Back to GESIS Homepage

Item List

Frage Thema Item Text Antwort Format Konstrukt Eingesetzte Kogn Techniken Ergebnis
e.It makes me angry that not enough is being done to stop climate change. [Es macht mich wütend, dass nicht genug getan wird, um den Klimawandel aufzuhalten.] Nein For item e, the respondents' reasons were consistent with their selected answers. Respondents who disagreed with the statement said that enough is already being done to stop climate change. Test persons who agreed with the statement, on the other hand, argued that politics must take even more account of the climate:
  • "I am satisfied with what is being done." (TP330, response: rather disagree)
  • "So much is being done, but other countries are much bigger, Germany alone can't do it." (TP551, response: strongly disagree)
  • "Especially economic aspects instead of environment and climate are politically in focus." (TP252, response: rather agree)
  • "People know what is wrong, but it takes too long to implement." (TP270, response: strongly agree)
f. To effectively combat climate change, the economic system must undergo a radical change. [Um den Klimawandel wirksam zu bekämpfen, muss das Wirtschaftssystem von Grund auf verändert werden.] Nein For item f, too, the reasons given by the test subjects were consistent with their answers and therefore did not indicate any difficulties in understanding. Those who disagreed with the statement gave the reason that the economic system does not need to be fundamentally changed or that the responsibility lies with the consumer. Those who agreed with the statement justified this by saying that the economic system is geared toward growth:
  • "There are sectors of the economy that are already quite climate-neutral today. Not much needs to be changed there in the future." (TP339, response: rather disagree)
  • "Demand regulates supply. The change in thinking [is] therefore up to the consumer." (TP358, response: rather disagree)
  • "Globalization has led to a certain unreasonableness: Regionality and sustainability suffered badly because economic aspects completely took over." (TP348, response: strongly agree)
  • "Less attention needs to be paid to profit and more to whose expense it is made." (TP309, response: strongly agree)
a.Heat waves / drought [Hitzewelle/Dürre] Nein For item a, test persons who selected lower values mostly justified their answers by saying that heat waves or drought had not yet occurred at their place of residence, or had occurred only rarely, and that they had noticed only little change in the average annual temperatures. Test persons who selected higher values, on the other hand, argued that they had registered a noticeable increase in temperatures in recent years and that their place of residence frequently experiences warm winters and summers with little precipitation:
  • "Because it feels like it's always raining here." (TP566, scale value: 0)
  • "There is hardly any change here." (TP406, scale value: 2)
  • "Because some of the winter here is already way too warm, and there's little to no precipitation in the summer." (TP290, scale value: 6)
  • „"In Brandenburg, we've had drought summers for five years, causing ever larger forest fires." (TP370, scale value: 10)
b. Heavy rain/flooding [Starkregen/Überschwemmungen] Nein For item b, those respondents who selected lower values explained that there had not been any floods at their place of residence so far, but only heavy rain from time to time, if at all. Test persons who selected higher values, on the other hand, justified this by saying that they had already experienced flooding at their place of residence or had registered an increase in heavy rain events:
  • "There has been no heavy rain or flooding in our vicinity so far." (TP254, scale value: 0)
  • "Rain has definitely increased. However, there are no rivers or lakes near here." (TP439, scale value: 1)
  • "When it does rain, it's much worse than it used to be." (TP273, scale value: 7)
  • "Our place was affected by the flood disaster last year. I would rate the likelihood of something like that happening again as high." (TP297, scale value: 10)
c. Storms [Stürme] Nein For item c, lower values were justified by the fact that no storms had occurred at the place of residence so far, while test persons who selected a high value stated that this had already been the case for them and that they would perceive an increase in storms:
  • "Our region is not affected." (TP265, scale value: 0)
  • "So far, my region has not been affected by strong storms." (TP277, scale value: 2)
  • "I have been affected by storm damage myself." (TP534, scale value: 8)
  • "Because the storms are getting stronger here." (TP364, scale value: 10)
a. … wind turbines were to be built? [...Windräder gebaut werden sollen?] Nein -
b. ...a high-voltage line was to be laid underground? [...eine Hochspannungsleitung in der Erde verlegt werden soll?] Nein A negative attitude toward the laying of high-voltage lines underground (item b) was mostly justified by doubts about their safety, that they were less efficient than above-ground lines and not sustainable, or that the necessary construction measures were rejected. Respondents who were in favor of the infrastructure measures justified this by saying that undergrounding would be practical, safe, and not visually disruptive:
  • "I don't know if it's safe." (TP231, response: rather disagree).
  • "Undergrounding is significantly more expensive, reduces efficiency, and probably takes long-er." (TP345, response: rather disagree)
  • "Offers many advantages (e.g., safe from storms, better for the environment, nicer)." (TP294, response: strongly agree).
  • "Is necessary for the future and underground it does not disturb the view in nature." (TP382, Answer: strongly agree).
Even though the proportion of subjects who selected the middle category for item b was comparatively large, their responses to the probe did not indicate comprehension problems, but rather corresponded to "medium" agreement, that is, the measure was neither unambiguously rejected nor endorsed:
  • "I am in favor if it is reasonable and well isolated and if the excavations do not use too much area. It is important that the original condition is restored if possible or well compensated by power companies." (TP384, response: neither agree nor disagree)
  • "I think repair work is costly, roads need to be opened, etc." (TP392, response: neither agree nor disagree)
c. ...a high-voltage power line with masts was to be built? [...eine Hochspannungsleitung mit Masten gebaut werden soll?] Nein For item c, a negative attitude was justified by the fact that high-voltage lines with masts (especially during storms) posed a danger and were visually disturbing. Those who agreed with the item mainly justified this with the necessity of masts for the power supply or with the fact that they were the rule and people had already become accustomed to them:
  • "I think that doesn't look good, there are other options today. And for health it is not good to have them near you either." (TP410, response: strongly disagree)
  • "Because there are these in my environment and across fields. And when there are orcan winds blowing like right now, they fling around dangerously in the air. I'm not sure that these don't come down one time or even a mast falls down." (TP318, strongly disagree)
  • "In the area where I live, there are power lines with masts, so we're used to them and I wouldn't mind." (TP314, response: rather agree)
  • "Everyone needs electricity, so there needs to be power lines." (TP422, response: rather agree)
Sporadically (n = 4), the possibility of building high-voltage power lines with masts at the test persons' place of residence was doubted, since they lived in a large city or the inner city:
  • "Everything here is densely built-up, where should there be room for high-voltage lines?" (TP258, response: rather disagree).
  • "Doesn't happen downtown." (TP506, response: rather agree)
  • "The question is actually not relevant for me, because it is not feasible to lay a high-voltage line through a residential area. On the contrary, existing high-voltage lines are being deconstructed because of construction of apartments." (TP296, response: neither agree nor disagree)
  • "What nonsense. The space in residential areas does not even begin to allow high-voltage lines to be built there. Are residential buildings to be demolished for this?" (TP325, response: strongly disagree).
For item c, the responses of the subjects who selected the middle category also did not indicate comprehension problems, but rather corresponded to a neutral or ambivalent attitude:
  • "I remember that from my youth and didn't think it was dramatic." (TP390, response: neither agree nor disagree)
  • "Because I don't know enough about the advantages or disadvantages." (TP340, response: neither agree nor disagree)
d. ...a large-scale solar plant was to be built? [...eine großflächige Solaranlage gebaut werden soll?] Nein -
e. ...a modern nuclear power plant was to be put into operation? [...ein modernes Kernkraftwerk in Betrieb genommen werden soll?] Nein

For item e, test persons who disagreed with the statement mostly justified their answers with the danger of nuclear accidents or with the fact that nuclear power is an outdated and environmentally harmful technology. In contrast, test persons who agreed with the statement argued that nuclear power is clean energy, that modern nuclear power plants are safe, or that nuclear energy is necessary because the exclusive supply of green electricity is not sufficient:

  • "I am afraid of an accident, whether material or manmade." (TP367, response: strongly disagree).
  • "Even though nuclear energy is green energy on paper, there is the question of final storage, which is anything but sustainable." (TP407, response: strongly disagree)
  • "Nuclear power is a good contribution to becoming climate neutral. Modern nuclear power plants are safe." (TP339, response: rather agree)
  • "Nuclear power plants, like them or not, are among the largest suppliers of electricity there are. Shutting them down creates such a big gap, which means you have to import electricity from other countries that have nuclear power plants as well." (TP472, response: strongly agree)