GESIS Archive
Not a member yet
7693 research outputs found
Sort by
On the Move in [CITY] - Municipal Surveys on Mobility Planning and Citizen Participation in the CIMT Research Project
No full textThe Citizen Involvement in Mobility Transitions (CIMT) research group investigated the potentials and problems of citizen participation in the transport transition in German municipalities. The present study refers to municipal surveys on mobility planning and citizen participation that were conducted in four cities (Hamburg, Marburg, Offenbach and Wuppertal). Both population surveys and surveys of participants in planning and participation procedures were carried out. The aim of the population surveys was to obtain as representative a picture as possible of the characteristics and attitudes in the city/district, in each case before or at the start of the planning and participation process, and once after completion (i.e. formal adoption of the planning decision by the council). The participant survey is explicitly aimed at the participants in the participation processes. In the survey period from 03.04.2021 to 16.09.2024, people aged 16 and over (Marburg and Wuppertal 2021 aged 18 and over) were surveyed in online interviews (CAWI) and by means of self-completed paper questionnaires on the following topics: transport policy attitudes, mobility behavior (general, during the pandemic), mobility needs (general, process-specific to urban developments following a consultation process, legitimacy attitudes (general, process-specific to attitudes following a consultation process, during the pandemic), political involvement (general, process-specific in relation to specific participation formats during a consultation process), participation motives (general, process-specific in relation to specific consultation formats) and socio-demographics. The surveys in Hamburg, Marburg and Offenburg followed a panel design, i.e. they took place at different times of participation. The respondents for the population sample were selected using a simple random sample from the population register. No controlled sampling was used for the participant sample; instead, the participants were contacted after the consultation steps (partly on site, partly by email, partly via a notice on the online participation website or in forums) and asked to register for the online survey. Within the panel survey, those who agreed to be surveyed again were interviewed after the consultation.1. Transport policy attitudes: attitude towards the future development of traffic (on the whole, federal politicians usually make good decisions regarding traffic policy; there are regular disputes about traffic policy in the city; there are regular disputes about traffic policy in the district); need for improvement regarding traffic in the city; suggestion for improvement made with regard to traffic; Attitude towards various traffic-related measures (vehicles with high pollutant emissions are no longer allowed to drive in the city area, maximum speed limit of 30 km/h in the city area with the exception of main roads, create more charging facilities for electric vehicles, expansion of cycle paths at the expense of parking spaces and car lanes, significant expansion of pedestrian zones, expansion of pedestrian paths at the expense of parking spaces, expansion or Construction of high-speed cycle paths and cycle lanes, creation of car-free residential areas, significant reduction in the number of parking spaces, expansion of environmental lanes, significant increase in parking fees, expansion of footpaths at the expense of cycle paths, free use of public transport in the city, expansion of the public transport network at the expense of car lanes, establishment of free park & ride parking spaces on the outskirts of the city, expansion of existing or new roads to avoid congestion, creation of additional parking spaces for cars in the city, use of plant-based fuels); opinion on the future of the city/district (more space for car traffic, wider footpaths, more space for bicycle traffic, less space for car traffic); importance of aspects with regard to the future development of transport (ranking: minimizing the impact on the environment and climate, enabling all people to make their everyday journeys comfortably and cheaply, promoting economic development in Germany and the competitiveness of German companies); extent of concern about climate change.
2. Mobility behavior (in general, during the pandemic): type and number of vehicles in the household; possession of a car driver´s license; type of ticket used for travel by bus or train in the region; walking distance to public transport stops; minutes walked to this stop; frequency of use of different means of transport in the last three months (bicycle, car, carsharing vehicle, bus or train in the region, routes exclusively on foot, train from about 100 km one-way distance, long-distance bus from about 100 km one-way distance); change in use of these means of transport compared to before the pandemic.
3. Mobility needs (general, process-specific for urban developments following a consultation process): importance of various criteria for daily journeys (flexible, fast, punctual, safe in traffic, protected from crime, inexpensive, relaxed, environmentally conscious, convenient, barrier-free travel, fun, easy to find my way around, accepted by friends, doing something for my health); which of these characteristics are associated with driving a car, cycling, local public transport and walking in my own city; changes in my own mobility as a result of measures; type of change in my own mobility as a result of measures (e.g. I was faster on the road, I was more punctual, I felt safer in traffic, etc.); expected changes in daily mobility; expectations after the conversion (e.g. I will be flexible on the road, fast on the road, punctual on the road, etc.).
4. Legitimacy attitudes (general, process-specific to attitudes following a consultation process, during the pandemic): attachment to the city and its citizens; attachment to Germany as a whole and its citizens; opinion on the idea of democracy; satisfaction with democracy in Germany; important that local politicians explain their decisions to citizens, that local politicians give citizens the opportunity to contribute their attitudes and knowledge to decision-making on important decisions, and that citizens have the final say on the most important local policy issues through direct votes; applicability of the above statements to the current situation in their own city; trust in public institutions and organizations (city council/ municipal council/ local council, city administration, district council, district assembly, citizenship, political parties in the city, local daily newspaper in the city, federal government, Bundestag, political parties in Germany, Federal Constitutional Court, judiciary, police); overall satisfaction with the performance of the Lord Mayor, the city administration, the head of the district office, the district office, the First Mayor, the federal government, the political parties in Germany and the magistrate; change in satisfaction with the local policies of the municipal council / city council, the city administration, the Lord Mayor or the head of the district office, the district office, the First Mayor, the federal government, the political parties in Germany, the Landesbetrieb Straßen, Brücken und Gewässer (LSBG) through citizen participation; Change in satisfaction with politics during the Corona pandemic with regard to the performance of the Lord Mayor, the city administration, the head of the district office, the district office, the First Mayor, the federal government, and the political parties in Germany.
5. Political involvement (general, process-specific in relation to specific participation formats during a consultation process): interest in politics in general and interest in local politics; political self-efficacy (I can understand and assess important political issues well, politicians care about what ordinary people think, I trust myself to actively participate in a conversation about political issues, politicians make an effort to maintain close contact with the population); forms of own political participation outside the Internet in the last twelve months (e.g. participation in a demonstration or collection of signatures, donation to political parties or organizations, products consumed or boycotted for political or ethical reasons, etc.); political participation outside the Internet also related to local issues (e.g. construction projects in the city); forms of own political participation on the Internet (e.g. own political contributions posted on social media, tweeted or sent via mailing lists, political contributions from other people forwarded or shared on social media, etc.); political participation on the Internet also related to local issues (e.g. construction projects in the city); membership (passive member, active member, volunteer) in an organization or association (e.g. sports club, peace or human rights organization, etc.).
Politics and participation (process-specific): source of information about the participation process (outdoor advertising, circle of friends or acquaintances, social media, information event, from an invitation by post, media, other); heard about the respective participation process in own city; active participation in the formats of the respective participation processes and frequency of participation; representation of interests (the selected advertising measures were appropriate for the recruitment of participants, all important population groups were represented at the event (age, education, gender, migration background).
6. Evaluation of the participation process: evaluation of the process design (e.g. satisfaction with the user-friendliness of the online platform used to conduct the event, the moderators supported the productive exchange of ideas between the participants, participants had sufficient opportunities to have a say in the course of the event and the dialogs, etc.); evaluation of the quality of the discussions (e.g. the dialogs ran smoothly (e.g. through functioning discussion rules), the contributions of the participants were largely constructive and relevant, etc.); evaluation of results (e.g. the event enabled the different interests to be reconciled, the results of the event will influence political decisions, the event provided new insights, etc.); transparency (e.g. I feel well informed about the planning and current developments); own involvement (as a resident, as a commuter, as a user of the leisure facilities, when running everyday errands, as a tradesperson, in other ways); also used the Internet to participate (actively or passively); evaluation of the measures (e.g. measures within the scope of the redesign fully correspond to my interests, the interests of all relevant population groups are taken into account in the redesign, after the redesign, car traffic will not be impaired and cycling will be safer and more comfortable, quality of stay for pedestrians will increase, etc.); evaluation of the citizens´ petition.
7. Motives for taking part in the participation process (e.g. by participating in this process I can contribute my personal skills, my circle of friends/family find it important to participate in this process, I feel part of a community, a suitable way to exert personal influence on politics, etc.).
Demography: private internet use; frequency of private internet use; length of time living in the city; since year; year of birth; age (classified); gender; born in Germany; parents born in Germany; mobility restriction due to walking disability, visual impairment or other restriction, no restriction); education: Highest general school-leaving qualification of the respondent and parents; vocational qualification or university degree; occupational group; household size; living with a partner; married to this partner; children in the household; number of children not of compulsory school age, children in elementary school, children in secondary school and children who have already finished school; net household income.
Additionally coded were: questionnaire ID; city (Altona, Marburg, Offenburg, Ottensen, Wuppertal); sample (population/participants); type of participation (offline, online); time; order of survey for participants in (city); number of missing variables on CORE dataset with around 230 variables; willingness to be re-interviewed; derived variables: Degree of participation in the participation procedure (detailed and simplified); participation in the participation procedure: heard of the procedure; sex; highest general school qualification (educational level according to ISCED); age.In der Forschungsgruppe Citizen Involvement in Mobility Transitions (CIMT), wurden die Potentiale und Probleme von Bürgerinnenbeteiligung an der Verkehrswende in deutschen Kommunen erforscht. Die vorliegende Studie bezieht sich auf kommunale Befragungen zu Mobilitätsplanung und Bürgerinnenbeteiligung, die in vier Städten (Hamburg, Marburg, Offenbach und Wuppertal) durchgeführt wurden. Es wurden sowohl Bevölkerungsbefragungen als auch Befragungen von Teilnehmenden an Planung- und Beteiligungsverfahrens durchgeführt. Ziel der Bevölkerungsbefragungen war es, ein möglichst repräsentatives Bild der Merkmale und Einstellungen in der Stadt/im Stadtteil zu erhalten, und zwar jeweils vor bzw. zu Beginn des Planungs- und Beteiligungsverfahrens, und einmal nach Abschluss (d.h. formaler Verabschiedung der Planungsentscheidung durch den Rat). Die Teilnehmendenbefragung richtet sich explizit an die Teilnehmenden der Beteiligungsprozesse. Im Erhebungszeitraum 03.04.2021 bis 16.09.2024 wurden Personen ab 16 Jahren (Marburg und Wuppertal 2021 ab 18 Jahren) in Onlineinterviews (CAWI) und mittels selbstausgefülltem Papierfragebögen zu folgenden Themen befragt: Verkehrspolitische Einstellungen, Mobilitätsverhalten (generell, während der Pandemie), Mobilitätsbedürfnisse (generell, prozessspezifisch zu städtebaulichen Entwicklungen im Anschluss an ein Konsultationsverfahren, Legitimitätseinstellungen (generell, prozessspezifisch zu Einstellungen im Anschluss an ein Konsultationsverfahren, während der Pandemie), Politisches Involvement (generell, prozessspezifisch in Bezug zu spezifischen Beteiligungsformaten während eines Konsultationsverfahrens), Partizipationsmotive (generell, prozessspezifisch in Bezug zu spezifischen Konsultationsformaten) und Soziodemographie. Die Erhebungen folgten in Hamburg, Marburg und Offenburg einem Paneldesign, d.h. sie fanden zu unterschiedlichen Zeitpunkten der Beteiligung statt. Die Auswahl der Befragten für die Bevölkerungsstichprobe erfolgte durch eine einfache Zufallsstichprobe aus dem Melderegister. Für die Teilnehmendenstichprobe erfolgte keine kontrollierte Stichprobenziehung, sondern die Teilnehmenden nach den Konsultationsschritten kontaktiert (teils vor Ort, teils per E-Mail, teils per Hinweis auf Website der Onlinebeteiligung oder in Foren) zur Registrierung für die Online-Befragung aufgefordert. Innerhalb der Panelbefragung wurden diejenigen, die einer Wiederbefragung zugestimmt haben nach der Konsultation befragt.1. Verkehrspolitische Einstellungen: Einstellung zur zukünftigen Entwicklung des Verkehrs (im Großen und Ganzen treffen die Bundespolitiker und Bundespolitikerinnen meist gute verkehrspolitische Entscheidungen, um die Verkehrspolitik in der Stadt gibt es regelmäßig Streit; um die Verkehrspolitik im Stadtteil gibt es regelmäßig Streit); Verbesserungsbedarf hinsichtlich des Verkehrs in der Stadt; Verbesserungsvorschlag im Hinblick auf den Verkehr gemacht; Einstellung zu verschiedenen verkehrsbezogenen Maßnahmen (Fahrzeuge mit hohem Schadstoffausstoß dürfen im Stadtgebiet nicht mehr unterwegs sein, im Stadtgebiet Höchstgeschwindigkeit von 30 km/h mit Ausnahme von Hauptverkehrsstraßen, mehr Auflademöglichkeiten für Elektrofahrzeuge schaffen, Ausbau von Fahrradwegen auf Kosten von Parkplätzen und Autofahrstreifen, deutliche Ausweitung der Fußgängerzonen, Ausbau von Fußgängerwegen auf Kosten von Parkplätzen, Ausbau bzw. Bau von Radschnellwegen und Fahrradstraßen, Schaffung autofreier Wohngebiete, deutliche Verringerung der Anzahl der Parkplätze, Ausbau von Umweltspuren, deutliche Erhöhung der Parkgebühren, Ausbau von Fußwegen auf Kosten von Radwegen kostenlose Nutzung von öffentlichen Verkehrsmitteln in der Stadt, Ausbau des öffentlichen Verkehrsnetzes auf Kosten von Autofahrstreifen, Einrichtung von kostenlosen Park & Ride-Parkplätzen am Stadtrand, Ausbau existierender bzw.. Neubau von Straßen zur Vermeidung von Staus, Schaffung zusätzlicher Parkplätze für Autos in der Stadt, Nutzung von aus Pflanzen gewonnenen Kraftstoffen); Meinung zur Zukunft der Stadt/ des Stadtteils (mehr Raum für den Autoverkehr, breitere Fußwege, mehr Raum für den Fahrradverkehr, weniger Platz für den Autoverkehr); Wichtigkeit von Aspekten im Hinblick auf die zukünftige Entwicklung des Verkehrs (Ranking: Umwelt und Klima möglichst wenig belasten, alle Menschen können ihre Wege im Alltag bequem und kostengünstig zurücklegen, wirtschaftliche Entwicklung in Deutschland und die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der deutschen Unternehmen voranbringen); Ausmaß der Beunruhigung über den Klimawandel.
2. Mobilitätsverhalten (generell, während der Pandemie): Art und Anzahl der Fahrzeuge im Haushalt; Besitz eines PKW-Führerscheins; genutzte Fahrkartenart für Fahrten mit Bus oder Bahn in der Region; fußläufige Erreichbarkeit von Haltestellen öffentlicher Verkehrsmittel; Minuten Fußweg zu dieser Haltestelle; Nutzungshäufigkeit verschiedener Verkehrsmittel in den letzten drei Monaten (Fahrrad, Auto, Carsharing-Fahrzeug, Bus oder Bahn in der Region, Wege ausschließlich zu Fuß, Bahn ab etwa 100 km einfache Entfernung, Fernbus ab etwa 100 km einfache Entfernung); veränderte Nutzung dieser Verkehrsmittel im Vergleich zu vor der Pandemie.
3. Mobilitätsbedürfnisse (generell, prozessspezifisch zu städtebaulichen Entwicklungen im Anschluss an ein Konsultationsverfahren): Wichtigkeit verschiedener Kriterien für täglich zurückgelegte Wege (flexibel, schnell, pünktlich, sicher im Verkehr, vor Kriminalität geschützt, kostengünstig, entspannt, umweltbewusst, bequem, barrierefrei unterwegs, Spaß, gut zurechtfinden, im Bekanntenkreis akzeptiert werden, etwas für die Gesundheit tun); welche dieser Eigenschaften werden jeweils mit dem Autofahren, dem Fahrradfahren, dem öffentlichen Personennahverkehr und dem Zufußgehen in der eigenen Stadt verbunden; Veränderungen in der eigenen Mobilität durch Maßnahmen; Art der Veränderung der eigenen Mobilität durch Maßnahmen (z.B. war ich schneller unterwegs, pünktlicher unterwegs, fühlte ich mich sicherer im Verkehr, etc.); Veränderungen in der täglichen Mobilität erwartet; Erwartungen nach dem Umbau (z.B. werde ich flexibel unterwegs sein, schnell unterwegs sein, pünktlich unterwegs sein, etc.).
4. Legitimitätseinstellungen (generell, prozessspezifisch zu Einstellungen im Anschluss an ein Konsultationsverfahren, während der Pandemie): Verbundenheit mit der Stadt und ihren Bürgerinnen und Bürgern; Verbundenheit mit Deutschland als Ganzem und seinen Bürgerinnen und Bürgern; Meinung zur Idee der Demokratie; Zufriedenheit mit der Demokratie in Deutschland; wichtig, dass die lokale Politik den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern ihre Entscheidungen erklärt, dass die lokale Politik den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern bei wichtigen Entscheidungen die Möglichkeit gibt, ihre Einstellungen und ihr Wissen in die Entscheidungsfindung einzubringen und dass die Bürgerinnen und Bürger bei den wichtigsten lokalpolitischen Fragen durch direkte Abstimmungen das letzte Wort haben; Zutreffen der vorgenannten Aussagen auf die aktuelle Situation in der eigenen Stadt; Vertrauen in öffentliche Einrichtungen und Organisationen (Stadtrat/ Stadtverordnetenversammlung/ Gemeinderat, Stadtverwaltung, Bezirksvertretung, Bezirksversammlung, Bürgerschaft, politische Parteien in der Stadt, lokale Tageszeitung in der Stadt, Bundesregierung, Bundestag, politische Parteien in Deutschland, Bundesverfassungsgericht, Justiz, Polizei); Zufriedenheit insgesamt mit den Leistungen des Oberbürgermeisters, der Stadtverwaltung, der Bezirksamtsleiterin, des Bezirksamts, des Ersten Bürgermeisters, der Bundesregierung, der politischen Parteien in Deutschland und des Magistrats; Veränderung der Zufriedenheit mit der lokalen Politik des Gemeinderats/ der Stadtverordnetenversammlung, der Stadtverwaltung, des Oberbürgermeisters oder der Bezirksamtsleiterin, des Bezirksamts, des Ersten Bürgermeisters, der Bundesregierung, der politischen Parteien in Deutschland, dem Landesbetrieb Straßen, Brücken und Gewässer (LSBG) durch die Bürgerbeteiligung; Veränderung der Zufriedenheit mit der Politik während der Corona-Pandemie hinsichtlich der Leistungen des Oberbürgermeisters, der Stadtverwaltung, der Bezirksamtsleiterin, des Bezirksamtes, des Ersten Bürgermeisters, der Bundesregierung, und der politischen Parteien in Deutschland.
5. Politisches Involvement (generell, prozessspezifisch in Bezug zu spezifischen Beteiligungsformaten während eines Konsultationsverfahrens): Politikinteresse allgemein und Interesse an Lokalpolitik; politische Selbstwirksamkeit (wichtige politische Fragen kann ich gut verstehen und einschätzen, Politiker kümmern sich darum, was einfache Leute denken, ich trauen mir zu, mich an einem Gespräch über politische Fragen aktiv zu beteiligen, Politiker bemühen sich um engen Kontakt zur Bevölkerung); Formen eigener politischer Partizipation außerhalb des Internets in den letzten zwölf Monaten (z.B. Teilnahme an einer Demonstration oder Unterschriftensammlung, Spende an politische Parteien oder Organisationen, Produkte aus politischen oder ethischen Gründen konsumiert oder boykottiert, etc.); politische Partizipation außerhalb des Inter
International Social Survey Programme: Family and Changing Gender Roles V - ISSP 2022 (Great Britain)
No full text
International Reproduction Policy Database (IRPD)
No full textThe International Reproduction Policy Database (IRPD) provides a novel approach to measure policies that directly regulate human reproduction. Reproduction policy is an often neglected domain of state intervention in comparative research, and a comprehensive quantitative database has so far been lacking. IRPD contains multiple indicators in each of five regulatory fields: abortion, contraception, medically assisted reproduction, pregnancy care and sex education. We measure national-level formal regulations for each year between 1980-2020. The database allows to address a wide-range of research questions across various social science disciplines.The International Reproduction Policy Database (IRPD) provides a novel approach to measure policies that directly regulate human reproduction. Reproduction policy is an often neglected domain of state intervention in comparative research, and a comprehensive quantitative database has so far been lacking. IRPD contains multiple indicators in each of five regulatory fields: abortion, contraception, medically assisted reproduction, pregnancy care and sex education. We measure national-level formal regulations for each year between 1980-2020. The database allows to address a wide-range of research questions across various social science disciplines
Data & Code/Syntax: The financial situation of students during the COVID-19 pandemic - A case study from a German university
No full textThe majority of university students in Germany have to work to earn a living. The closure of universities and the loss of many typical student jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic particularly affected their situation. We collected data on the employment and financial situation of students at a major German university. In contrast to previous studies, we are able to analyze changes in students’ income and its composition throughout the different phases of the pandemic between January 2020 and June 2021. Students’ job income declined by 66% (total income by 19%), on average, during the first lockdown. There was a quick recovery during the reopening. Job income fell again during the second lockdown, but this decrease was only half as large as that in the first lockdown. In line with our expectations, students from non-academic backgrounds were particularly affected by job income losses and compensated by increasing loan financing, which widened pre-existing funding inequalities. The financial impact led to increased intentions to drop out (12%) and to extend studies (26%), both with a peak during the second lockdown. With respect to social background, we do not observe any differential changes in intentions. This is a rather unexpected result and contradicts the hypotheses derived from the theory.The majority of university students in Germany have to work to earn a living. The closure of universities and the loss of many typical student jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic particularly affected their situation. We collected data on the employment and financial situation of students at a major German university. In contrast to previous studies, we are able to analyze changes in students’ income and its composition throughout the different phases of the pandemic between January 2020 and June 2021. Students’ job income declined by 66% (total income by 19%), on average, during the first lockdown. There was a quick recovery during the reopening. Job income fell again during the second lockdown, but this decrease was only half as large as that in the first lockdown. In line with our expectations, students from non-academic backgrounds were particularly affected by job income losses and compensated by increasing loan financing, which widened pre-existing funding inequalities. The financial impact led to increased intentions to drop out (12%) and to extend studies (26%), both with a peak during the second lockdown. With respect to social background, we do not observe any differential changes in intentions. This is a rather unexpected result and contradicts the hypotheses derived from the theory
Economic Redistribution Preferences in the Food Supply Chain
No full textThis dataset originates from a cross-national survey on public perceptions of income distribution in the food supply chain, conducted in Germany (n = 1,495) and the United States (n = 1,190) in February 2025. The study investigates how citizens evaluate the fairness of transactions between supply chain actors, their preferences for redistributing value among these actors, and their willingness to support and pay for interventions aimed at improving farmers' positions. Respondents assessed four stylized transactions covering the full supply chain (from input providers to consumers), and completed scenario-based measures of fairness, power, and valuation principles (e.g., labor vs. market-based pricing). The survey also captured support for public regulation (price floors) and private initiatives (labeling schemes), alongside attitudinal variables such as views on markets, middlemen, and agricultural policy. The dataset enables analysis of economic fairness perceptions, food system governance preferences, and behavioral responses to redistributive scenarios. It supports research in behavioral economics, agricultural and food policy, economic sociology, and political economy.This dataset originates from a cross-national survey on public perceptions of income distribution in the food supply chain, conducted in Germany (n = 1,495) and the United States (n = 1,190) in February 2025. The study investigates how citizens evaluate the fairness of transactions between supply chain actors, their preferences for redistributing value among these actors, and their willingness to support and pay for interventions aimed at improving farmers' positions. Respondents assessed four stylized transactions covering the full supply chain (from input providers to consumers), and completed scenario-based measures of fairness, power, and valuation principles (e.g., labor vs. market-based pricing). The survey also captured support for public regulation (price floors) and private initiatives (labeling schemes), alongside attitudinal variables such as views on markets, middlemen, and agricultural policy. The dataset enables analysis of economic fairness perceptions, food system governance preferences, and behavioral responses to redistributive scenarios. It supports research in behavioral economics, agricultural and food policy, economic sociology, and political economy
Replication data for: Gratitude in fundraising: Do "thank you in advance" and handwritten thank-you notes impact fundraising success?
No full textWhile almost all charities rely on a set of donor appreciation strategies, their effectiveness for the success of fundraising campaigns is underresearched. Through two preregistered field studies conducted in collaboration with a leading German opera house (N=10,000), we explore the significance of expressing gratitude and examine two different approaches to doing so. Our first study investigates the impact of a "thank you in advance" statement in fundraising letters, a common strategy among fundraisers. In the second study, we explore the effectiveness of handwritten thank-you postcards versus printed postcards, shedding light on the roles of personalization and handwriting in donor appeals. Our findings challenge conventional wisdom, revealing that neither “thank you in advance” nor handwritten thank-you notes significantly affect donor contributions.While almost all charities rely on a set of donor appreciation strategies, their effectiveness for the success of fundraising campaigns is underresearched. Through two preregistered field studies conducted in collaboration with a leading German opera house (N=10,000), we explore the significance of expressing gratitude and examine two different approaches to doing so. Our first study investigates the impact of a "thank you in advance" statement in fundraising letters, a common strategy among fundraisers. In the second study, we explore the effectiveness of handwritten thank-you postcards versus printed postcards, shedding light on the roles of personalization and handwriting in donor appeals. Our findings challenge conventional wisdom, revealing that neither “thank you in advance” nor handwritten thank-you notes significantly affect donor contributions
Study 3 Cross-Cultural Study - The Morality as Cooperation\u2013Deviance Relevance Scale: A Self-Report Instrument to Capture Moral Pluralism Beyond the WEIRD World
No full textThe data and syntaxes provided here refer to Study 3, which is part of the project “The Morality as Cooperation–Deviance Relevance Scale: A Self-Report Instrument to Capture Moral Pluralism Beyond the WEIRD World”, encompassing three studies in total. Study 1 and Study 2 are also available in the GESIS repository.
The data and syntaxes presented here originate from the third study (Study 3), in which we developed and evaluated the new research instrument, the Morality as Cooperation–Deviance Relevance Scale (MaC-DRS). In this study, the MaC-DRS was empirically tested and examined with regard to its psychometric properties across four cultural contexts.
Data were collected via online surveys using access panels in four target countries: Egypt (EG), Germany (GER), Japan (JP), and the United States of America (USA). Several inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, ensuring sufficient statistical power, gender balance, a broad age distribution, and other relevant demographic characteristics. The raw dataset comprises a total of N = 2,982 cases, distributed across cultural groups as follows: EG, n = 746; GER, n = 751; JP, n = 740; USA, n = 745.
Psychometric analyses were conducted using model-based approaches, including exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses as well as reliability assessments. In addition, measurement invariance was evaluated. Alongside the dataset, data preparation procedures and syntaxes for Stata 13 and Mplus (version 8.10) are provided.
Further keywords: Moral Foundations Theory; Morality as Cooperation Theory; Moral Deviance; Cross-Cultural-PsychologyThe data and syntaxes provided here refer to Study 3, which is part of the project “The Morality as Cooperation–Deviance Relevance Scale: A Self-Report Instrument to Capture Moral Pluralism Beyond the WEIRD World”, encompassing three studies in total. Study 1 and Study 2 are also available in the GESIS repository.
The data and syntaxes presented here originate from the third study (Study 3), in which we developed and evaluated the new research instrument, the Morality as Cooperation–Deviance Relevance Scale (MaC-DRS). In this study, the MaC-DRS was empirically tested and examined with regard to its psychometric properties across four cultural contexts.
Data were collected via online surveys using access panels in four target countries: Egypt (EG), Germany (GER), Japan (JP), and the United States of America (USA). Several inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, ensuring sufficient statistical power, gender balance, a broad age distribution, and other relevant demographic characteristics. The raw dataset comprises a total of N = 2,982 cases, distributed across cultural groups as follows: EG, n = 746; GER, n = 751; JP, n = 740; USA, n = 745.
Psychometric analyses were conducted using model-based approaches, including exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses as well as reliability assessments. In addition, measurement invariance was evaluated. Alongside the dataset, data preparation procedures and syntaxes for Stata 13 and Mplus (version 8.10) are provided.
Further keywords: Moral Foundations Theory; Morality as Cooperation Theory; Moral Deviance; Cross-Cultural-Psycholog
Replication Code: Varying the Content of Political Science Surveys to Improve the Survey Experience and Data Quality of Politically Disengaged Respondents. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology.
No full textThe ReplicationFile.html contains all analyses reported in the cited article. The published R.Rmd files allow users to replicate the results. To access the data sets required for replication, a data use agreement is necessary. To reproduce the analyses, please follow these steps:
1. Place all R.Rmd files in a subfolder named scripts.
2. Required R packages are listed and loaded in 01am.Rmd. Please review this file to ensure that all necessary packages are installed before proceeding. Note that running 01am.Rmd will automatically create all required subfolders for the workflow.
3. For the files 02ppt.Rmd and 04pgp.Rmd, include the path to required data sets in the first code chunk of each file.
4. After making any necessary adjustments, you only need to run 12ren.Rmd. This file will source all other scripts and reproduce the analyses and results as described in the project.
Required data sets:
Bartholomäus, S., and Gummer, T. (2025). PrADePS Pretest (SDN-10.7802-2635; Version 1.0.0) [Data set]. https://doi.org/10.7802/2635
GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences (2024). GESIS Panel - Standard Edition (ZA5665; Version 54.0.0) [Data set]. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.14386
Respondents’ survey experience affects their answering and participation behavior and, consequently, measurement and nonresponse errors. Political science surveys especially suffer from biased estimates of political attitudes and behavior. Improving respondents’ survey experience by offering a more interesting and varied questionnaire poses a possible solution to this problem. In this regard, we break new ground by investigating whether improving politically disengaged respondents’ survey experience by including non-political survey content enhances data quality with respect to measurement and non-response errors in political science surveys. For this purpose, we conducted two survey experiments in a probability- and a nonprobability-based panel that varied the content of a political science questionnaire. This study provides the first evidence that offering a varied questionnaire rather than a purely political one lowered or even diminished the gap in measurement and nonresponse errors between politically engaged and disengaged respondents.The ReplicationFile.html contains all analyses reported in the cited article. The published R.Rmd files allow users to replicate the results. To access the data sets required for replication, a data use agreement is necessary. To reproduce the analyses, please follow these steps:
1. Place all R.Rmd files in a subfolder named scripts.
2. Required R packages are listed and loaded in 01am.Rmd. Please review this file to ensure that all necessary packages are installed before proceeding. Note that running 01am.Rmd will automatically create all required subfolders for the workflow.
3. For the files 02ppt.Rmd and 04pgp.Rmd, include the path to required data sets in the first code chunk of each file.
4. After making any necessary adjustments, you only need to run 12ren.Rmd. This file will source all other scripts and reproduce the analyses and results as described in the project.
Required data sets:
Bartholomäus, S., and Gummer, T. (2025). PrADePS Pretest (SDN-10.7802-2635; Version 1.0.0) [Data set]. https://doi.org/10.7802/2635
GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences (2024). GESIS Panel - Standard Edition (ZA5665; Version 54.0.0) [Data set]. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.14386
Respondents’ survey experience affects their answering and participation behavior and, consequently, measurement and nonresponse errors. Political science surveys especially suffer from biased estimates of political attitudes and behavior. Improving respondents’ survey experience by offering a more interesting and varied questionnaire poses a possible solution to this problem. In this regard, we break new ground by investigating whether improving politically disengaged respondents’ survey experience by including non-political survey content enhances data quality with respect to measurement and non-response errors in political science surveys. For this purpose, we conducted two survey experiments in a probability- and a nonprobability-based panel that varied the content of a political science questionnaire. This study provides the first evidence that offering a varied questionnaire rather than a purely political one lowered or even diminished the gap in measurement and nonresponse errors between politically engaged and disengaged respondents
GLES Panel 2025, Wave 29
No full textThe questionnaire of Wave 29 covers questions on general political and societal attitudes, positions on political and social issues, evaluations of political candidates, parties, and institutions, as well as voting behavior, political knowledge, media usage and personal values of the respondents.The German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES) is the central infrastructure project in Germany for the continuous collection and provision of high-quality data for national and international election research. The methodologically diverse surveys of the GLES enable the research of political attitudes and behavior of voters and candidates. Since its foundation, the GLES has been conducted in close cooperation between the German Society for Electoral Research (DGfW) and GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences.
Sample A of the GLES Panel consists of quota-based selections of eligible German voters from several non-probability online panels, divided into five subsamples. Participants in the 2017 election campaign surveys were drawn from the main sample A1 (2016), the recontact sample A2 (2013), and the refreshment sample A3 (2017) of the GLES Short-term Campaign Panel 2017. Sample A was further supplemented by refreshment samples A4 for the 2021 election campaign (2020) and A5 for the 2025 election campaign (2024). For the early federal election in 2025, active participants were surveyed up to five times throughout the election campaign and after the federal election. The GLES Panel surveys continue to enable diverse and in-depth analyses of the impact of political events and election campaigns on changes in political attitudes and decision-making processes.Die Panelwelle 29 umfasst Fragen zu allgemeinen politischen und gesellschaftlichen Einstellungen, Positionen zu politischen und gesellschaftlichen Themen, Bewertungen politischer Kandidatinnen und Kandidaten, Parteien und Institutionen sowie zum Wahlverhalten, politischen Wissen, Mediennutzungsverhalten und persönlichen Werten der befragten Personen.Die German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES) ist das zentrale Infrastrukturprojekt in Deutschland für die kontinuierliche Erhebung und Bereitstellung von qualitativ hochwertigen Daten für die nationale und internationale Wahlforschung. Die methodisch vielfältigen Umfragen der GLES ermöglichen die Untersuchung der politischen Einstellungen und Verhaltensweisen der Wählenden sowie der Kandidierenden. Die GLES wird seit Bestehen in enger Kooperation zwischen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Wahlforschung (DGfW) und GESIS – Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften durchgeführt.
Stichprobe A des GLES-Panels besteht aus quotenbasierten Auswahlverfahren wahlberechtigter deutscher Bürgerinnen und Bürger aus mehreren nicht-probabilistischen Online-Panels und ist in fünf Teilstichproben unterteilt. Die Stichproben A1-A3 „2017 Election Campaign“ setzt sich aus den Befragten des Wahlkampf-Panels 2017 zusammen. Stichprobe A wurde anschließend durch die Auffrischungsstichprobe A4 für den Bundestagswahlkampf 2021 (2020) sowie A5 für den Bundestagswahlkampf 2025 (2024) ergänzt. Für die vorgezogene Bundestagswahl 2025 wurden aktive Teilnehmende bis zu fünfmal während des Wahlkampfs und nach der Wahl befragt. Die Befragungen im Rahmen des GLES-Panels ermöglichen weiterhin vielfältige und vertiefte Analysen zu den Auswirkungen politischer Ereignisse und Wahlkämpfe auf Veränderungen politischer Einstellungen und Entscheidungsprozesse