IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwddc/dd42.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Die Bewertung von Erwerbseinkommen: methodische und inhaltliche Analysen zu einer Vignettenstudie im Rahmen des SOEP-Pretest 2008

Author

Listed:
  • Carsten Sauer
  • Katrin Auspurg
  • Thomas Hinz
  • Stefan Liebig
  • Jürgen Schupp

Abstract

In the 2008 Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) Pretest, the factorial survey method was tested for the first time for use in the SOEP longitudinal study. In this paper, we describe the construction and application of the vignette module, which has its origins in the field of justice research and is used in particular in the measurement of income justice. We show that the factorial survey method is applicable in large-scale survey research when taking certain constraints into account, and that respondents of varying ages and educational groups are able to deal sufficiently well with answering the questions. The results obtained suggest that older respondents tend to take fewer dimensions into consideration in forming their opinions. Further studies will be needed to determine whether this is evidence that the evaluation tasks were too complex for these respondents and should thus be interpreted as a method effect, or whether it represents a valid substantive result. The results of the study demonstrate convincingly that alongside occupation, education, and performance-factors relating directly to employment-familial aspects such as civil status, the partner's employment status, and number of children constitute important criteria for determining what constitutes a "fair" income. The factor survey in the 2008 SOEP Pretest offers diverse analytical potential, both from a methodological point of view and in terms of the empirical results obtained. The positive experience with the 2008 SOEP Pretest suggests that the SOEP vignette module can be used effectively in a future wave of the main SOEP survey. Im Pretest 2008 wurde erstmals für die Längsschnittstudie Sozio-oekonomisches Panel (SOEP) die Erhebungsmethode des Faktoriellen Surveys erprobt. Es werden Aufbau und die Umsetzung des Vignettenmoduls beschrieben, das inhaltlich auf dem Gebiet der empirischen Gerechtigkeitsforschung, speziell Messung von Einkommensgerechtigkeit, angesiedeltist. Es wird gezeigt, dass der Faktorielle Survey bei Beachtung einiger Randbedingungen auch in der großflächigen Umfrageforschung einsetzbar ist und Befragte verschiedener Alters- und Bildungsgruppen mit der Beantwortung hinreichend gut zurecht kommen. Die erzielten Ergebnisse deuten darauf hin, dass vor allem ältere Befragte weniger Dimensionenzu Beurteilung heranziehen. Ob dies als Hinweis für eine für diese Befragten zu komplexe Urteilsaufgabe und damit einen methodischer Effekt zu deuten ist, oder aber ein inhaltlich valides Ergebnis darstellt, wäre in künftigen Studien zu klären. Die inhaltlichen Ergebnisse zeigen beispielhaft, dass neben dem Beruf, der Ausbildung und der Leistung - also Faktoren die im direkten Bezug zur Erwerbstätigkeit stehen - ebenso familiäre Aspekte, wie der Familienstand, die Erwerbstätigkeit des Partners und die Anzahl der Kinder relevante Kriterien für die Einkommensgerechtigkeit darstellen. Der Faktorielle Survey im SOEP Pretest 2008 bietet sowohl in methodischer als auch inhaltlicher Hinsicht vielzählige Analysemöglichkeiten. Die positiven Erfahrungen des SOEP-Pretest 2008 ermutigen dazu, auch in einer künftigen Haupterhebung des SOEP Vignettenmodule einzusetzen.

Suggested Citation

  • Carsten Sauer & Katrin Auspurg & Thomas Hinz & Stefan Liebig & Jürgen Schupp, 2009. "Die Bewertung von Erwerbseinkommen: methodische und inhaltliche Analysen zu einer Vignettenstudie im Rahmen des SOEP-Pretest 2008," Data Documentation 42, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwddc:dd42
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.98458.de/diw_datadoc_2009-042.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carolin Decker & Annika Baade, 2016. "Consumer perceptions of co-branding alliances: Organizational dissimilarity signals and brand fit," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(6), pages 648-665, November.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • J31 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Wage Level and Structure; Wage Differentials

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:diw:diwddc:dd42. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.