Full edition for scientific use. PUMA Surveys consist of separate modules designed and prepared by different principle investigators. Fieldwork was conducted by Statistics Austria. This PUMA Survey consists of three modules: MODULE 1 "Family Background and the Intrahousehold Distribution of Resources - Explaining Gender Differences in Education", MODULE 2 "Voting Systems and Democratic Satisfaction - An Experimental Study", MODUL 3 "Skala zur Messung autoritärer Einstellungen in Österreich".
MODULE 1: Family Background and the Intrahousehold Distribution of Resources: Explaining Gender Differences in Education (Alyssa Schneebaum, Doris Oberdabernig) This research analyzes the role of family background in a person’s opportunities for later academic success. In particular, it studies the relationship between one’s own educational attainment and three other issues: the educational attainment of his or her parents; the academic environment at home while growing up; and the distribution of resources among siblings in a household. The first issue has been studied at great length in the international literature and is considered one of the critical components of “equality of opportunity.” If a descendant’s educational opportunities are very strongly determined by his or her parents’ academic achievements (or lack thereof), then a society is not providing equal opportunities. The second point -- the academic environment at home (typically proxied by data on the number of books at home while one was growing up) -- is certainly related to the first, but has never appeared in the literature for Austria. This research should fill that gap. The third point asks how a child’s chances of educational success are related to the presence of other children in the household while they were growing up (primarily their siblings). More specifically, which children are most likely to receive a family’s limited resources when there are multiple children in the household? How is a child’s gender and place in the birth order related to their level of educational attainment? This research thus addresses whether the chances for educational success are equally distributed among the children in a household.
MODULE 2: Voting Systems and Democratic Satisfaction: An Experimental Study (Carolina Plescia, André Blais) Voters’ satisfaction with democracy and electoral institutions represent core concepts that scholars have devoted much attention to (e.g., Lipset 1960; Powell 1982). In this regard, an extensive literature on ‘electoral engineering’ has developed with the fundamental aim to assess the link between electoral rules and several normatively important variables such as voters’ democratic satisfaction and their confidence in the electoral process (e.g., Anderson & Guillory 1997; Klingemann 1999; Powell 2000; Karp & Banducci 2008). While this literature provides important insights into the possible relationship between electoral rules and voters’ satisfaction, it has been unable thus far to demonstrate that a causal mechanism exists between electoral rules and voters’ perceptions. By relying on a survey experiment embedded within a national representative sample of the Austrian population, this module aims to disentangle the effect that input and output factors of electoral systems have on both voters’ diffuse satisfaction with democracy, and their specific satisfaction with the electoral process and perception of fairness of the electoral outcomes. In particular, we focus on two input factors, i.e., the supply of parties on the ballot paper and the type of vote choice voters are asked to make, and two output factors, i.e., the performance of the supported party and the translation of votes into seats. Given that electoral systems represent a crucial link in the chain connecting the preferences of citizens to election outcomes (Gallagher & Mitchell 2005) and given todays’ widespread discussions about electoral reforms in several countries like Canada and UK, it is important to know which factor of the electoral rules affects voters’ satisfaction.
MODUL 3: Skala zur Messung autoritärer Einstellungen in Österreich (Wolfgang Aschauer) Die gegenwärtigen Entwicklungen in vielen europäischen Gesellschaften deuten auf eine Renaissance autoritärer und antiegalitärer Einstellungen hin, wobei neben den zentralen Dimensionen der Autoritarismusforschung (Konventionalismus, autoritäre Unterordnung und autoritäre Aggression) auch die bereits in Vergessenheit geratenen zusätzlichen Dimensionen der Berkeley-Gruppe (z.B. Projektivität, Destruktivismus und Zynismus, Antiintrazeption etc.) Aufmerksamkeit erfahren sollten. In diesem Kurzbericht werden erste Ergebnisse einer neuen Autoritarismusskala präsentiert, die auf 27 Items beruht. Diese verdeutlicht eine modernisierte Fassung der ursprünglichen F-Skala, die aufgrund empirischer Defizite stets unter Kritik stand und deshalb sukzessive in Vergessenheit geraten bzw. durch neue verbesserte Skalen ersetzt worden ist. Empirisch zeigen erste Messungen der Skalenevaluation, dass auch in der vorliegenden Skala zahlreiche Adorno-Dimensionen nicht nachweisbar sind. Dennoch deuten explorative Faktorenanalysen und starke Korrelationen mit verwandten Konstrukten (z.B. politischer Zynismus, Anti-Egalitarismus und Fremdenfeindlichkeit) darauf hin, dass es in der aktuellen Zeitspanne eines gesellschaftlichen Umbruchs lohnenswert erscheint, erweiterte Autoritarismuskonzepte für die Forschung fruchtbar zu machen.
Probability
Self-administered questionnaire: Web-based
