The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) study is a rich resource for sociologists, mainly because it offers direct measures of respondents’ contexts. The SOEP data provide (i) information retrieved from individuals themselves, (ii) direct information retrieved from their parents, partners, and organizations, (iii) prospectively collected information on past characteristics, and (iv) regional and spatial identifiers allowing researchers to link the data with regional-level characteristics. As the study has been in the field since 1984, the data also reflect variation in institutional and structural settings over time. Regular refreshment samples provide options to identify cohort effects. Together, these features allow multi-layered contextual designs that offer substantive insights into the effects of formal and informal institutions on individual behaviour and living conditions. This article introduces the main types of SOEP-based sociological research designs and discusses their survey methodological origins. It also points to underexplored potentials as well as limitations of the SOEP. Finally, it offers basic suggestions for approaching the data in each of the research designs presented.

This paper argues that `inequity aversion' can be understood as an emotional reaction to perceived injustice that arises from individuals’ comparisons of their own and others’ outcomes to a subjective fairness ideal. In particular, we assume that subjective perceptions of inequity and not objective deviations from equality are crucial to understanding how individuals react to inequality. The paper formalizes these insights by adapting the Fehr and Schmidt (1999) model of inequity aversion replacing the fairness frame of objective equality with subjectively perceived equity. We test this model using data from the European Social Survey 2018 analyzing the association between respondents' perceived fairness of own, top, and bottom incomes with subjective well-being and preferences for redistribution. Results from spline regressions with country-fixed effects indicate that perceived injustice of own and top incomes is positively related to individuals' subjective well-being. For the perceived injustice of bottom incomes, we find no substantive relationships with subjective well-being. Further analyses indicate a positive link between the perceived injustice of bottom and top incomes and preferences for redistribution. In sum, our results suggest that injustice perceived for oneself is connected to utility while perceived injustice of others is related to increased willingness to back redistributive policy proposals even if they are not in line with material self-interest.

Using data from the European Social Survey, we examine income fairness evaluations of 17,605 respondents from 28 countries. Respondents evaluated the fairness of their own incomes as well as the fairness of the incomes of the top and bottom income deciles in their countries. Depicted on a single graph, these income fairness evaluations take on a Z-shaped form, which we call the “inequity Z”. The inequity Z reveals an extensive level of consensus within each country regarding the degree of unfairness of top and bottom incomes. With rising income, respondents consistently judge their own incomes to be less unfair. Across countries, the gap in fairness ratings between top and bottom incomes rises with income inequality. Perceived underreward of bottom incomes is more pronounced in countries where bottom incomes are objectively lower. Thus, this visualization suggests that, when people are confronted with information about actual income levels, perceived inequity increases with inequality.

No abstract