Item List

Frage Thema Item Text Antwort Format Konstrukt Eingesetzte Kogn Techniken Ergebnis
b) I am proud to work in my current profession. [Ich bin stolz darauf, in meinem derzeitigen Beruf zu arbeiten.] Nein The majority of the test persons (n = 11) agree or strongly agree with this statement. Two test persons (TP 01, TP 09) answer with "neither nor" and two further test persons with "disagree" (TP 05, TP 10).

Test person 05 justifies her "disagree" answer with her rejection of the term "pride": "I am happy to work in my company and do my job well and with pleasure. But proud? Pride is something I personally don't know that much about anyway. I would be proud if I did something more noble, e.g. animal rescuers, doctors, rescue services, they really do save people. Or development aid." (TP 05).

Three test persons (TP 02, TP 03, TP11) state that they thought of their company/organization and not of their current activity as intended when answering this statement. The remaining 12 test persons said that they were thinking about their current job or (identical) learned profession. Only test person 15 refers (erroneously) to her learned occupation when answering the item, which however does not correspond to her current activity.
c) I would turn down another, better-paid job to stay in my calling. [Ich würde eine andere, besser bezahlte Stelle ablehnen, um in meinem Beruf zu bleiben.] Nein The majority of the test persons (n = 8) disagree (strongly) with this statement. However, as with question 5, it became clear from the questions of the test directors that one test person (TP 13) had ticked a "wrong" answer due to the negatively formulated item and the associated difficulty in expressing with the answer scale that he/she would like to continue in his/her current job and actually wanted to answer "agree" instead of "disagree": "I would not agree with this question (that I would change) because I actually like my job very much and would possibly perform it in another company. But I didn't want to do something else arbitrarily." (TP 13, disagree).

Test person 01 also states that due to the negative wording he had difficulties in answering the statement: "I found it difficult to answer. I had to think about which answer I had to mark with a cross to say what I meant." (TP 01).

The test persons 02 ("Don’t know") and 15 ("Neither nor") justify their answers, as (partly) already in question 5, by the fact that it depends on the respective circumstances whether one would refuse such a position or not. Several factors (and not only payment) would play a role here:
  • “That depends on what I'm offered. There's more than just money involved.“ (TP 02)
  • “Money is not the decisive point for a change of job. There are several factors. Money is only one of them.“ (TP 15)
Three respondents (TP 06, TP 13, TP 14) stated that they did not know whether the statement referred to the current occupation or the current job:
  • “Does "profession" here mean the position, i.e. the job? Because you can have another job in the same profession? Here I asked myself whether one takes the better paid job but leaves the profession or whether one takes a better paid job but stays in the profession? That is unclear. I have now referred more to the second interpretation. I would like to do this job, if it were a completely different job now, I wouldn't do it, it's something else." (TP 06)
  • “I found the answer to statement c) rather difficult. What is meant by "another, better paid job" as opposed to "to stay in my job"? By "not staying in my job" I would now imagine, for example, a complete change of job. I wouldn't agree with this question, because I really like my job very much and would like to work in another company if necessary. But I didn't want to do something arbitrary.“ (TP 13)
  • “After all, this is about my job, not the position I'm holding right now?“ (TP 14)
In answering this statement, a total of four test persons (TP 07, TP 08, TP 11, TP 12) again stated that they had thought about their company/organization and not about their current job as intended.
e.) that governments respect democratic rights whatever the circumstances [dass Regierungen die demokratischen Rechte unter allen Umständen achten] Nein
f.) that people convicted of serious crimes lose their citizen rights [dass Menschen, die wegen schwerer Verbrechen verurteilt wurden, ihre Bürgerrechte verlieren] Nein Four subjects (TP 05, TP 07, TP 10, TP 13) indicate that they have difficulty finding the correct scale value to express that they do not want "people to lose their civil rights“:
  • How important is it to me that they lose? It's not important to me. You know, it's a little weird to ask. You somehow have the feeling that you have to do it the other way [on the scale], but I understand it now, every citizen has civil rights, even if he has committed crimes, so I don't want him to lose them.“ (TP 07)
  • There I have a little problem with the scale, so 'not important at all'. I don't think it's important that people say stop, that they lose it, or I think it's very important that they lose it. [...] I also think it is important that they don't lose them. I have a problem to find the right answer immediately, because for me it is very important that they don't lose them. For me, there is an unrecognizable negation built into this. So then it's actually not important at all, because they shouldn't lose it." (TP 10)
Four other test persons (TP 03, TP 08, TP 09, TP 17), three of whom replied "I can't tell", make the spontaneous comment that they do not know whether this statement corresponds to reality or not. Furthermore, they claim that they are not clear which rights are meant by "civil rights”:
  • "I think that if you have committed serious crimes, you should be convicted, but I am not sure that you should lose civil rights as a result. I can't find - There might be an example to be given.“ (TP 08)
  • Do I understand correctly that people convicted of serious crimes lose their civil rights? I'm not really that informed. Do they lose all their rights? I can't tell you that, I don't have enough information. I think he will certainly retain some of his rights. But here it says 'lose their civil rights' and that sounds like everyone. But he doesn't lose them all. I don't know, I can't say.“ (TP 17)
g.) that long-term residents of a country, who are not citizens, have the right to vote in that country’s national elections [dass Menschen, die schon lange in einem Land leben, aber dort nicht eingebürgert sind, das Recht haben, bei nationalen Wahlen abzustimmen] Nein The test persons use the entire scale width. Only one test person (TP 03) answers with "Can't say" and justifies his answer by saying that he wants to abstain from this statement.

The term "national elections" is not interpreted by the test persons in the intended sense (national elections in different countries), but in the sense of "elections within Germany". The test persons think of very different elections (or combinations of elections). They are called the Bundestag elections (4 nominations), Bundestag and local elections (4 nominations), Bundestag and state elections (4 nominations), Bundestag and European elections (1 nomination), district or local elections (2 nominations) and all elections in Germany (5 nominations) The choices made in Germany are the frame of reference for the respondents when answering the item, although this is not necessarily means that the Answers of the test persons are only valid for Germany. The interviews do not provide any indications that the test persons have a different attitude to voting rights in other countries (see findings on the question as a whole).

Problematic, however, is the finding that three test persons explicitly think of local elections and not national (i.e. nationwide) elections when answering the item. Their answers would be quite different if they were to interpret the item in the intended sense:
  • If the mayor is to be elected, then I think they should be allowed to participate. If you live in Mannheim for 20 years and it is an election, then you should have the right to vote. If the Federal Chancellor is elected, then one can already say that citizenship is necessary. In regional elections: yes, in national elections: no." (TP 09, answer: "rather important", scale value 5)
  • For example, within a city district. That people who live in that city already have a right to participate, not in all matters. That's why I didn't turn further to the right, in part you have the right. Not federal elections, but limited to a residential area.” (TP 19, answer: "moderately im-portant", scale value 4)
  • I have thought about elections that affect the immediate surroundings, such as the state parliament, the election of mayors. For the Bundestag elections, I don't think it's like that, you should be naturalized. For the federal elections I would have answered it differently. It was clear to me that it refers to the local environment.” (TP 20, answer: "important", scale value 6)
h.) that citizens have the right not to vote [dass Bürger das Recht haben, nicht zur Wahl zu gehen] Nein
i.) that health care be provided for everyone [dass jeder medizinische Versorgung erhält] Nein
Buchhaltung, Finanzen und Büro (z. B. Buchführung, HIT-Listen, Schreibverkehr für den Betrieb) Nein
Tierhaltung und Stallarbeit (z. B. füttern, melken, misten, Herdenmanagement) Nein
Feldarbeit, Acker-, Garten-, Obst- und Weinbau o. Ä. (z. B. Schlepper fahren, pflanzen, Pflegearbeiten, ernten, Bestandskontrolle) Nein