most employees cannot reduce their working time according to their wishes. Relatedly, many people caring for frail relatives would like to have more discretion about their work schedules but are often not granted the desired flexibility (e.g., Brauner et al., Reference Brauner, Wöhrmann and Michel2018; Fagan & Warren, Reference Fagan and Warren2001). Moreover, many people do not like certain aspects of their current work situation, which results in various problems: For instance, only about 15% of surveyed employees worldwide report being engaged with their work, and as many as 50% of the surveyed people were actively looking for new jobs (Gallup, 2017). Possible reasons for this state of affairs are that many people do not feel treated well by their leaders (Gallup, 2017) or do not perceive their jobs as meaningful (Cartwright & Holmes, Reference Cartwright and Holmes2006). This lack of meaning is not restricted to “bullshit jobs” (i.e., jobs where even the holders know that their tasks are useless, pointless, unnecessary, and may even cause harm; Graeber, Reference Graeber2018), although these jobs may be primarily affected. A further hallmark of today’s working world is that many employees are absent from work relatively often and retire far before reaching their regular or typical retirement age (i.e., 65–70 years). These phenomena are often traced back to the strain employees have to endure over their careers, but it may also partly result from perceived lack of meaning. It is the hope of many that a BI could contribute to changes that render the future world of work more humane because it would give people more choices, for instance to reject certain jobs, change jobs more easily, reduce working hours, or even alternate between phases of paid work and “only” unpaid work. This freedom would, thus, allow people to better integrate their private and working lives and force employers to offer better working conditions that make work less straining and more meaningful.

As a fifth factor, a BI could also positively affect existing gender inequalities. Although not reflected in the official labor statistics, a very large share of a society’s work has traditionally been and is currently still done by women. This unpaid work (e.g., reproductive work including breastfeeding, household/caregiving work, and further forms of “hidden” work) by far exceeds paid work: In Germany, for instance, people spent 89 billion hours of unpaid work in 2013, whereas they “only” spent 66 billion hours of paid work (Destatis, 2016). Overall, 75% of the unpaid work is done by women (McKinsey Global Institute, 2015), and the unequal shares of unpaid work done by women and men are universal across countries (Miranda, Reference Miranda2011). If women also engage in paid work, this results in a “double shift” for them. In any case, because women do much more of the unpaid work than men, many of them financially depend on their partner. Accordingly, many people hope that a BI could better reward traditionally unpaid work activities and, thereby, empower women (e.g., Goehler, Reference Goehler2017; Schulz, Reference Schulz2017). In the words of Van Parijs and Vanderborght (Reference Van Parijs and Vanderborght2017, p. 186), “a basic income makes it easier to opt for part-time work and take career breaks. It thereby enables in particular poorly-paid women to escape from the double shift and an unbearable life pace.” However, there is also a critical perspective on the BI with respect to gender equality. Some feminists worry that a BI may reinforce traditional gender roles and cement the current division of labor (e.g., Orloff, Reference Orloff, Widerquist, Noguera, Vanderborght and De Wispelaere2013; Robeyns, Reference Robeyns2001).

Why the BI has not been a topic in IWO psychology thus far

Whereas the BI has drawn interest from various academic disciplines, a discussion in the field of psychology, and especially in IWO psychology, is currently lacking. Here, we outline a few possible reasons. First, the BI and its consequences are currently very difficult to study empirically, making the BI a challenging topic for IWO psychologists. Even small-scale BI test trials would incur immense financial costs, and related studies would be very difficult to realize. Moreover, there is a mismatch between (short-term) experimentation—as the preferred method within psychology—and the methods required to study the BI’s longer term consequences.

Second, studying the consequences of a BI needs a theoretical lens with a different resolution than is typically used in psychology: Most empirical research in IWO psychology has focused on individuals or small groups (i.e., a micro perspective), and it has been criticized for this limited perspective (Bal & Doci, Reference Bal and Dóci2018), which neglects larger scale influences on individuals. Moreover, IWO psychology has also been criticized for not considering the societ al-level consequences of its work (Lefkowitz, Reference Lefkowitz2017). Studying the consequences of a BI would broaden IWO psychology’s focus and (also) require a meso and macro perspective to fully understand the multifaceted effects that may occur with a BI.

Third, IWO psychology typically focuses on studying extant interventions rather than theorizing about new or even “utopian” ideas like the BI. Recent measures that were studied in psychology after their implementation comprise, for instance, mothers’ and fathers’ extended possibilities for parental leave (e.g., Hideg et al., Reference Hideg, Krstic, Trau and Zarina2018; Horvath et al., Reference Horvath, Grether and Wiese2018), organizational diversity training (Bezrukova et al., Reference Bezrukova, Spell, Perry and Jehn2016), or antidiscrimination policies in the work context (Hebl et al., Reference Hebl, Barron, Cox and Corrington2016).

Fourth and finally, like many other disciplines, psychology suffers from a science–practitioner gap. It often takes considerable time until interesting and relevant topics are investigated in IWO psychology, although they are (sometimes intensely) discussed in the relevant practitioner communities (Aguinis & Cascio, Reference Aguinis and Cascio2008). Such a time lag may also have prevented a debate on the BI in psychology, and in IWO psychology in particular.

History, definition, financial aspects, and main criticisms of the BI

In this section, we give an overview of the history and philosophical legitimization of the BI, its defining elements, costs of and financing options, advantages, and main criticisms. Van Parijs and Vanderborght (Reference Van Parijs and Vanderborght2017) as well as Ortiz et al. (Reference Ortiz, Behrendt, Acuña-Ulate and Anh2018) provide excellent overviews of these aspects, and we draw heavily from these resources in this section.

Psychological issues regarding the BI

We now connect our review of central features of the BI with psychological theories and empirical findings to provide first answers to a number of common questions regarding the BI.

Will people continue to work if they receive a BI? Or will they rather become privateers, “leisurites” (i.e., a life role that involves spending time on leisure activities; Super, Reference Super1953), or (early) “retirees”? If many or most people in a given country or geographical area in which a BI exists decided to completely forego paid employment and to live off the BI only, this would have severe consequences for organizations (e.g., lack of suitable personnel, productivity losses), other individuals such as customers (e.g., inability to meet everyday needs for food, shelter, etc.), and society as a whole (e.g., loss of security, instable economy). However, a number of psychological and managerial theories, and research evidence accumulated over the past decades, suggest that the introduction of a BI would not stop most people from working for pay, either in the same or another job or occupation, because for many people work entails much more than a means to earn a living. For instance, the classic works by Walker and Guest (Reference Walker and Guest1952), Herzberg et al. (Reference Herzberg, Mausner and Bloch Snyderman1959), and Hackman and Oldham (Reference Hackman and Oldham1976) have thoroughly debunked the “homo economicus,” which portrays humans as consistently rational, self-interested, and utility maximizing. In the following, we focus on research on the “lottery question,” on the Negative Income Tax in North America, and on unemployment and the “latent functions” of working, as these research streams most directly address our question regarding the role of pay and income in people’s life.

Research on the lottery question has asked study participants, “If by some chance you inherited enough money to live comfortably without working, do you think that you would work anyway or not?” (note that “winning the lottery” was added only in later studies to “inheriting money”; Morse & Weiss, Reference Morse and Weiss1955, p. 191). The psychological construct underlying this question has been termed “nonfinancial employment commitment”—that is, the commitment to employment that is not due to income (Warr, Reference Warr1982). Using a sample of 401 male workers, a classic study by Morse and Weiss (Reference Morse and Weiss1955) found that 80% would continue working even if they inherited money. Of these workers, two thirds provided positive reasons for wanting to continue working, such as “to keep occupied,” “keeps individually healthy, good for person,” and “enjoy the kind of work” (p. 192). In contrast, one third of workers who wanted to keep working mentioned negative consequences of not working including “feel lost, go crazy” or “not know what to do with my time, can’t be idle” (p. 192).

A review of research on the lottery question over several decades showed that subsequent studies were able to replicate Morse and Weiss’s (Reference Morse and Weiss1955) original findings. Specifically, 22 studies conducted between 1969 and 2005 demonstrated that, across studies, more than two thirds of people would continue working as compared with one third who would stop working (i.e., “continue working” mean = 76%, “stop working” mean = 24%; Paulsen, Reference Paulsen2008). However, Paulsen (Reference Paulsen2008) argued that, to better understand the implications of research on the lottery question, it is important to take a closer look at the specific response options provided to respondents in the primary studies and follow-up questions to the question asked. For example, in their original study, Morse and Weiss (Reference Morse and Weiss1955) also asked workers, “Would you still keep on doing the same type of work you are doing now?” and found clear occupational differences. Whereas most farmers (69%) and people in professional jobs (68%) responded affirmatively to this question, a much lower percentage of people in blue-collar jobs (34%) indicated that they would continue working in their jobs. Paulsen (Reference Paulsen2008) identified 12 studies that distinguished people’s responses to the lottery question into three categories, “continue at current job” (mean = 38%), “continue working elsewhere” or “continue working under different conditions” (mean = 38%), and “stop working” (mean = 21%). Moreover, comparable shares of people indicating to continue working and to stop working were found across very different countries and cultures (de Voogt & Lang, Reference de Voogt and Lang2017). Thus, overall, these findings suggest that most people would want to remain employed even if they could afford to stop working immediately while still meeting their basic needs. Importantly, however, half of them would want to work in a different job or under different working conditions (for recent temporal trends and a discussion of the limitations of the lottery questions as a measure of work ethic, see Highhouse et al., Reference Highhouse, Zickar and Yankelevich2010).

Research on the lottery question can be criticized for presenting people with a hypothetical and, at the same time, highly unlikely scenario that only very few people may ever encounter in their lives. Thus, it may be questioned whether people’s responses to the question would predict their behavior if they actually won the lottery or inherited a lot of money (or received an unconditional BI). Interestingly, some research with actual lottery winners suggests that most people who could live comfortably without working for pay would still choose to work (Arvey et al., Reference Arvey, Harpaz and Liao2004; Falk & Mäendpää, Reference Falk and Mäendpää1999). For example, Arvey et al. (Reference Arvey, Harpaz and Liao2004) surveyed 117 lottery winners and found that 100 of them (85.5%) continued to work after winning (i.e., “engaged in regular jobs for which wages were being paid, regular hours maintained, and so forth”; p. 412), whereas only 17 individuals decided to stop working completely (14.5%). The amount of money won in the lottery was positively associated with quitting work, whereas job satisfaction and work centrality were negatively correlated with quitting. Furthermore, the negative association of work centrality with quitting was stronger among those who won a large amount of money (i.e., more than 3 million dollars). Importantly, the results of the study have to be interpreted with caution, as the response rate among lottery winners contacted was only 9%. However, largely comparable results were found in a Swedish study that could link lottery winners with their related administrative data (i.e., the study focused on hours worked, so no self-selection bias existed; Cesarini et al., Reference Cesarini, Lindqvist, Notowidigdo and Östling2017). Another study with lottery winners found that unfavorable working conditions were associated with lottery winners’ decisions to quit, take leaves from work, and reduce their work hours (Hedenus, Reference Hedenus2012). In particular, high levels of physical job strain, lack of training possibilities, low satisfaction with coworkers, and lack of working-time autonomy were related to lottery winners’ decision to spend less time at work. Thus, overall, this line of research suggests that most people would continue to work for pay if a BI was introduced. Among those who would continue to work, however, about half would stay in the same job, whereas the other half would change jobs or reduce their working hours. Moreover, people’s decisions regarding their employment upon the introduction of a BI will likely depend on the existing working conditions (including demands and resources) in their occupation, organization, and job. For instance, research on the lottery question suggests that white-collar and professional workers will be more likely to continue working than will blue-collar workers when receiving a BI.

Studies in affluent countries on the effect of cash transfers on the recipients’ actual work behavior come to very similar conclusions (see Forget, Reference Forget, Benns and Scheidler-Benns2018; Marinescu, Reference Marinescu2018). Although none of these studies investigated the effect of a BI and most of these studies had a fixed duration, they provide some interesting insights. In a summary of the four large-scale experiments on the effect of a negative income tax (Friedman, Reference Friedman1962) in the US and one similar large-scale study in Canada, Forget (Reference Forget, Benns and Scheidler-Benns2018) concluded that the decrease in hours worked was, depending on the site of the experiments, either not statistically significant or small (see also Robins, Reference Robins1985). Although the primary earners of a family (husbands) hardly reduced their work hours, the secondary earners (wives) reduced their work hours between 3% (in the Canadian study) and 28% (in Seattle/Denver), presumably to take care of family members. The effect of other cash transfers (e.g., from the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Casino Dividend or Alaska Permanent Fund) on working hours was also either null or small, respectively (Marinescu, Reference Marinescu2018).

Additional evidence for the conclusion that most people would continue to work—either in the same job, organization, or occupation; in a different job, organization, or occupation; or under different working conditions—comes from research on unemployment and the “latent functions” of working (i.e., nonfinancial benefits of working as opposed to “manifest functions” or financial benefits of working; Jahoda, Reference Jahoda1983). These functions are considered “latent” because people are not necessarily aware of their positive effects (see also Herzberg et al., Reference Herzberg, Mausner and Bloch Snyderman1959, for the related motivation-hygiene theory). According to Jahoda (Reference Jahoda1983), the latent functions fulfill important psychological needs and include time structure, social contacts, collective purpose (or common goals), status, identity, and activity provided by employment. Jahoda (Reference Jahoda1981) argued that in modern societies, paid work is the most important domain that allows people to experience these latent functions with sufficient intensity and regularity. The lack or loss of these latent functions (called “deprivation” by Jahoda, Reference Jahoda1981), in addition to a loss of income, is assumed to cause psychological strain (see also Warr, Reference Warr1987). Accordingly, a meta-analysis on the effects of unemployment on mental health showed that unemployed people experience higher depression, anxiety, and psychosomatic symptoms as well as lower subjective well-being and self-esteem compared with employed people (Paul & Moser, Reference Paul and Moser2009). The meta-analysis also showed that men and blue-collar workers experienced more distress due to unemployment than women and white-collar workers. Related research shows that unemployed people are motivated to seek employment not only for financial but also for personal and social reasons (Mor-Barak, Reference Mor-Barak1995). The well-being of those who regain employment increases significantly. Even people in precarious jobs (e.g., low wage, temporary contract, lack of fit between worker and job requirements) are more satisfied with life than those who remain unemployed (Grün et al., Reference Grün, Hauser and Rhein2010). Finally, experiencing unemployment may even lead to a more persistent decrease in life satisfaction than other critical life events (e.g., divorce or widowhood; Clark & Georgellis, Reference Clark and Georgellis2013; Lucas et al., Reference Lucas, Clark, Georgellis and Diener2004).

Furthermore, the availability of the latent functions of working meets important individual needs and has been found to be associated with improved health and well-being (Jahoda, Reference Jahoda1981). Indeed, primary research conducted with a representative sample of the German population shows that both full-time and part-time employees, including unskilled manual workers, consistently self-reported having higher levels of time structure, social contact, collective purpose, and regular activity than unemployed persons and other people who are not part of the labor force (i.e., students, homemakers, retirees; Paul & Batinic, Reference Paul and Batinic2010). Moreover, full-time employees reported higher levels of status and identity as well as psychological well-being than unemployed persons. All five latent functions as well as people’s financial situation correlated positively with psychological well-being; moreover, in a regression analysis, the financial situation, status, and social contacts emerged as most important predictors. With respect to demographic characteristics, Paul and Batinic (Reference Paul and Batinic2010) showed that young men from higher social classes, who had a partner and children, reported the highest levels in the latent functions of working. A longitudinal study with four measurement waves over 1.5 years further showed that self-reports of the latent functions positively predicted change in employee health, whereas health did not have reverse effects on the latent functions (Selenko et al., Reference Selenko, Batinic and Paul2011). Overall, this research suggests that, in addition to income and other extrinsic sources of motivation, intrinsic factors such as the latent functions of working play an important role for people’s work motivation and well-being.

Jahoda’s (Reference Jahoda1981, Reference Jahoda1983) work could be criticized for seeing employees as passive recipients, who only react to the availability or lack of the latent functions of working (Paul & Batinic, Reference Paul and Batinic2010). In contrast, psychological action theories conceive individuals as active, self-determined agents, who tend to initiate changes in their environment and personal development to better use their abilities and meet their needs (Frese & Zapf, Reference Frese, Zapf, Triandis, Dunnette and Hough1994; Heckhausen & Heckhausen, Reference Heckhausen and Heckhausen2008). In the IWO psychology context, action regulation theory suggests that employees actively redefine tasks assigned to them by others and set their own work-related goals, mentally regulate their goal-oriented behavior at work (e.g., planning, feedback processing), and show personal initiative (Frese & Fay, Reference Frese and Fay2001; Hacker, Reference Hacker2003). More broadly, the theory assumes that most if not all individuals, across the entire adult lifespan, strive to engage in work-related activities and to continually improve themselves and that people’s occupation and paid employment provide the most important contexts to meet those needs (Zacher et al., Reference Zacher, Hacker and Frese2016). Similarly, self-determination theory proposes that people strive to be as autonomous as possible in their actions, to belong to social groups, and to demonstrate their personal competence (Deci & Ryan, Reference Deci and Ryan1985); for many, work (both paid and unpaid) is a primary activity to fulfill these needs (Gagné & Deci, Reference Gagné and Deci2005). Evidence for this assumption comes, for instance, from research on retirement and bridge employment, which suggests that many retirees remain active and “busy” (Beehr & Bennett, Reference Beehr and Bennett2015; Ekerdt, Reference Ekerdt1986; Griffin & Hesketh, Reference Griffin and Hesketh2008).

Would today’s workplaces have to change if people’s basic financial needs were met through a BI? Based on action regulation and self-determination theories, we argue that workplaces would have to change to become more “humane”—that is, to better meet individuals’ needs and challenge their abilities in positive, growth-oriented ways. Action regulation theory outlines the following conditions that have to be met for work to have positive consequences on people’s well-being, motivation, and performance: work has to be feasible (“Ausführbarkeit”), not cause physical damage or psychological strain, and, through complete tasks, should support individuals’ learning and development (Hacker, Reference Hacker, Debus and Schroiff1986). Similar to the notion of task identity (Hackman & Oldham, Reference Hackman and Oldham1976), complete tasks entail that employees are involved in all stages of the action regulation process (e.g., goal setting, planning, execution, feedback processing) and at all levels of the psychological action regulation hierarchy (e.g., physiological demands, intellectual demands). Overall, action regulation theory suggests that if a BI was introduced, people would not become inactive but would still be motivated to engage in work activities that are “complete”—that is, designed to better meet their needs for activity and development. As a caveat, it is important to note here that our expectations regarding positive workplace effects of the BI may be Western-centric and that cultural characteristics can moderate the effects of work design on individual outcomes, such as job attitudes and behavior (Erez, Reference Erez2010). For instance, research has shown that motivational job characteristics, such as autonomy and task identity, are not necessarily positively related to job satisfaction in less “Westernized” cultures (for a review, see Judge et al., Reference Judge, Parker, Colbert, Heller, Ilies, Anderson, Ones, Sinangil and Viswesvaran2001).

How would the introduction of a BI affect workers in currently precarious, “indecent,” and “dirty” jobs and occupations? Research suggests that the “working poor” members of the workforce attempt to make a living in a strong situation characterized by low-wage work, insecurity, and poverty (Leana et al., Reference Leana, Mittal and Stiehl2012). Leana et al. (Reference Leana, Mittal and Stiehl2012) argue that the working poor are severely disadvantaged in terms of job attachment, career attainment, and job performance (for recent critiques of neoliberalism in the IWO psychology literature, see Bal & Dóci, Reference Bal and Dóci2018; Mumby, Reference Mumby2019). Similarly, “indecent work” entails working conditions that are not physically and interpersonally safe, a lack of access to health care, inadequate compensation, insufficient free time and rest, and organizational values that are inconsistent with family and social values (Duffy et al., Reference Duffy, Allan, England, Blustein, Autin, Douglass and Santos2017; International Labour Organization, 1999). Research suggests that indecent work is associated with lower physical and mental health because workers are not able to meet their needs for survival, social contribution, and self-determination (Duffy et al., Reference Duffy, Kim, Gensmer, Raque-Bogdan, Douglass, England and Buyukgoze-Kavas2019). Moreover, long and inflexible work hours lead to the experience of work–family conflict among caregivers of young children or frail relatives (Hammer et al., Reference Hammer, Colton, Caubet, Brockwood, Thomas and Hersen2002) and, due to a lack of recovery, have a negative influence on health (Van der Hülst, Reference Van der Hülst2003). “Dirty work” involves stigmatized tasks and occupations that threaten workers’ professional self-esteem and social identity (Ashforth & Kreiner, Reference Ashforth and Kreiner1999). Examples of dirty jobs include low-prestige jobs such as cleaners, butchers, and undertakers, but also jobs with a high prestige such as dentists.

The introduction of a BI would allow workers to leave precarious, indecent, and dirty jobs and occupations while still being able to meet their basic needs. Thus, especially when unemployment and underemployment rates are low, organizations and society would have to find ways to improve working conditions, including pay, benefits such as health care, occupational safety, and work hours, as well as the social prestige of formerly “dirty” jobs and occupations to make them attractive to those who want to earn an income that is additional to the BI (e.g., to finance their life expenses like real-estate loans, hobbies, vacations). As we have argued above, we expect there will be enough people who will want to work and earn an additional income, but, in contrast to many contemporary jobs, working conditions and prestige of these jobs would have to better meet their personal needs, including needs for occupational safety and self-esteem. Of course, the margins of such investments are likely to be high for different stakeholders. Thus, organizations and society have to deliberate whether certain jobs and occupations are necessary for their functioning and, if the answer is “yes” and current unemployment and underemployment are low, enhance not only the pay but also the working conditions and prestige of these jobs. Of course, such changes imply societ al costs, which may partly neutralize the positive effects of the BI. However, it may also be possible to shift financial resources from unnecessary “bullshit jobs” (Graeber, Reference Graeber2018) to necessary jobs. If changing the working conditions and prestige of certain jobs and occupations is not possible due to a lack of resources, organizations and society will have to either automatize them (i.e., assign tasks to robots) or accept that certain jobs and occupations will disappear. In some cases, the disappearance of certain jobs might even have positive consequences. For instance, if the meat-producing industry is forced to shut down plants because fewer people are willing to work there, meat consumption will go down with positive effects on individual health, societ al spending on health care, and carbon dioxide emissions. More generally, the introduction of a BI could lead to more health-, social-, and environment-conscious consumption; an increased focus on the quality of products and services (as opposed to quantity); and greater attention to worker health and well-being (as opposed to productivity and efficiency; see Bal & Dóci, Reference Bal and Dóci2018).

After the potential introduction of a BI, if employees cannot meet their personal and professional needs in their current job, they might more often consider becoming self-employed, as self-employment often allows people to better align their work activities with their personal needs for autonomy, belongingness, and competence (Douglas & Shepherd, Reference Douglas and Shepherd2002; Feldman & Bolino, Reference Feldman and Bolino2000). The BI could be perceived as enabling people to participate in the labor market in the ways they prefer (including various forms of self-employment) and, thus, to become more self-determined (Sen, Reference Sen2001). Importantly, however, it has to be considered that the decision to become self-employed would require initial backing investments. At the same time, we expect that the introduction of a BI would lead to more job, organizational, and even occupational mobility of individuals who are not satisfied with their working conditions or occupational prestige (Feldman & Ng, Reference Feldman and Ng2007; Ng et al., Reference Ng, Sorensen, Eby and Feldman2007). Although such mobility may have a number of positive consequences for individuals, organizations, and society (e.g., increased satisfaction, innovation; Fouad & Bynner, Reference Fouad and Bynner2008; Kalleberg, Reference Kalleberg2008; Kalleberg & Mastekaasa, Reference Kalleberg and Mastekaasa2001), it also incurs costs for the recruitment, selection, and onboarding of newcomers, and these costs will have to be compensated by the positive consequences.

What would people do who decide to quit their jobs, leave the labor market entirely, and live off the BI? As we have argued before based on psychological theories (Deci & Ryan, Reference Deci and Ryan1985; Hacker, Reference Hacker1998; Jahoda, Reference Jahoda1983), people are intrinsically motivated to be active and to perceive themselves as socially connected and competent. However, although paid employment is certainly a major way to meet these needs, it is not the only one. Other potential, already quite common ways to feel autonomous, socially integrated, and competent are family work or caregiving, volunteering, and personal projects during leisure time. Overall, we expect that the introduction of the BI would not turn people into passive “leisurites” but that they will strive to meet their personal, intrinsic needs in other meaningful ways including time and energy spent for caregiving, volunteering, and personal projects—even if these activities offer few direct and extrinsic rewards.

Family work includes providing care for and raising young or disabled children as well as unpaid care for older and frail relatives living at home (often one’s parents or parents-in-law). This type of work is currently perceived by many employees, most of whom are women, as an activity that is difficult to combine with paid employment (Duxbury & Done, Reference Duxbury, Done, Burke, Page and Cooper2015; Smith, Reference Smith2004). Even though informal caregiving work is socially and societ ally relevant, and often perceived as deeply meaningful by caregivers themselves, it is typically linked to much lower financial rewards and social recognition than comparatively less important and meaningful work that is part of traditional paid employment. Employees with informal caregiving responsibilities sleep less and report poorer sleep quality, feel less healthy and more exhausted, and have higher turnover intentions (as their paid work hinders their ability to meet their family responsibilities) than employees not providing informal care (DePasquale et al., Reference DePasquale, Sliwinski, Zarit, Buxton and Almeida2019; Greaves et al., Reference Greaves, Parker, Zacher and Jimmieson2015, Reference Greaves, Parker, Zacher and Jimmieson2017; Pinquart & Sörensen, Reference Pinquart and Sörensen2003). The introduction of a BI would give caregivers more financial security, flexibility, and choices, as they could change jobs, reduce their work hours, or quit paid work entirely. Moreover, the introduction of a BI could also, at least to some extent, help to better recognize this form of unpaid, currently often underappreciated, and yet societ ally extremely important type of work. These changes, in turn, might help to alleviate the physical and psychological burden experienced by many people with informal caregiving responsibilities.

Another form of unpaid work that supports societ al functioning and well-being is volunteering. Many older employees and retirees engage in volunteering activities, such as helping out in food pantries, retirement homes, refugee homes, animal shelters, national parks, and libraries and museums. Interestingly, research with older European volunteers suggests that lower human and social capital (e.g., lower education, lower health status, and being widowed, divorced, or single) is associated with a greater likelihood of volunteering, with the goal of enhancing self-esteem and social connections and dealing with personal problems (Principi et al., Reference Principi, Schippers, Naegele, Di Rosa and Lamura2016). The introduction of a BI would provide greater financial security for those who help others and, indirectly, society and thus constitute another form of recognition for their contributions (see also Smith, 1776/Reference Smith2010). The BI further raises interesting research questions regarding the demographic composition of workforces and populations. For instance, will people decide to have more children due to greater financial stability and a better work–life balance? Does the BI contribute to increased longevity due to better working conditions (see Gonzalez-Mulé & Cockburn, Reference Gonzalez-Mulé and Cockburn2017)?

A BI could also support individuals who want to recover from highly demanding paid employment by working on personal projects, such as engaging in art and craft activities, sport activities, or learning activities (e.g., in a community college). Research suggests that particularly those who worked in physically straining and psychologically demanding jobs and occupations benefit psychologically from entering retirement (Pinquart & Schindler, Reference Pinquart and Schindler2007; Wang, Reference Wang2007). Consistent with research on recovery (Sonnentag et al., Reference Sonnentag, Venz and Casper2017), retiring and engaging in activities that differ from paid employment with respect to their physical, mental, and socioemotional demands benefit people’s health and well-being. The BI might also offer greater flexibility in switching between paid and unpaid work, as well as more and less burdensome activities, across the working lifespan. For instance, the BI could help avoid the often lamented “rush hour of life,” in which career and family demands often collide, particularly for women (Bowman et al., Reference Bowman, Bodsworth and Zinn2013).

Overall, we expect that the introduction of a BI would lead to a greater recognition of and, consequently, more engagement in societ ally important pursuits such as childcare, eldercare, and volunteering. By relieving employees from fundamental concerns about their own and their family’s survival and by allowing them to choose and engage in work activities that better meet their abilities and needs, the BI should lead to improved health and well-being (including a greater sense of meaning at work; see Forget, Reference Forget2011). Beyond those positive individual consequences, we also expect that the introduction of a BI would lead to greater organizational investments toward the improvement of working conditions and more societ al investments in education as well as strategies to support caregivers and community volunteers. Of course, there are a number of interesting and important questions that remain to be answered: How would the BI affect the gender distribution for these activities (e.g., women more likely to opt for caregiving, men for their hobbies)? What about possible seasonal effects, such that people decide to work in the winter months and take leisure time during the more clement weather?

How would the BI influence workers’ perceptions of fairness? Our second introductory quote suggests that the BI, even though it would be paid to all (adult) members of a society, might raise some questions about fairness and justice: “it is unfair for able-bodied people to live off the labor of others” (Elster, Reference Elster1986, p. 719). The IWO psychology literature has typically distinguished between distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. Research has shown that these fairness perceptions are meaningfully associated with employee attitudes and behavior (Colquitt et al., Reference Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter and Ng2001). We argue that, regarding distributive justice, the BI should be perceived as fair because it is paid universally, and those who are able and willing to additionally work for pay will have more money available than those who do not. In terms of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice, it will be important to explain clearly, for example, why the BI is introduced and who has a right to receive it (e.g., based on fiscal residence). However, we agree with Elster (Reference Elster1986) that, at present, the BI is likely to clash with many people’s perceptions of deontic justice—that is, their assumptions about the moral responsibility of “able-bodied people” to work for pay (even if the work is potentially harmful; Cropanzano et al., Reference Cropanzano, Goldman and Folger2003). The BI should particularly violate the values and beliefs of those with a strong Protestant work ethic (Furnham, Reference Furnham1984; Weber, Reference Weber1905). Currently, the Protestant work ethic is associated more strongly with paid employment than with work in a broader sense. Consistent with the arguments presented in the previous sections, we believe that the introduction of the BI, over time, would lead to a broader (and fairer) understanding of what constitutes important and meaningful work in a society, including family, caregiving, and household work. It is likely that many people, based on the notion of deontic justice, will always believe that it is important to make use of one’s abilities and potential through work. However, paid employment would only be one form of relevant work in a society with the BI.

Potential negative psychological consequences

The BI—and in fact all other measures addressing poverty and inequality—is not a silver bullet that can solve all extant problems and does not produce new problems. In fact, implementing a BI would most likely create some new societ al, economic, and individual problems (see also the above section on criticisms related to the BI). The psychological perspective on the BI that we want to advance suggests further negative consequences that the implementation of a BI might have and that—to the best of our knowledge—have not yet been thoroughly discussed in the BI debate.

First, it depends strongly on the concrete design of a BI whether it will be a promising and innovative social welfare instrument or only “a sop to the poor.” A BI only at or even under the poverty line would not really give BI recipients more choices and enable them “to be free” (Zwolinski, Reference Zwolinski2013), whereas a BI clearly above the poverty line would substantially improve their lot and allow them to take part in the political, social, and cultural lives of their countries (Werner, Reference Werner2018). In accordance with International Labour Organization standards (see Ortiz et al., Reference Ortiz, Behrendt, Acuña-Ulate and Anh2018), we also believe that introducing a BI must not lead to an overall reduction in social welfare (i.e., the BI would not replace all public transfers as suggested, for instance, by Murray, Reference Murray2008, and Sennett, Reference Sennett2003). The eligibility criterion for receiving a BI is also of central importance: For instance, if fiscal residence is the criterion (see Van Parijs & Vanderborght, Reference Van Parijs and Vanderborght2017) and if many people live in a country without having fiscal residence, these people would be the most vulnerable part of the population and, thus, expected to end up in the most unfavorable jobs. Thus, although BI recipients would have more choices, people without fiscal residence would probably have even fewer choices than before the introduction of the BI. Thus, for the BI to unfold its positive effects to the maximum degree (i.e., addressing structural inequalities in society, removing low-quality jobs, and improving workplaces), the eligibility criterion should minimize the number of people who are not entitled to the BI in a society.

Second, because receiving a BI would strengthen the power position of each recipient vis-à-vis their employer (e.g., Stern, Reference Stern2016; Van Parijs & Vanderborght, Reference Van Parijs and Vanderborght2017), it becomes easier to say “no” to tasks, jobs, and also to organizations that offer work that is not or no longer appealing to (potential) employees. Thus, BI recipients’ task- or job-specific motivation as well as organizational commitment could change, oftentimes in a negative direction. This might particularly hold for jobs and organizations where no noticeable efforts are made to improve the working conditions, whereas in comparable jobs and organizations related efforts are made (i.e., low equity; Adams, Reference Adams and Berkowitz1965). If the BI is introduced, employers therefore might have to make work (more) fair, dignified, stable, and secure (see also the discussion on “decent work”; Blustein et al., Reference Blustein, Olle, Connors-Kellgren and Diamonti2016); increase autonomy, task variety, and task significance (Hackman & Oldham, Reference Hackman and Oldham1976); and reduce work-related stressors to make tasks and jobs more attractive to (potential) employees.

Third, established organizations may become less innovative, whereas self-employed people and new organizations may bring about an even higher share of all innovations than is currently the case. This is because the BI offers a financial buffer and, thus, potentially enables creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship among those with fewer economic resources. Moreover, innovation and the presence of at least some stressors are positively related, at least under some circumstances (e.g., Sacramento et al., Reference Sacramento, Fay and West2013). For example, challenge stressors like workload, time pressure, job scope, or high responsibility (LePine et al., Reference LePine, Podsakoff and LePine2005) may be associated with increased innovativeness because people can see a positive relationship between their efforts and the chance to successfully overcome these demands. In this process, innovative ideas may be generated. However, if BI recipients are unwilling to remain in jobs and organizations in which such challenge stressors prevail, creative ideas as an adaptive response to these stressors may also fail to manifest. They may instead manifest relatively more often insituations in which people accept the presence of such stressors (i.e., self-employment and work for new companies).

Fourth, organizations would probably have more difficulties with planning and organizing their everyday business if a BI was implemented because typical consequences of a BI comprise a higher fluctuation and more part-time work among employees. Thus, it may become more difficult to ensure sufficient staffing even in high-reliability sectors (e.g., police or firefighter staff, medical teams). Parallel problems related to the increased difficulties in work organization may negatively affect very popular approaches like “just in time” production (e.g., Miltenburg, Reference Miltenburg1989). Further, organizations might have to spend significantly more financial and human resources for recruitment, selection, and retention activities to meet their business needs. However, organizations may also benefit from reduced working hours because employees with a BI and reduced working hours may be more resilient and healthier (for the relation of long working hours and health, see Bannai & Tamakoshi, Reference Bannai and Tamakoshi2014; Brauner et al., Reference Brauner, Wöhrmann and Michel2018).

Fifth, entire branches of the current economy may disappear if they do not invest sufficient effort toward improving their working conditions and if it is not possible to fully automatize their work processes. This may especially affect branches like the meat-producing industry or parts of the energy sector (e.g., coal mining), where more sustainable alternatives are currently already realized, explored, or at least on the horizon. Although there is agreement that a BI would not generally increase inflation (see above) in open economies, prices for goods and services coming from the affected branches may nevertheless increase. Such increased prices may then, to a small degree, offset positive economic effects of a BI.

Finally, people’s attitudinal and behavioral reactions to the introduction of a BI likely depend on the fit between this economic and social policy and the dominant cultural values (or zeitgeist) of a given country or region (see Hofstede, Reference Hofstede1980). For instance, in the US (and other highly individualistic cultures) a BI might be met with greater skepticism or resistance given the American creed of independence, self-reliance, primacy of “merit” for getting ahead, and antipathy to centralized government. In contrast, a BI might be received more favorably in social-democratic, socialist, and postsocialist countries in Asia and Europe, in which people are more likely to endorse the belief that the government is responsible for all citizens’ welfare and must provide for them financially (see Frese et al., Reference Frese, Kring, Soose and Zempel1996). It may be possible, of course, that the COVID-19 pandemic and its vast economic and social consequences will lead to changes in individual and societ al attitudes toward the BI over the coming months and years, especially in neoliberal and individualistic countries (Rudolph et al., Reference Rudolph, Allan, Clarke, Hertel, Hirschi, Kunze, Shockley, Shoss, Sonnentag and Zacher2020; Sibley et al., Reference Sibley, Greaves, Satherley, Wilson, Overall, Lee, Milojev, Bulbulia, Osborne, Milfont, Houkamau, Duck., Vickers-Jones and Barlow2020).