Replication data for: Between Urgency and Data Quality: Assessing the FAIRness of Data in Social Science Research on the COVID-19 Pandemic

Balancing speed and quality during crises pose challenges for ensuring the value and utility of data in social science research. The COVID-19 pandemic in particular underscores the need for high-quality data and rapid dissemination. Given the importance of behavioral measures and compliance with measures to contain the pandemic, social science research has played a key role for policymaking during this global crisis. This study addresses two key research questions: How FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) are social science data on the COVID-19 pandemic? Which study features are related to the level of FAIRness scores of datasets? We assess the FAIRness of n=1,131 articles, retrieved through a keyword search in the Web of Science database, employing both automated and manual coding methods. Our study inclusion criteria encompass empirical studies on the COVID-19 pandemic published between 2019-2023 with a social science focus and explicit reference to the underlying dataset(s). Our analysis of n=45 datasets reveals substantial differences in FAIRness for different types of research on the COVID-19 pandemic. The overall FAIRness of data is acceptable, although particularly Reusability scores fall short, in both the manual and the automatic assessment. Further, articles explicitly linked to the Social Science concept in the OpenAlex database exhibit a higher mean overall FAIRness value. Based on these results, we derive recommendations for balancing ethical obligations and the potential tradeoff between speed and data (sharing) quality in social-scientific crisis research. The replication data contains the manual and automatic coded values for FAIR criteria and the complete code to re-produce the results for the article.Balancing speed and quality during crises pose challenges for ensuring the value and utility of data in social science research. The COVID-19 pandemic in particular underscores the need for high-quality data and rapid dissemination. Given the importance of behavioral measures and compliance with measures to contain the pandemic, social science research has played a key role for policymaking during this global crisis. This study addresses two key research questions: How FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) are social science data on the COVID-19 pandemic? Which study features are related to the level of FAIRness scores of datasets? We assess the FAIRness of n=1,131 articles, retrieved through a keyword search in the Web of Science database, employing both automated and manual coding methods. Our study inclusion criteria encompass empirical studies on the COVID-19 pandemic published between 2019-2023 with a social science focus and explicit reference to the underlying dataset(s). Our analysis of n=45 datasets reveals substantial differences in FAIRness for different types of research on the COVID-19 pandemic. The overall FAIRness of data is acceptable, although particularly Reusability scores fall short, in both the manual and the automatic assessment. Further, articles explicitly linked to the Social Science concept in the OpenAlex database exhibit a higher mean overall FAIRness value. Based on these results, we derive recommendations for balancing ethical obligations and the potential tradeoff between speed and data (sharing) quality in social-scientific crisis research. The replication data contains the manual and automatic coded values for FAIR criteria and the complete code to re-produce the results for the article

Citizen's Pulse 3/2024

Kansalaispulssi selvittää suomalaisten mielipiteitä ajankohtaisista aiheista, viranomaisten toiminnasta sekä vastaajan mielialasta ja huolenaiheista. Aineisto sisältää kysymyksiä Venäjän hyökkäyksestä Ukrainaan, yhdistystoiminnasta sekä teemoista, joihin maan hallituksen pitäisi kiinnittää huomiota. Tämän kierroksen kyselyssä kartoitettiin, kuinka paljon vastaajat luottavat toisiin ihmisiin sekä eri instituutioihin. Kysyttiin myös kuinka oikeudenmukaisena he pitävät suomalaista yhteiskuntaa. Vastaajan elämäntilanteesta, elämän merkityksellisyydestä ja yhteenkuuluvuudesta esitettiin väittämiä. Edelleen kysyttiin vastaajan mielialasta, luottamuksesta tulevaisuuteen sekä koetusta stressistä ja turvallisuudesta. Vastaajia pyydettiin myös arvioimaan suomalaisten kriisimielialaa tällä hetkellä. Lisäksi vastaajat arvioivat, mihin yhteiskunnallisiin teemoihin, kuten kestävään julkiseen talouteen, yritysten toimintaedellytyksiin, ilmastotoiminen edistämiseen ja toimivaan terveydenhuoltoon, hallituksen pitäisi lähitulevaisuudessa erityisesti kiinnittää huomiota. Turvallisuustilanteeseen ja Venäjän hyökkäykseen Ukrainaan liittyen kysyttiin, huolestuttavatko sodan mahdollinen laajeneminen tai Venäjän vaikuttamispyrkimykset. Lisäksi tiedusteltiin näkemyksiä EU:n Venäjälle asettamien talouspakotteiden hyväksyttävyydestä, kulutustottumusten muutoksista sekä korkojen nousun vaikutuksista. Edelleen kysyttiin vastaajien omakohtaisia havaintoja harhaanjohtavaan tietoon perustuvista vaikuttamisyrityksistä tai tietoturvaongelmista internetissä. Lopuksi kartoitettiin vastaajien näkemyksiä suomalaisen yhdistystoiminnan merkityksestä ja vaikutuksista. Taustamuuttujina olivat vastauskieli, vastaajan sukupuoli, ikäryhmä, maakunta, koulutus sekä tietoja kotitalouden rakenteesta ja taloudellisesta tilanteesta.The Citizens' Pulse surveys examine Finnish attitudes and opinions on current issues. Main themes in the surveys include the activity and communication of authorities, future expectations, trust, and the respondents' own state of mind. This collection round also included questions on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, voluntary organizations and issues that the Finnish government should address. The third collection round of 2024 surveyed the respondents' trust in other people and various institutions (e.g. the Finnish Government, the health care system, the media, and the Finnish Defence Forces). The respondents were asked to evaluate how fair or unfair they thought Finnish society was at present, and their state of mind was examined with questions on various matters relating to health, well-being, and their situation in life. The questions covered, for example, the respondents' own mental well-being, whether they were worried about the adequacy of their income, their confidence in their future, and experiences of stress. Additionally, the respondents were asked to evaluate whether an atmosphere of crisis prevailed amongst Finns and whether Finland's NATO membership had impacted their sense of safety. The respondents' views were investigated on which societal issues (e.g. promotion of climate action, national defence, poverty reduction, effective healthcare, operating conditions of businesses and investment opportunities) the Finnish government should focus on in the near future. Opinions on whether Finland's national debt should be reduced regardless of the resulting cuts in benefits and welfare it would entail for Finnish citizens and whether social security cuts can be considered acceptable if they provide an incentive to take up work and increase employment were also surveyed. The respondents' views on the right to seek asylum in Finland were also charted. The next set of questions focused on the Russian invasion of Ukraine and national security in Finland. The respondents were asked how concerned they were about the crisis in Ukraine and its effects, and whether they were concerned that the war might expand beyond Ukraine. The respondents were also asked whether they were concerned that Russia might take military action against Finland or try to interfere with the functioning of Finnish society. Opinions on the economic sanctions imposed on Russia by the EU and whether Finland should be ready to receive significant numbers of refugees from Ukraine if necessary were charted. The respondents were asked whether Finland's actions on the border with Russia had reinforced their sense security, whether Finland's response to Russian interference has been adequate and timely, and whether the respondents were concerned about Russia's recent actions. Additionally, the respondents were asked whether the uncertainty caused by the crisis in Ukraine had impacted the respondents' consumer behaviour and whether the recent rise in interest rates had created financial difficulties for the respondents' households. The respondents were also asked whether they had noticed any cyber security issues or instances where purposefully misleading claims based on misinformation were spread on social media or online over the previous month. Finally, the respondents' views on the significance and impact of Finnish association activities were surveyed. Background variables included the language responded in, the respondent's gender, age group, NUTS3 region of residence, highest level of education, household composition, and perceived financial situation of household

German Internet Panel, Wave 59 (May 2022)

The German Internet Panel (GIP) is a long-term study at the University of Mannheim. The GIP examines individual attitudes and preferences that are relevant in political and economic decision-making processes. To this end, more than 3,500 people throughout Germany have been regularly surveyed online every two months since 2012 on a wide range of topics. The GIP is based on a random sample of the general population in Germany between the ages of 16 and 75. The study started in 2012 and was supplemented by new participants in 2014 and 2018. The panel participants were recruited offline. The GIP questionnaires cover a variety of topics that deal with current events.The questionnaire contains numerous experimental variations in the survey instruments. Further information can be found in the study documentation. Opinion on the need for reform of the healthcare system in Germany; favored measures for financing the healthcare system (increase contributions to health insurance, increase co-payments by patients, general tax increases, reduce remuneration of doctors, reduce remuneration of pharmacies and the pharmaceutical industry, limit medical services, other, do not favor any of these measures); preference for GP model vs. free choice of doctor; opinion on the need to reform social security for the unemployed in Germany; conditions for receiving unemployment benefit II (Hartz IV) (no other conditions, neediness, actively seeking work, accepting reasonable job offers, accepting any job offer, having previously worked in Germany, German citizenship, other conditions, unemployment benefit II should be abolished without replacement, unemployment benefit II should be abolished and replaced by something else); opinion on the regulation of the German labor market; opinion on the need to reform the pension system in Germany; most and least favored proposals for financing statutory pensions (increase contributions to statutory pension insurance, raise retirement age, general tax increases, reduce the amount of statutory pension, none of these); opinion on the need to reform the education system in Germany; federal government should spend more or less money on the education system than at present; most important area of the education system on which the federal government should spend more money and especially less money (childcare for 1 to 5-year-olds (kindergarten, nursery), primary and secondary schools (Hauptschule, Realschule, Gymnasium), vocational training (apprenticeships and vocational schools), academic education (universities, universities of applied sciences and teacher training colleges), further education for working people, other areas); eligible areas of education; opinion on the need to reform the tax system in Germany; government should take measures to reduce income disparities; acceptance of tax evasion; opinion on reforms to the labor market and social systems in the member states of the eurozone; opinion on the EU´s power to make decisions on reforms in the member states; policy areas in which the European Union should make more or should decide more or less than at present (foreign and security policy, economy and finance, justice and home affairs, labor and social affairs, competition policy, agriculture and fisheries, environment, education, other areas); areas in which the state should most likely expand and most likely reduce services (health services, basic security for the unemployed, job promotion for the unemployed, old-age pensions, education, childcare facilities, in none of these areas); assessment of the debt brake, preferred timetable (year) for the debt brake; expected date of return to the debt brake; opinion on the reform of the debt brake (debt should generally be limited even more strictly, debt should generally be made easier, debt should be allowed if it finances climate policy, debt should be allowed if it finances investments in public infrastructure, debt should be allowed if it is used to finance social benefits in areas such as pensions or health, debt should be allowed if it is used to finance financial aid for poor regions in Germany, no more limits on permitted debt in future, debt rules should remain as they are); evaluation of the European Stability Pact; opinion on the reform of the European Stability Pact (debt in Europe should generally be even more strictly limited, debt in Europe should generally be made easier, debt should be allowed in Europe if it is used to finance climate policy, debt should be allowed in Europe if it is used to finance investments in public infrastructure, Debt should be allowed in Europe if it is used to finance social benefits in areas such as pensions or healthcare, debt should be allowed in Europe if it is used to finance financial aid for poor countries in the EU, no more limits on permitted debt in Europe in future, the European Stability Pact should remain as it is). Health: diseases; likelihood of sharing personal health data via sensors on smartphones, smartwatches or other devices for specific purposes (three different situations with different characteristics); likelihood of sharing personal health data provided by health insurance companies for specific purposes (three different situations with different characteristics); likelihood of sharing personal health data from blood samples for specific purposes (three different situations with different characteristics); reasons for refusing to share personal health data (open response coding); self-assessment of how closely the descriptions of the three situations were read before selecting a response regarding sharing health data; ever donated blood, provided sensor data, shared own medical records or other personal data, did not share personal data. Stressors and pressures at work: frequency of very fast-paced work and a large amount of work in recent months; job insecurity (I am worried that my employment will be terminated before I want it to be, there is a risk that I will lose my current job in the coming year). Number of different statements agreed with (drink driving is not a small thing, violence against political opponents is sometimes justified, harsher penalties for crime should be introduced in Germany, it is understandable that some people evade taxes, the high salaries for managers are justified, public broadcasting fees benefit democracy, we would all be better off if we ate less meat, it is okay to use violence for some political goals); acceptance of political violence (intimidating a political opponent on the internet; removing a political opponent´s leaflets, event notices or election advertising, preventing other people from attending a political opponent´s event, shouting down a political opponent to prevent them from speaking, using violence to prevent a political opponent from speaking); agreement with statements about political violence (violence against political opponents is sometimes justified, it is okay to use violence for some political goals, do not agree with any of these statements). Current emotional state (tension, anxiety); likelihood of a major economic crisis in Germany due to the war in Ukraine; stockpiling of food or hygiene products for emergencies; likelihood of the war in Ukraine spreading to several countries. Demography: sex; age (year of birth, categorized); highest level of education; highest level of professional education; marital status; household size; employment status; German citizenship; frequency of private Internet use; federal state. Additionally coded were: respondent ID, GIP; household ID, GIP; person ID (within household); year of recruitment (2012, 2014, 2018); interview date; current online status; assignment to experimental groups. Questionnaire evaluation (interesting, varied, relevant, long, difficult, too personal); overall assessment of the survey; respondent made further comments on the questionnaire.Das German Internet Panel (GIP) ist eine langfristige Studie an der Universität Mannheim. Das GIP untersucht individuelle Einstellungen und Präferenzen, die in politischen und wirtschaftlichen Entscheidungsprozessen relevant sind. Zu diesem Zweck werden seit 2012 regelmäßig in ganz Deutschland über 3.500 Personen alle zwei Monate zu den verschiedensten Themen online befragt. Das GIP basiert auf einer Zufallsstichprobe der Allgemeinbevölkerung in Deutschland im Alter von 16 bis 75 Jahren. Die Studie startete 2012 und wurde 2014 und 2018 durch neue Teilnehmende ergänzt. Die Rekrutierung der Panel-Teilnehmenden wurde offline durchgeführt. Die GIP-Fragebögen decken eine Vielfalt von Themen ab, welche aktuelle Geschehnisse behandeln.Der Fragebogen enthält zahlreiche experimentelle Variationen in den Erhebungsinstrumenten. Weitere Informationen finden Sie in der Studiendokumentation. Meinung zum Reformbedarf des Gesundheitssystems in Deutschland; befürwortete Maßnahmen zur Finanzierung des Gesundheitssystems (Beiträge zur Krankenversicherung erhöhen, Zuzahlungen durch den Patienten erhöhen, allgemeine Steuererhöhungen, Vergütung von Ärzten kürzen, Vergütung von Apotheken und der Pharmaindustrie kürzen, medizinische Leistungen beschränken, Sonstiges, befürworte keine dieser Maßnahmen); Präferenz für Hausarztmodell vs. freie Arztwahl; Meinung zum Reformbedarf der sozialen Sicherung von Arbeitslosen in Deutschland; Bedingungen für den Bezug von Arbeitslosengeld II (Hartz IV) (ohne weitere Bedingungen, Bedürftigkeit, aktiv um Arbeit bemühen, zumutbare Arbeitsangebote annehmen, jedes Arbeitsangebot annehmen, zuvor in Deutschland gearbeitet haben, deutsche Staatsbürgerschaft, sonstige Bedingungen, Arbeitslosengeld II sollte ersatzlos abgeschafft werden, Arbeitslosengeld II sollte abgeschafft und durch etwas anderes ersetzt werden); Meinung zur Regulierung des deutschen Arbeitsmarktes; Meinung zum Reformbedarf des Rentensystems in Deutschland; am meisten und am wenigsten befürwortete Vorschläge zur Finanzierung der gesetzlichen Renten (Beiträge zur gesetzlichen Rentenversicherung erhöhen, Rentenalter anheben, allgemeine Steuererhöhungen, Höhe der gesetzlichen Rente verringern, keine davon); Meinung zum Reformbedarf des Bildungssystems in Deutschland; Bundesregierung sollte für das Bildungssystem mehr oder weniger Geld ausgeben als momentan; wichtigster Bereich des Bildungssystems, für den die Bundesregierung mehr Geld und insbesondere weniger Geld ausgeben sollte (Kinderbetreuung für 1- bis 5-Jährige (Kindergarten, Kita), Grundschulen und weiterführende Schulen (Haupt- und Realschulen, Gymnasien), berufliche Ausbildung (Lehre und Berufsschulen), akademische Ausbildung (Universitäten, Fachhochschulen und pädagogische Hochschulen), Weiterbildungsangebote für Berufstätige, sonstiger Bereich); förderfähiger Bereich der Bildung; Meinung zum Reformbedarf des Steuersystems in Deutschland; Staat sollte Maßnahmen zur Verringerung von Einkommensunterschieden ergreifen; Akzeptanz von Steuerhinterziehung; Meinung zu Reformen der Arbeitsmarkt- und Sozialsysteme in den Mitgliedstaaten der Euro-Zone; Meinung zur Entscheidungsbefugnis der EU über Reformen in den Mitgliedsstaaten; Politikbereiche, in denen die Europäische Union mehr bzw. weniger entscheiden sollte als momentan (Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik, Wirtschaft und Finanzen, Justiz und Inneres, Arbeit und Soziales, Wettbewerbspolitik, Landwirtschaft und Fischerei, Umwelt, Bildung, sonstiger Bereich); Bereiche, in denen der Staat am ehesten Leistungen ausbauen und am ehesten abbauen sollte (Gesundheitsleistungen, Grundsicherung für Arbeitslose, Arbeitsförderung von Arbeitslosen, Altersrenten, Bildung, Kinderbetreuungsmöglichkeiten, in keinem dieser Bereiche); Bewertung der Schuldenbremse, präferierter Zeitplan (Jahr) für die Schuldenbremse; erwarteter Zeitpunkt der Rückkehr zur Schuldenbremse; Meinung zur Reform der Schuldenbremse (Schuldenmachen sollte generell noch strenger begrenzt werden, Schuldenmachen sollte generell erleichtert werden, Schulden sollten dann erlaubt werden, wenn damit Klimapolitik finanziert wird, Schulden sollten dann erlaubt werden, wenn damit Investitionen in die öffentliche Infrastruktur finanziert werden, Schulden sollten dann erlaubt werden, wenn damit soziale Leistungen in Bereichen wie Rente oder Gesundheit finanziert werden, Schulden sollten dann erlaubt werden, wenn damit Finanzhilfen für arme Regionen in Deutschland finanziert werden, zukünftig keine Grenzen mehr für die erlaubte Verschuldung, Schuldenregeln sollten so bleiben, wie sie sind); Bewertung des Europäischen Stabilitätspakts; Meinung zur Reform des Europäischen Stabilitätspakts (Schuldenmachen in Europa sollte generell noch strenger begrenzt werden, Schuldenmachen in Europa sollte generell erleichtert werden, Schulden sollten in Europa dann erlaubt werden, wenn damit Klimapolitik finanziert wird, Schulden sollten in Europa dann erlaubt werden, wenn damit Investitionen in die öffentliche Infrastruktur finanziert werden, Schulden sollten in Europa dann erlaubt werden, wenn damit soziale Leistungen in Bereichen wie Rente oder Gesundheit finanziert werden, Schulden sollten in Europa dann erlaubt werden, wenn damit Finanzhilfen für arme Länder in der EU finanziert werden, zukünftig keine Grenzen mehr für die erlaubte Verschuldung in Europa, der Europäische Stabilitätspakt sollte so bleiben, wie er ist). Gesundheit: Krankheiten; Wahrscheinlichkeit der Weitergabe persönlicher Gesundheitsdaten über Sensoren auf Smartphones, Smartwatches oder anderen Geräten zu bestimmten Zwecken (drei verschiedene Situationen mit unterschiedlichen Merkmalen); Wahrscheinlichkeit der Weitergabe persönlicher Gesundheitsdaten, die von den Krankenkassen zur Verfügung gestellt werden, zu bestimmten Zwecken (drei verschiedene Situationen mit unterschiedlichen Merkmalen); Wahrscheinlichkeit der Weitergabe persönlicher Gesundheitsdaten aus Blutproben zu bestimmten Zwecken (drei verschiedene Situationen mit unterschiedlichen Merkmalen); Gründe für die Verweigerung der Weitergabe persönlicher Gesundheitsdaten (Kodierung offener Antworten); Selbsteinschätzung wie genau die Beschreibungen der drei Situationen gelesen wurden, bevor eine Antwort bezüglich der Weitergabe der Gesundheitsdaten ausgewählt wurde; schon einmal Blut gespendet, Sensordaten zur Verfügung gestellt, eigene Krankenakte weitergegeben oder andere persönliche Daten gespendet oder weitergegeben, keine persönlichen Daten weitergeben. Stressoren und Belastungen am Arbeitsplatz: Häufigkeit von sehr schnellem Arbeiten und einer großen Arbeitsmenge in den letzten Monaten; Arbeitsplatzunsicherheit (ich mache mir Sorgen, dass mein Arbeitsverhältnis beendet wird, bevor ich das möchte, es besteht die Gefahr, dass ich meinen jetzigen Arbeitsplatz im kommenden Jahr verlieren werde). Anzahl verschiedener Aussagen, denen zugestimmt wird (Alkohol am Steuer ist keine Kleinigkeit, Gewalt gegen politische Gegner ist manchmal gerechtfertigt, in Deutschland sollten härtere Strafen für Verbrechen eingeführt werden, es ist verständlich, dass manche Leute Steuern hinterziehen, die hohen Gehälter für Manager sind gerechtfertigt, die öffentlichen Rundfunkgebühren kommen der Demokratie zugute, es würde uns allen besser gehen, wenn wir weniger Fleisch essen würden, für manche politischen Ziele ist es in Ordnung Gewalt einzusetzen); Akzeptanz von politischer Gewalt (Einschüchterung eines politischen Gegners im Internet; Flugblätter, Veranstaltungshinweise oder Wahlwerbung des politischen Gegners entfernen, andere Leute am Besuch einer Veranstaltung des politischen Gegner hindern, einen politischen Gegner niederschreien, um ihn an einer Rede zu hindern, einen politischen Gegner mit Gewalt an einer Rede hindern); Zustimmung zu Aussagen zu politischer Gewalt (Gewalt gegen politische Gegner ist manchmal gerechtfertigt, für manche politischen Ziele ist es in Ordnung Gewalt einzusetzen, stimme keiner dieser Aussagen zu). Derzeitiger Gefühlszustand (Anspannung, Besorgnis); Wahrscheinlichkeit einer großen Wirtschaftskrise in Deutschland durch den Krieg in der Ukraine; Vorrat an Lebensmitteln oder Hygieneprodukten für den Notfall angelegt; Wahrscheinlichkeit einer Ausweitung des Krieges in der Ukraine auf mehrere Länder. Demographie: Geschlecht; Alter (Geburtsjahr, kategorisiert); höchster Schulabschluss; höchster beruflicher Bildungsabschluss; Familienstand; Haushaltsgröße; Erwerbsstatus; deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit; Häufigkeit der privaten Internetnutzung; Bundesland. Zusätzlich verkodet wurde: Befragten- ID, GIP; Haushalts-ID, GIP; Personen-ID (innerhalb des Haushalts); Jahr der Rekrutierung (2012, 2014, 2018); Interviewdatum; derzeitiger Online-Status; Zuordnung zu Experimentalgruppen. Fragebogenevaluation (interessant, abwechslungsreich, relevant, lang, schwierig, zu persönlich); Beurteilung der Befragung insgesamt; befragte Person hat weitere Anmerkungen zum Fragebogen gemacht

German General Social Survey ALLBUS - Cumulation 1980-2021

The German General Social Survey ALLBUS is a biennial trend survey based on random samples of the German population. Established in 1980, its mission is to monitor attitudes, behavior, and social change in Germany. Each ALLBUS cross-sectional survey consists of one or two main question modules covering changing topics, a range of supplementary questions and a core module providing detailed demographic information. Additionally, data on the interview and the interviewers are provided as well. Key topics generally follow a 10-year replication cycle, many individual indicators and item batteries are replicated at shorter intervals. ALLBUS 1980-2021 compiles all of the time series in the ALLBUS program (i.e. it contains data for all questions that have been surveyed in at least two of the so far 22 cross-sectional surveys).The original surveys have been designed to monitor trends in attitudes, behavior, and societal change in the Federal Republic of Germany. The main topics of this cumulative study are: 1.) Economy 2.) Politics 3.) Social inequality 4.) Ethnocentrism and minorities 5.) Family 6.) Lifestyle and personality 7.) Health 8.) Religion and world view 9.) Personal and collective values 10.) Social networks and social capital 11.) Deviant behavior and sanctions 12.) ALLBUS-Demography 13.) Technical data, paradata and data on the interviewer 14.) Geographic data 15.) Added value Topics: 1.) Economy: assessment of the present and future economic situation in Germany and in one´s own federal state, assessment of present and future personal economic situation. 2.) Politics: satisfaction with the federal and state government, with German democracy and with the performance of the German political system (political support); basic political attitudes: self-placement on left-right continuum, placement of political parties on a left-right-continuum, political interest, party inclination; voting intention (Sonntagsfrage), participation in last federal elections, recall of vote in last federal elections, party-sympathy-scales, likelihood of voting for different political parties; political participation: personal participation and willingness to participate in selected forms of protest and other political activities, norms for political participation; frequency of discussing politics with friends, acquaintances, strangers, and family; political issues: attitudes towards nuclear energy, the death penalty for terrorists, towards the privatization of publicly owned companies; support for less government interference in the economy, for stricter environmental protection measures, for harsher punishment of criminals, for making social security government´s top priority, for a redistribution of income in favor of the common people; for the view that immigrants are good for the economy, for access to abortion without legal limitations, for more global free trade; attitude towards expanding or cutting budgets for social services and defense, perceived position of the federal government in these matters; democracy scale; political knowledge questions (party affiliation of top-level politicians, functioning of democratic institutions etc.); political efficacy: perception of individual influence on politics, gap between politicians and citizens, self-assuredness with regard to political group work, too much complexity in politics, perception of politicians´ closeness to constituents, participation in the vote as a civic duty; perceived strength of conflicts between social groups; confidence in public institutions and organizations; Identification with various political entities: identification with own municipality, the federal state, the old Federal Republic or the GDR, unified Germany and the EU; Attitudes relating to the process of German unification: attitude towards the demand for increased willingness to make sacrifices in the West and more patience in the East, unification is advantageous, for East and West respectively, future of the East depends on the willingness of eastern Germans to make an effort, strangeness of citizens in the other part of Germany, performance pressure in the new states, attitude towards dealing with the Stasi-past of individuals, evaluation of socialism as an idea; evaluation of administration services and assessment of treatment by the administration; national pride and right-wing extremism: pride in German institutions and German achievements, pride in being a German, extremism scale. 3.) Social Inequality: fair share in standard of living, self-assessment of social class and classification on a top-bottom-scale, evaluation of personal occupational success, comparison with father´s position and personal occupational expectations for the future, attitudes towards the German economic system and evaluation of policies supporting the welfare state, assessment of access to education, perceived prerequisites for success in society, income differences as incentive to achieve, acceptance of social differences, evaluation of personal social security. 4.) Ethnocentrism and minorities: attitude towards the influx of different groups of immigrants; perceived consequences of presence of foreigners in Germany, attitudes towards refugees, treatment of foreigners by the administration, ranking in terms of importance of different citizenship requirements; scale of attitudes towards foreigners and contacts with foreigners (split: guest-workers) within the family, at work, in the neighborhood or among friends; opinion on dual citizenship and on equal rights for foreigners, support for the teaching of Islam in public schools, estimation of proportion of foreigners in East and West Germany and in the neighborhood where respondent lives, living in neighborhoods with high percentage of foreigners, perceived differences in lifestyle, indicators for social distance to ethnic minorities and foreigners, support for Islam as a school subject; attitudes towards Islam (Islamophobia scale), attitudes towards Jews (Antisemitism scale) items on anti-Semitism, perception and evaluation of discriminatory behavior towards foreigners. 5.) Family: attitude towards marriage and having a family, ideal number of children, attitude towards employment of women and mothers, attitude towards the role of men and women in the family, division of labor regarding house and family work, importance of educational goals, most important educational goals in school, classification of the importance of certain educational aspirations for a child, desired characteristics of children. 6.) Lifestyle and personality: authoritarianism, importance of life aspects, preferred job characteristics (security, income, responsibility, etc.), free time activities, use of media (frequency of watching television over the week, taste in television programs, frequency of watching the news on tv and of reading a daily newspaper per week, musical preferences), mobile phone ownership. 7.) Health: overall health, physical and psychological shape during the last four weeks, health problems’ impact on everyday life, chronic illnesses, been sick in the last four weeks, reason for and frequency of seeing a doctor in the last three months, time spent in hospital during the last 12 months, officially recognized disability level, smoking habits, overall life satisfaction, height and weight, consumption of various foodstuffs and beverages, affectedness by unhealthy working conditions and by mobbing, perception of general environmental pollution and personally experienced environmental pollution, questions on AIDS (knowledge of the disease AIDS, attitudes towards AIDS-infected people, worry about personal AIDS infection, personal protective measures and behavioral changes, AIDS-infected people in one´s own circle of friends). 8.) Religion and world view: present and former religious affiliation, frequency of church attendance, frequency of attending other place of worship, importance of religion in parental home, frequency of prayer, participation in religious activities, frequency of meditation, interest in Christian programs in the media, self-assessment of religiousness and spirituality, religious cosmology and belief in God, religious beliefs, meaning of life, religious indifference, thinking about metaphysical questions, experience with and attitude towards different forms of belief, parabelief and superstition, religion vs. science, funeral by church, marriage in church, baptism of children, attitude towards person with different faiths marrying into the family. 9.) Personal and collective values: materialism/postmaterialism (importance of law and order, fighting rising prices, free expression of opinions and influence on governmental decisions), individual value orientations (Klages), attitudes towards legalizing abortion. 10.) Social networks and social capital: ego-centered networks (number of contacts in network, information on: gender, age, kinship or type of relationship, employment status, occupational position, voting behavior, citizenship, mutual familiarity between contacts), membership in trade unions, trade associations, clubs, political parties or other organizations; frequency of spending time with colleagues from work, club members or with friends; interpersonal trust, social pessimism and orientation towards the future (anomia), reciprocity. 11.) Deviant behavior and sanctions: fear of crime, personal victimization, moral assessment of different behaviors, desire to sanction different criminal acts, desire to make various behaviors illegal, self-reported deviant behavior (past and future), assessment of probability of being caught committing various crimes, respect of the law, believe in deterrence through punishment, purposes of punishment, assessment of sentencing practices. 12.) ALLBUS-Demography: Details about the respondent: gender, age, citizenship(s) (nationality), number of citizenships, present and former religious affiliation, currently at school or university, school education, vocational training, employment status, secondary job, details about current and former occupation respectively, details about first occupation, date of termination of full- or part-time employment, fear of unemployment or loss of business, industrial sector, affiliation to public service, fixed-term or permanent employment contract, length of commute, driver’s license, supervisory functions, length of employment, size of workplace, working hours per week (primary and secondary job), length of unemployment, gaps in occupational biography, desire for work, marital status, marital biography. Details about personal and household income: respondent’s personal income, principal source of livelihood, capital income, household income, per capita income, equivalized income (OECD-modified scale), types of income in household, number of sources of income in household, principal source of income. Details about respondent’s current spouse: cohabitation before marriage, age, citizenship(s), number of citizenships, original citizenship, religious affiliation, school education, vocational training, university degree, employment status, details about current and former occupation respectively, affiliation to public service, date of termination of full- or part-time employment, length of unemployment, fear of unemployment or loss of business. Details about respondent’s former spouse: age, religious affiliation, school education, vocational training, details about current and former occupation respectively. Details about respondent’s steady partner: length of relationship, common household, age, citizenship(s), number of citizenships, original citizenship, school education, vocational training, university degree, employment status, details about current and former occupation respectively, affiliation to public service, fear of unemployment or loss of business, date of termination of full- or part-time employment. Details about respondent’s parents: cohabitation with respondent as adolescent, age of respondent when leaving parental home, religious affiliation, school education, vocational training, university education, details about parents’ occupation. Description of household: size of household, number of persons older than 17 in household (reduced size of household). Details about household members: family relation to respondent, gender, age, marital status, income; for children of respondent or partner also: school education, university degree. Details about children: number of children, deceased children, desire to have children. Details about children not living in the household: number of children not living in the household, gender, age, school education, university degree, baptism, religious affiliation. Migration, residential biography and living environment: original citizenship of respondent, country of origin, country of origin of parents and of grandparents, migration between East and West Germany, distance to last place of residence, duration of residence, self-description of place of residence, type of dwelling, size of dwelling, telephone in household, cat or dog in the household, environmental nuisances in area of residence. 13.) Technical data, paradata and data on the interviewer: Study number, digital object identifier, versioning, respondent ID, sample point ID, split halves, survey mode of the ALLBUS interview, number of attempts to contact the respondent, contact strategy, beginning and end of interview (date and time), length of interview, willingness to participate, taken part in how many interviews, participation in other surveys over the past year, reachability of respondent, presence of respondent at home during the last few weekdays, presence of other persons during interview (spouse, partner or children during, other relatives), interference of other persons in the course of the interview, willingness to cooperate and reliability of information from respondent, respondent followed interview on screen, breaks during completion of questionnaire (survey mode MAIL), percentage of completed questions, frequency of private internet use, willingness to participate in an online survey, willingness to participate in other survey, details about respondent’s residential building and its neighborhood, perceived attractiveness of respondent; details about the interviewer (identification number, gender, age, school education, length of experience as an interviewer). 14.) Geographical data: region of interview (East / West Germany), federal state, size of municipality, Boustedt-type of municipality, BIK-type of municipality, percentage of non-German residents at county level. 15.) Added value: Body-Mass-Index, Inglehart-index, life forms (Schulz and Mikrozensus Typology), family situation (Schulz), type of household; International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) 1968, 1988 and 2008; occupational prestige (according to Treiman), Standard International Occupational Prestige Scale (SIOPS, according to Ganzeboom), International Socio-economic Index of Occupational Status (ISEI, according to Ganzeboom), magnitude prestige (according to Wegener), International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 1997 and 2011, class position (according to Goldthorpe), European Socio-economic Groups (ESeG), per capita income, equivalized income (OECD-modified scale), percentage of non-German residents at county level, transformation weight for analyses on household level or on individual level, east-west design weight.Die Allgemeine Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften (ALLBUS) ist eine Trenderhebung, in der seit 1980 alle zwei Jahre eine Zufallsstichprobe der deutschen Bevölkerung befragt wird. Das primäre Ziel des Umfrageprogramms ist die Beobachtung von Einstellungen, Verhalten und sozialen Wandel in Deutschland. Jede ALLBUS-Querschnittserhebung besteht aus ein oder zwei Schwerpunktmodulen zu wechselnden Themen. Diese werden ergänzt durch weitere inhaltliche Fragen und ein Kernmodul mit detaillierten demografischen Informationen. Zudem werden Zusatzinformation zum Interview und den Interviewern bereitgestellt. Die Schwerpunktmodule folgen in der Regel einem 10-jährigen Replikationszyklus, viele Einzelindikatoren und Itembatterien werden aber auch in kürzeren Abständen repliziert. Die ALLBUS Kumulation 1980-2021 versammelt alle Zeitreihen aus dem ALLBUS-Frageprogramm, d.h. der Datensatz enthält Daten für alle Fragen, die in wenigstens zwei der bisher 22 ALLBUS-Umfragen erhoben wurden.Trenderhebung zur gesellschaftlichen Dauerbeobachtung von Einstellungen, Verhalten und sozialem Wandel in Deutschland. Die Schwerpunkte des kumulierten Datensatzes sind: 1.) Wirtschaft 2.) Politik 3.) Soziale Ungleichheit 4.) Ethnozentrismus und Minoritäten 5.) Familie 6.) Lebensstil und Persönlichkeit 7.) Gesundheit 8.) Religion und Weltanschauung 9.) Wertorientierungen 10.) Soziale Netzwerke und soziales Kapital 11.) Abweichendes Verhalten und Sanktion 12.) ALLBUS-Demographie 13.) Technische Daten, Para- und Interviewerdaten 14.) Regionaldaten 15.) Ergänzungen und abgeleitete Variablen Themen: 1.) Wirtschaft: Wahrnehmung der eigenen Wirtschaftslage und der aktuellen und zukünftigen Wirtschaftslage in der Bundesrepublik und im eigenen Bundesland. 2.) Politik: Zufriedenheit mit der Bundesregierung, der Landesregierung, der deutschen Demokratie und mit dem Funktionieren des politischen Systems; Fragen zu politischen Einstellungen: Selbsteinstufung und Einstufung politischer Parteien auf einem Links-Rechts-Kontinuum, politisches Interesse, Parteineigung; Wahlabsicht (Sonntagsfrage), Wahlberechtigung, Wahlbeteiligung an der letzten Bundestagswahl, Wahlrückerinnerungsfrage, Sympathie-Skalometer für diverse Parteien; Wahrscheinlichkeit, diverse Parteien zu wählen; Politische Partizipation: Eigene Teilnahme bzw. Beteiligungsbereitschaft an ausgewählten Protestformen, Normen für politische Partizipation, Häufigkeit von Politikgesprächen mit Familie, Freunden, Bekannten, und Fremden; Politische Sachfragen: Einstellungen zu Kernenergie, Todesstrafe für Terroristen, Privatisierung öffentlicher Betriebe, Freigabe von Abtreibung, Eingriffe der Politik in die Wirtschaft, Umweltschutz, härtere Bestrafung von Straftätern, Wichtigkeit sozialer Sicherung, Umverteilung von Einkommen, positive Auswirkungen von Einwanderern auf die Wirtschaft, Freihandel; Haltung zur Ausweitung oder Kürzung von Sozialleistungen, Einstellung zu einer Kürzung des Verteidigungsetats und perzipierte Haltung der Bundesregierung in solchen Fragen; Demokratieverständnis; Politisches Wissensquiz (Parteizugehörigkeit von Spitzenpolitikern, Aufgabe und Funktion von Institutionen usw.); Politische Selbstwirksamkeit: Wahrnehmung von Einflussmöglichkeiten auf die Politik, bürgerferne Politiker, Selbstvertrauen in Bezug auf politische Gruppenarbeit, Befähigung der Mehrheit zu politischer Arbeit, zu viel Komplexität in der Politik, Bürgerorientierung Politiker; Perzipierte Stärke von Konflikten zwischen gesellschaftlichen Gruppen; Vertrauen in diverse Behörden und Institutionen; Nationale und regionale Verbundenheit: Verbundenheit mit der eigenen Gemeinde, mit dem Bundesland, mit der alten Bundesrepublik bzw. mit der DDR, mit Gesamtdeutschland sowie mit der EU; Einstellungen zur Wiedervereinigung: Einstellung zur Forderung nach mehr Opferbereitschaft im Westen und mehr Geduld im Osten, Wiedervereinigung ist vorteilhaft für Westen bzw. Osten, Zukunft im Osten hängt von Leistungsbereitschaft der Ostdeutschen ab, wechselseitige Fremdheit der Bürger, Leistungsdruck in den neuen Bundesländern, Einstellung zum Umgang mit individueller Stasi-Vergangenheit, Einschätzung des Sozialismus als Idee; Beurteilung der Leistungen von Behörden und deren Verhalten gegenüber Bürgern; Nationalstolz und Rechtsextremismus: Stolz auf nationale Errungenschaften; Stolz, Deutscher zu sein, Extremismusskala. 3.) Soziale Ungleichheit: Gerechter Anteil am Lebensstandard, Selbsteinschätzung der sozialen Schichtzugehörigkeit, Einstufung auf einer Oben-Unten-Skala; Vergleich mit Berufsposition des Vaters, Anzahl arbeitsloser Verwandten und Freunde, Beurteilung des bisherigen Berufserfolgs und berufliche Erwartung für die Zukunft, Einstellungen zum deutschen Wirtschaftssystem und Beurteilungen von wohlfahrtsstaatlichen Maßnahmen, Einschätzung gleicher Ausbildungschancen für alle, Voraussetzungen für Erfolg in der Gesellschaft, Einkommensunterschiede als Leistungsanreiz, Akzeptanz von sozialen Unterschieden, Bewertung der eigenen sozialen Sicherung. 4.) Ethnozentrismus und Minoritäten: Einstellungen zum Zuzug verschiedener Personengruppen; Wahrgenommene Konsequenzen der Anwesenheit von Ausländern in Deutschland, Einstellungen zu Geflüchteten, Ausländerbehandlung durch Behörden, Wichtigkeitseinstufung verschiedener Einbürgerungsvoraussetzungen; Einstellungsskala und Kontakte zu Ausländern (Split: Gastarbeiter) in der Familie, am Arbeitsplatz und in der Nachbarschaft oder im Freundeskreis; Einstellung zur doppelten Staatsbürgerschaft und zur Rechtsangleichung von Ausländern, Ausländeranteilsschätzung für Ost- und Westdeutschland sowie für die eigene Wohnumgebung, Wohnen in Wohngebieten mit hohem Ausländeranteil, perzipierte Lebensstildifferenzen, Indikatoren für soziale Distanz zu ethnischen Minderheiten und Ausländern, Befürwortung von Islamunterricht an Schulen, Einstellungen gegenüber dem Islam (Skala Islamophobie),Einstellungen gegenüber Juden (Skala Antisemitismus), Wahrnehmung und Bewertung von diskriminierendem Verhalten gegenüber Ausländern. 5.) Familie: Notwendigkeit von Familie und Heirat, ideale Kinderzahl, Einstellung zur Berufstätigkeit von Frauen und Müttern, Einstellungen zur Rolle von Mann und Frau in der Familie, Aufteilung der Haus- u

Young People Interviews, Foster Carer Interviews, Focus Group, and Survey Data From a Study of the Experiences and Identity Development of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender Young People in Care and the Support They Receive, 2015-2016

The study uses a mixed methods, layered design: 1. In-depth narrative interviews with a sample of 46 LGBT young people, from across England, aged 16-26 who are currently or were previously in care. The interviews focused on enabling young people to describe their sense of identity; their experiences in placement; their contact with birth relatives; their relationships with close friends, partners and peer groups; their contact with professionals (e.g. teachers, social workers); and their experience in the wider community. Narrative analysis of the interviews was used to provide an in-depth and nuanced understanding of identity development. 2. Semi-structured interviews with 26 foster carers across England who had experience of caring for LGBT young people. Interviews provide information from carers about the young people's experiences, but also how carers see their roles, relationships and the support they need. Data was analysed thematically using NVivo. 3. A survey of local authority policy, provision and practice to identify services available to LGBT young people in care or leaving care. 78% (n=118) of English local authorities returned data. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic qualitative coding. 4. Multi-agency focus groups were held with a range of professionals, towards the end of the project, exploring the policy and practice issues emerging from the literature review, survey and qualitative interviews. Focus groups were conducted in 2 Northern Metropolitan boroughs and an Eastern Non-Metropolitan county.This study's objectives are to investigate how LGBT young people experience growing up in care and how they negotiate their identities. There have been no major published research studies on the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) young people in care in the UK and the services that may be needed to support them. Even in the most recent Care Planning Guidance (DCSF 2010a), sexual orientation and gender identity are not mentioned as issues that may need to be taken into account in ensuring the well-being of young people in care. This is a matter for concern when research suggests that both LGBT young people and young people in care are at risk of stigma, discrimination, bullying and mental health difficulties. There is the potential, therefore, for LGBT young people in care to face a 'double jeopardy'. The study explores the perspectives young people have about the intersectional relationship between their care and LGBT statuses, understood in the context of the multiplicity of other factors, such as ethnicity, experiences of abuse, separation and loss that also affect and contribute to identity formation. The study also investigates the national provision of services and support for LGBT young people in care and explores the experiences of foster carers who care for them.</p

Spatial and Temporal Visual Integration, 2021

We present four psychophysics experiments investigating spatiotemporal summation in various visual contexts. The experiments are 4AFC detection tasks where a target is briefly represented in one of four known locations. Stimuli consist of targets with various spatial (0 to .9dva) or temporal (0 to 100ms) properties. Staircase procedures are used to identify luminance thresholds at which the targets are detected with 75% accuracy. Lower thresholds are taken as indictive of greater summation than higher thresholds. In the first experiment, the target stimuli consist of two probes presented with varying spatial (0 to .9dva) and temporal (0 to 100ms) separation. We find an interaction between spatial and temporal integration: as spatial separation increased, the temporal separation at which the probes are most easily detected also increased. That is, probes with moderate spatial separation are more easily detected when they also have temporal separation compared to when the two probes are presented simultaneously. In a second study, targets consist of a single probe, presented for various durations (8 to 100ms), with the aim of identifying the critical period during which complete summation occurs (e.g., Bloch’s critical duration). Similarly, a third experiment used targets presented for 8ms with varying lengths of .01 to .9dva to identify the spatial area of complete summation (e.g., Ricco’s area). A fourth study builds on the first experiment, but rather than a single target appearing in one of four locations, three targets are presented and participants identify the location which did NOT contain a target. Again, we find that for conditions with spatial separation, participants had higher lower thresholds when the probes were also temporally separated. Experiments 1 and 4 provide robust evidence that detection thresholds can be lower for temporally separated targets than for concurrently presented targets. The results from experiments 1 and 4 do not align with the Ricco area or Bloch’s critical duration. However, the results can be interpreted in terms of a facilitating effect from motion detectors. Experiment 4 suggests that this effect is the product of multiple local mechanisms, rather than due to some global motion processing.Every time we move, the image of the world at the back of the eye changes. Despite this, our perception is of an unchanging world. How does the brain translate a continually changing image into a percept of a stable, stationary, rigid world? Does the brain use a map of the external environment (an "allocentric map") and the position of the observer within it, built up over time, to underpin the perception of stability? Does the brain continually update a map of where scene objects are relative to the observer (an "egocentric map"; e.g. there is an object straight ahead of me, if I walk forward I should expect it to get closer to me)? Does the brain not create a map but just divide up the image motion into that which is likely due to movement of the observer (and which can consequently be ignored) and that which is likely due to objects moving within the scene (which become a focus of attention)? The hypothesis that underpins this research project is that it is not a single one of these mechanisms that underpins perceptual stability, but that all of them, their contribution dependent on the task being performed by the observer. In some cases the task will require a fast estimate to support an ongoing action which might favour one mechanism, on another task, where timing is not so critical, a slower, but more accurate, mechanism might be more appropriate. This collaborative project, which combines complementary expertise in Psychology, Movement Sciences, and Computing from Germany, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and importantly, researchers that start from different theoretical perspectives, will test this hypothesis. We will study a diverse series of tasks that present a range of challenges to the moving observer. We will make use of various innovative experimental paradigms that exploit recent technological advances such as virtual reality combined with simultaneous motion tracking. Understanding where and how different mechanisms of perceptual stability play a role advances not only our scientific understanding, but also has the potential to inform industry as well as medicine about the circumstances in which disorientation or nausea in real or virtual environments can be minimised.</p

Does the Macro-level matter? A comparative analysis of institutional frameworks and gigwork platforms across countries (data and syntax)

The datasets were created for a cross-national comparison of gigwork platform models in two sectors, ridehailing and food delivery and covers the two to four dominant platforms in these two sectors in 30 European countries (all EU member states, UK, Norway and Switzerland), the United States of America and Canada. The datasets contain factual information about these cases, collected via desk research and surveys during 2022 and stored in online questionnaires. The adjusted initial dataset (AID) contains the combined data from all of these online questionnaires. A formal case in the AID represents one completed online questionnaire containing data about one conceptual case, i.e. a platform, collected by one respondent. For analysis, data from the AID was collated into the final dataset (FD) where each formal case corresponds to a conceptual case, i.e. a platform. The FD contains factual information about the organization operating the platform, formal working conditions and other conditions for platform use. The datasets were generated in the quantitative sub-project of the project “Does the Macro-level matter? A comparative analysis of institutional frameworks and gigwork platforms across EU-28 countries” (DFG project number 442171088). The project was part of the first phase of DGF priority program “The digitalization of working worlds” (SPP 2267, DFG project number 422743478).The datasets were created for a cross-national comparison of gigwork platform models in two sectors, ridehailing and food delivery and covers the two to four dominant platforms in these two sectors in 30 European countries (all EU member states, UK, Norway and Switzerland), the United States of America and Canada. The datasets contain factual information about these cases, collected via desk research and surveys during 2022 and stored in online questionnaires. The adjusted initial dataset (AID) contains the combined data from all of these online questionnaires. A formal case in the AID represents one completed online questionnaire containing data about one conceptual case, i.e. a platform, collected by one respondent. For analysis, data from the AID was collated into the final dataset (FD) where each formal case corresponds to a conceptual case, i.e. a platform. The FD contains factual information about the organization operating the platform, formal working conditions and other conditions for platform use. The datasets were generated in the quantitative sub-project of the project “Does the Macro-level matter? A comparative analysis of institutional frameworks and gigwork platforms across EU-28 countries” (DFG project number 442171088). The project was part of the first phase of DGF priority program “The digitalization of working worlds” (SPP 2267, DFG project number 422743478)

Code/Syntax: Religiosität und soziale Schichtung: Eine Kohortenstudie mit ALLBUS-Daten

Das Ziel der Studie besteht darin, die soziale Schichtposition von verschiedenen Religiositäts-Typen, die neben traditionell-christlichen Formen auch außerkirchlich-alternative Angebote umfassen, deskriptiv im Kohortenverlauf zu untersuchen (ALLBUS-Wellen 1991, 2002 und 2012, N = 7834). Für die alten Bundesländer finden sich Hinweise für eine sozialstrukturelle Angleichung zwischen engagierten Katholiken und Areligiösen, die sich deutlich durch eine Auflösung des katholischen Bildungsdefizits in der Kohorte 1922-1934 zeigt. Für die neuen Bundesländer zeigt sich, dass die verbliebenen engagierten Christen eine vergleichsweise hohe soziale Schichtposition aufweisen. Weiterhin bestehen bei alternativen Religiositätsformen sowohl in den alten wie in den neuen Bundesländern deutliche Unterschiede in der sozialen Schichtposition. Während Aberglaube und magische Praktiken hier klar im unteren Schichtspektrum verortet sind, erweisen sich Mystik, Esoterik und Paramedizin als typisch für höhere soziale Schichten.Das Ziel der Studie besteht darin, die soziale Schichtposition von verschiedenen Religiositäts-Typen, die neben traditionell-christlichen Formen auch außerkirchlich-alternative Angebote umfassen, deskriptiv im Kohortenverlauf zu untersuchen (ALLBUS-Wellen 1991, 2002 und 2012, N = 7834). Für die alten Bundesländer finden sich Hinweise für eine sozialstrukturelle Angleichung zwischen engagierten Katholiken und Areligiösen, die sich deutlich durch eine Auflösung des katholischen Bildungsdefizits in der Kohorte 1922-1934 zeigt. Für die neuen Bundesländer zeigt sich, dass die verbliebenen engagierten Christen eine vergleichsweise hohe soziale Schichtposition aufweisen. Weiterhin bestehen bei alternativen Religiositätsformen sowohl in den alten wie in den neuen Bundesländern deutliche Unterschiede in der sozialen Schichtposition. Während Aberglaube und magische Praktiken hier klar im unteren Schichtspektrum verortet sind, erweisen sich Mystik, Esoterik und Paramedizin als typisch für höhere soziale Schichten

Enade eller delade? Stad och land i Sveriges mellanstora kommuner: Vad säger riksdagsvalen 2006 till 2014?

Sweden has a divided pattern in terms of voting patterns from region to region in terms of the urban/rural divide in the 2006-14 three-time election cycle. The country’s mid-sized municipalities outside of the three major metropolitan areas show a general likelihood to vote for the left-leaning red-green coalition than to vote for the centre-right “alliance” in the urban areas. On the contrary, the alliance had a general advantage on the countryside or in minor locations in said municipalities. Out of the 31 municipalities studied, regional variations are significant. Northern municipalities, while left-leaning in both demographic groups, saw a general trend of the red-green parties winning more relative votes outside of the urban centres. This went heavily against the rest of the country’s tendencies, while southern Sweden also saw many towns vote for the alliance over the red-greens, especially in 2010. The study confirmed that towns and rural areas are moving further apart, especially when considering the influence of the social conservative and nationalist Sweden Democrats on the rural areas. The Social Democratic party has instead become ever more dependent on urban voters during the eight years of opposition to the alliance between ’06 and ’14. The other main party of Sweden, namely the Moderates was slightly stronger in towns than rural areas in ’06, before shifting in a slightly more rural-dependent direction in the forthcoming elections. The scope of the study covered all eight parliamentary parties elected into the Swedish Riksdag in 2014. The findings did indicate tendencies for several of them in the electoral research being done around that election. Areas with lower trust in the political system, lower political personal interest, sense of direction of the country going in the wrong direction and low trust ratings for the European Union were linked with rural areas, where the Sweden Democrats gained strong support as an anti-establishment party. Interestingly, in spite of a larger number of the Swedish electorate self-identifying as to the right rather than to the left, the strong divide of right-leaning voters between the alliance parties and the Sweden Democrats contributed to a minority left-leaning government led by the Social Democrats being able to take office after the 2014 election. This study has helped identify and confirm regional and demographical differences between parties and has correlated well with previous findings. The Excel file contains results for Towns and Rural areas for the years of 2006, 2010 and 2014. The dataset was originally published in DiVA and moved to SND in 2024.Excel-filen innehåller valresultat för stad och landsbygd för åren 2006, 2010 och 2014. Se engelsk beskrivning för ytterligare info. Datasetet har ursprungligen publicerats i DiVA och flyttades över till SND 2024

Material, references, and sources for the Theoria entry on Wikipedia

Transcription interviews. The dataset was originally published in DiVA and moved to SND in 2024.Transkriptionsintervjuer. Datasetet har ursprungligen publicerats i DiVA och flyttades över till SND 2024