Der ALLBUS als Instrument zur Untersuchung sozialen Wandels: Eine Zwischenbilanz nach 20 Jahren

Koch, Achim; Wasmer, Martina

doi:10.1007/978-3-322-80949-0_2

Cited by 32 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…3 In recent years the use of monetary incentives has grown in importance in many surveys in Germany, such as ALLBUS (Koch & Wasmer 2004), ESS (Keil & Van Deth 2012), GIP 8 , NEPS (Blossfeld et al 2011), pairfam (Huinink et al 2011), PIAAC (Rammstedt 2013), PASS (Trappmann et al 2010) and SHARE (Börsch-Supan et al 2013). Facing the decreasing participation rates common among many other of the aforementioned studies, the SOEP decided to test monetary incentives and their effects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental Evidence of the Effect of Monetary Incentives on Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Response: Experiences from the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP)

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research at DIW BerlinThis series presents research findings based either directly on data from the German SocioEconomic Panel Study (SOEP) or using SOEP data as part of an internationally comparable data set (e.g. CNEF, ECHP, LIS, LWS, CHER/PACO). SOEP is a truly multidisciplinary household panel study covering a wide range of social and behavioral sciences: economics, sociology, psychology, survey methodology, econometrics and applied statistics, educational science, political science, public health, behavioral genetics, demography, geography, and sport science.The decision to publish a submission in SOEPpapers is made by a board of editors chosen by the DIW Berlin to represent the wide range of disciplines covered by SOEP. There is no external referee process and papers are either accepted or rejected without revision. Papers appear in this series as works in progress and may also appear elsewhere. They often represent preliminary studies and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be requested from the author directly.Any opinions expressed in this series are those of the author(s) and not those of DIW Berlin.Research disseminated by DIW Berlin may include views on public policy issues, but the institute itself takes no institutional policy positions. AbstractThe paper gives an overview of two experiments implemented in the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) considering the effect of monetary incentives on cross-sectional and longitudinal response propensities. We conclude that the overall effects of monetary incentives on response rates are positive compared to the "classic" SOEP setting, where a charity lottery ticket is offered as an incentive. In the cross-section, cash incentives are associated with a higher response rate as well as a lower rate of partial unit non-response (PUNR) and fewer noncontacts on the household level. Separate analyses for German and immigrant households show that a monetary incentive has a positive effect on immigrant households' participation in subsequent waves. Regarding the regions where the households are located, the high cash incentive has a positive effect on response rates in provincial towns and rural areas. The incentive treatment decreases the likelihood of PUNR in the longitudinal setting by motivating members of participating households who had...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental Evidence of the Effect of Monetary Incentives on Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Response: Experiences from the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP)

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We examine the effects of incentives across ten experiments implemented in the following eight German surveys: (1) the "German General Social Survey" (ALLBUS) (Koch and Wasmer 2004); (2) the "German Internet Panel" (GIP) (Blom, Gathmann, and Krieger forthcoming); (3) the adult panel of the "National Educational Panel Study" (NEPS) (Allmendinger et al 2011); (4) the German Family Panel (pairfam) (Huinink et al 2011); (5) the panel study, "Labor Market and Social Security" (PASS) (Trappmann et al 2010); (6) (Wagner, Frick, and Schupp 2007). To examine incentive effects on response rates and nonresponse bias, we observe the response rates for the cross-sectional surveys and the first waves of the panel surveys, unless noted otherwise.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Incentive Effects on Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Large-scale, Face-to-face Surveys Generalizable to Germany? Evidence from Ten Experiments

Pforr

Blohm

Blom

et al. 2015

PUBOPQ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes.You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an OpenContent Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.euThis is a pre-copyedited, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in "Public Opinion Quarterly" following peer review. In survey research, a consensus has grown regarding the effectiveness of incentives encouraging survey participation across different survey modes and target populations. Most of this research has been based on surveys from the US, whereas few studies have provided evidence that these results can be generalized to other contexts. This paper is the first to present comprehensive information concerning the effects of incentives on response rates and nonresponse bias across large-scale surveys in Germany. The context could be viewed as a critical test for incentive effects because Germany's population is among the most survey-critical in the world, with very low response rates. Our results suggest positive incentive effects on response rates and patterns of effects that are similar to those in previous research: The effect increased with the monetary value of the incentive; cash incentives affected response propensity more strongly than lottery tickets do; and prepaid incentives could be more cost-effective than conditional incentives. We found mixed results for the effects of incentives on nonresponse bias. Regarding large-scale panel surveys, we could not unequivocally confirm that incentives increased response rates in later panel waves. 6 Survey researchers have been increasingly concerned with decreasing response rates, a change that has been reported in developed countries over the last several decades (Atrostic et al. 2001; de Leeuw and de Heer 2002;Brick and Williams 2013). Decreasing response rates can lead to biased estimates if the nonresponse is not at random (Rubin 1976). Even when nonresponse is not selective, increasing the sample size as a direct countermeasure incurs higher costs. To increase survey response, several methods have been developed, such as advance letters, special contacting procedure...

show abstract

“…In Germany these demographic shifts came along with substantial changes in social norms and attitudes regarding the role of women. We gather information on attitudes from the ALLBUS surveys where respondents were asked regularly whether women should give up their job after getting married and whether women should stay at home and look after their kids (Koch and Wasmer 2004). The share of individuals agreeing with these statements dropped from 57 percent in the 1982 survey to below 30 percent in 2008.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What drives the reversal of the gender education gap? Evidence from Germany

Riphahn

Schwientek

2015

Applied Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. What Drives the Reversal of the Gender Education Gap? Evidence from Germany Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may AbstractWe study the mechanisms that are associated with the gender education gap and its reversal in Germany. We focus on three outcomes, graduation from upper secondary school, any tertiary education, and tertiary degree. Neither individual and family background nor labor market characteristics appear to be strongly associated with the gender education gap. There is some evidence that the gender gap in upper secondary education reflects the rising share of single parent households which impacts boys' attainment more than girls'. The gender education gap in tertiary education is correlated with the development of class sizes and social norms. Also, gender differences in non-cognitive abilities are considered to render females' effort cost of higher education lower than that of males.Becker et al. (2010) study gender-specific changes in the costs and benefits of higher education. The authors consider the female advantage in the total cost of education to be central to the reversal of the gender education gap. In particular, higher non-cognitive skills of females, a lower incidence of behavioral problems, and the smaller variance in the distribution of noncognitive skills render the female supply of college educated labor more elastic than that of males. The authors argue that the rising demand for college educated workers generated a larger supply response among females rather than males.The literature on the gender education gap outside of the U.S. is slim. Christofides et al.(2010) confirm much of the U.S. evidence for Canadian university attendance. They find that the university wage premium explains most of the changes over time with smaller roles for changes in tuition and real incomes. In contrast, Hubbard (2011) points out that the college wage premium for women does not exceed that of men, once unbiased estimations are used. 3We study determinants of the German gender education gap and its reversal for the birth cohorts 1965 through 1989. In contrast to most of the literature we consider education outcomes at different stages of the life cycle, i.e., secondary as well as tertiary education outcomes. 4 We describe recent developments and evaluate the relevance of potential determinants of the gender education gap and its reversal including a rich set of indicators of wage and employment premiums, shifts in occupation-specific ski...

show abstract

Der ALLBUS als Instrument zur Untersuchung sozialen Wandels: Eine Zwischenbilanz nach 20 Jahren

Cited by 32 publications

References 15 publications

Experimental Evidence of the Effect of Monetary Incentives on Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Response: Experiences from the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP)

Experimental Evidence of the Effect of Monetary Incentives on Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Response: Experiences from the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP)

Are Incentive Effects on Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Large-scale, Face-to-face Surveys Generalizable to Germany? Evidence from Ten Experiments

What drives the reversal of the gender education gap? Evidence from Germany

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About