nach oben

Social Indicators Research

Erschienen in:

01.12.2012

Can We Improve the Measurement of Attitudes Towards the Welfare State? A Constructive Critique of Survey Instruments with Evidence from Focus Groups

verfasst von: Achim Goerres, Katrin Prinzen

Erschienen in: Social Indicators Research | Ausgabe 3/2012

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

There is a large and growing literature on welfare state attitudes, most of which is built on random-sample population surveys with standardised closed-question items. This article criticises the existing survey instruments, especially those that are used within the International Social Survey Programme, in a novel approach with focus group data from Germany. The article demonstrates: firstly, these instruments underestimate the inconsistency (the degree to which attitudes logically contradict each other), the uncertainty (the degree to which individuals are unsure about what to think), the ambivalence (the simultaneous occurrence of positive and negative reactions) and non-attitudes towards welfare state activities that common people have. Secondly, the meaning of these items to respondents seems to vary to such an extent that inference based on such measures is questionable. Finally, the article concludes by suggesting some survey instruments that alleviate these measurement problems.

Vorheriger Artikel Poverty Among Elderly in India

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

This phenomenon is more prevalent, of course, if survey designers do not offer the opportunity of having “no opinion”.

Furthermore, there are studies on framing that show that attitudes towards, for example, programmes for specific social groups are contingent on the way the deservingness of these groups is portrayed in the survey (Slothuus 2007). Nevertheless, framing can best be evaluated by experimental approach that is why we do not deal with it in our focus group analysis.

Sometimes, it can be more difficult to get a group together to talk than to survey individuals in single interviews. For instance, rich people are not willing to get together in groups to talk about wealth (Glatzer et al. 2009).

All names were changed.

Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (2002). Hard choices, easy answers: Values, information, and American public opinion. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Andreß, H.-J., & Heien, T. (2001). Four worlds of welfare state attitudes? A comparison of Germany, Norway, and the United States. European Sociological Review, 17(4), 337–356.CrossRef

Andreß, H.-J., Heien, T., & Hofäcker, D. (2001). Wozu brauchen wir noch den Sozialstaat?. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Bassili, J. N. (1996). Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(10), 637–653.CrossRef

Beck, M., & Opp, K.-D. (2001). Der faktorielle Survey und die Messung von Normen. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 53(2), 283–306.CrossRef

Blekesaune, M. (2007). Economic conditions and public attitudes to welfare policies. European Sociological Review, 23(3), 393–403.CrossRef

Blekesaune, M., & Quadagno, J. (2003). Public attitudes toward welfare state policies: A comparative analysis of 24 nations. European Sociological Review, 19(5), 415–427.CrossRef

Boeri, T., Börsch-Supan, A., & Tabellini, G. (2001). Would you like to shrink the welfare state? A survey of European citizens. Economic Policy, 32, 7–50.CrossRef

Brooks, C., & Manza, J. (2006). Why do welfare states persist? Journal of Politics, 68(4), 816–827.

Busemeyer, M. R., Goerres, A., & Weschle, S. (2009). Demands for redistributive policies in an era of demographic aging: The rival pressures from age and income in 14 OECD countries. Journal of European Social Policy, 19(3), 195–212.CrossRef

Carson, R. T., Flores, N. E., & Meade, N. F. (2001). Contingent valuation: Controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19(2), 173–210.CrossRef

Chong, D. (1993). How people think, reason, and feel about rights and liberties. American Journal of Political Science, 37(3), 867–899.CrossRef

Cnaan, R. A. (1989). Public opinion and the dimensions of the welfare state. Social Indicators Research, 21, 297–314.CrossRef

Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass politics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (Vol. 5, pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.

Coughlin, R. M. (1980). Ideology, public opinion and welfare policy: Attitudes towards taxes and spending in industrialized societies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Deeming, C., & Keen, J. (2003). A fair deal in older age? Public attitudes towards the funding of long-term care. Policy & Politics, 31(4), 431–446.CrossRef

Draisma, S., & Dijkstra, W. (2004). Response latency and (para)linguistic expressions as indicators of response error. In S. Presser, M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin, J. M. Rothgeb, et al. (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 131–148). Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRef

Eckstein, H. (1975). Case study and theory in political science. In F. Greenstein & N. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of political science (Vol. 7). Reading, MA: Addison Wellsley.

Edlund, J. (2009). Attitudes towards state-organized welfare in twenty-two societies: A question of convergence? In M. Haller (Ed.), The international social survey programme, 1984–2009: Charting the globe (pp. 125–146). London: Routledge.

Feldman, S., & Zaller, J. (1992). The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science, 36(1), 268–307.CrossRef

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Flora, P., Alber, J., & Kohl, J. (1977). Zur Entwicklung der westeuropäischen Wohlfahrtsstaaten. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 18, 705–772.

Gainous, J. (2008). Ambivalence about social welfare: An evaluation of measurement approaches. American Review of Politics, 29, 109–134.

Gainous, J., Craig, S. C., & Martinez, M. D. (2008). Attitudes concerning social welfare and ambivalence concerning the role of government. Politics & Policy, 36(6), 972–1004.CrossRef

Gelissen, J. (2000). Popular support for institutionalized solidarity: A Comparison between European welfare states. International Journal of Social Welfare, 9, 285–300.CrossRef

Gilljam, M., & Granberg, D. (1993). Should we take don’t know for an answer? Public Opinion Quarterly, 57(3), 348–357.CrossRef

Glatzer, W., Becker, J., Bieräugel, R., Hallein-Benze, G., Nüchter, O., & Schmid, A. (2009). Reichtum im Urteil der Bevölkerung. Akzeptanzprobleme und Spannungspotenzial. Opladen/Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich.

Goerres, A., & Prinzen, K. (2010). Using mixed methods for the analysis of individuals: A review of necessary and sufficient conditions and an application to welfare state attitudes. Quality & Quantity. doi:10.1007/s11135-010-9379-8.

Groves, R. M. (1989). Survey errors and survey costs. New York: Wiley.CrossRef

Hansen, J. M. (1998). Individuals, institutions, and public preferences over public finance. American Political Science Review, 92(3), 513–531.CrossRef

Iversen, T., & Soskice, D. (2001). An asset theory of social policy preferences. American Political Science Review, 95(4), 875–893.

Jackman, M. R. (1973). Education and Prejudice or education and response-set? American Sociological Review, 38(3), 327–339.CrossRef

Jaeger, M. M. (2006). Welfare regimes and attitudes towards redistribution: The regime hypothesis revisited. European Sociological Review, 22(2), 157–170.CrossRef

Jaeger, M. M. (2009). United but divided: Welfare regimes and the level and variance in public support for redistribution. European Sociological Review, 25(6), 723–737. doi:10.1093/esr/jcn079.CrossRef

Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal, 311, 299–302.CrossRef

Klein, M. (2006). Der faktorielle Survey: Conjoint- und Vignettenanalyse. In J. Behnke, T. Gschwend, D. Schindler, & K.-U. Schnapp (Eds.), Methoden der Politikwissenschaft. Neuere qualitative und quantitative Analyseverfahren (pp. 133–143). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Klopfer, F. J., & Madden, T. M. (1980). The middlemost choice on attitude items: Ambivalence, neutrality, or uncertainty? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(1), 97–101. doi:10.1177/014616728061014.CrossRef

Kohli, M. (1999). Private and public transfers between generations: Linking the family and the state. European Societies, 1, 81–104.

Krömmelbein, S., Bieräugel, R., Nüchter, O., Glatzer, W., & Schmid, A. (2007). Einstellungen zum Sozialstaat. Repräsentative Querschnittsuntersuchungen zu grundsätzlichen gesundheits- und sozialpolitischen Einstellungen in der Bevölkerung 2005. Opladen/Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich.

Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 537–567. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.537.CrossRef

Lindsay, A. C., & Hubley, A. M. (2006). Conceptual reconstruction through a modified focus group methodology. Social Indicators Research, 79(3), 437–454. doi:10.1007/s11205-005-5075-9.CrossRef

Linos, K., & West, M. (2003). Self-interest, social beliefs, and attitudes to redistribution. European Sociological Review, 19(4), 393–409.CrossRef

Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods, analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Mangold, W. (1960). Gegenstand und Methode des Gruppendiskussionsverfahrens. Aus der Arbeit des Institut für Sozialforschung. Frankfurt: Europäische Verlagsanstalt.

Merton, R. K., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P. L. (1956). The focused interview: A manual of problems and procedures (2nd revised ed.). Glencoe: The Free Press.

Møller, V., Erstad, I., & Zani, D. (2010). Drinking, smoking, and morality: Do ‘drinkers and smokers’ constitute a stigmatised stereotype or a real tb risk factor in the time of HIV/AIDS? Social Indicators Research, 98(2), 217–238. doi:10.1007/s11205-009-9546-2.CrossRef

Narayan, S., & Krosnick, J. A. (1996). Education moderates some response effects in attitude measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(1), 58–88.CrossRef

Nüchter, O., Bieräugel, R., Glatzer, W., & Schmid, A. (2010). Der Sozialstaat im Urteil der Bevölkerung. Opladen/Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich.

Nüchter, O., Bieräugel, R., Schipperges, F., Glatzer, W., & Schmid, A. (2008). Einstellungen zum Sozialstaat II. Die Akzeptanz der sozialen Sicherung und der Reform der Renten- und Pflegeversicherung 2006. Opladen/Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich.

Nüchter, O., Bieräugel, R., Schipperges, F., Glatzer, W., & Schmid, A. (2009). Einstellungen zum Sozialstaat III. Sechs Fragen zur Akzeptanz der sozialen Sicherung in der Bevölkerung. Opladen/Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich.

Pollock, F. (1955). Gruppenexperiment. Ein Studienbericht. Frankfurt: Europäische Verlagsanstalt.

Roller, E. (1992). Einstellungen der Bürger zum Wohlfahrtssstaat der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRef

Sabbagh, C., & Vanhuysse, P. (2006). Exploring attitudes towards the welfare state: Students’ views in eight democracies. Journal of Social Policy, 35, 607–628.CrossRef

Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1980). Public opinion and public ignorance: The fine line between attitudes and nonattitudes. The American Journal of Sociology, 85(5), 1214–1225.CrossRef

Schwarz, N., & Sudman, S. E. (1992). Context effects in social and psychological research. New York: Springer.CrossRef

Sellke, P., & Mayerl, J. (2004). How long does it take to be ignorant? Measuring nonattitudes with response latencies in surveys. In C. van Dijkum, J. Blasius, & B. van Hilton (Eds.), Recent developments and applications in social research methodology. Proceedings of the sixth international conference on logic and methodology. Amsterdam: SISWO.

Sihvo, T., & Uusitalo, H. (1995). Attitudes towards the welfare states have several dimensions: Evidence from Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare, 4, 215–223.CrossRef

Slothuus, R. (2007). Framing deservingness to win support for welfare state retrenchment. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(3), 323–344.CrossRef

Smith, T. W. (2004). Developing and evaluating cross-national survey instruments. In S. Presser, M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin, J. M. Rothgeb, et al. (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 431–452). Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRef

Svallfors, S. (1997). Worlds of welfare and attitudes to redistribution: A comparison of eight western nations. European Sociological Review, 13(3), 283–304.CrossRef

Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Veenhoven, R. (2002). Why social policy needs subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 58(1), 33–46. doi:10.1023/a:1015723614574.CrossRef

Wikman, A. (2006). Reliability, validity and true values in surveys. Social Indicators Research, 78(1), 85–110. doi:10.1007/s11205-005-5372-3.CrossRef

Wikman, A. (2007). Context effects as an illustration of response uncertainty—A cautionary tale. Social Indicators Research, 84(1), 27–38. doi:10.1007/s11205-006-9067-1.CrossRef

Wilson, T. D., & Hodges, S. D. (1992). Attitudes as temporary constructions. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 37–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 579.CrossRef

Titel: Can We Improve the Measurement of Attitudes Towards the Welfare State? A Constructive Critique of Survey Instruments with Evidence from Focus Groups
verfasst von: Achim Goerres
Katrin Prinzen
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2012
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Social Indicators Research / Ausgabe 3/2012
Print ISSN: 0303-8300
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0921
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9915-5

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2012

Beyond GDP: Classifying Alternative Measures for Progress

A Household-Based Distribution-Sensitive Human Development Index: An Empirical Application to Mexico, Nicaragua and Peru

Subjective Well-Being: Keeping Up with the Perception of the Joneses

Choosing Aggregation Rules for Composite Indicators

Occupational Stress, Mental Health and Satisfaction in the Canadian Multicultural Workplace

An Exploratory Study of Trust and Material Hardship in Ghana

Premium Partner