Zitatform

Wilcox, Annika & Amanda Koontz (2022): Workplace well-being: Shifting from an individual to an organizational framework. In: Sociology Compass, Jg. 16, H. 10. DOI:10.1111/soc4.13035

Abstract

"Well-being (or lack thereof) is one phenomena that is shaped by and has important implications for organizational (in)equalities, yet remains widely conceptualized at an individual level. Through a review of previous research on organizational inequality and diversity, we argue for a shift towards studying “workplace well-being”—well-being as created by and through work organizations. We identify and discuss three pillars of workplace well-being and consider how these pillars are constituted across three levels of analysis. We note that “workplace well-being” offers a more theoretically- and empirically-grounded framework for understanding how well-being operates in the workplace. This concept can be utilized to “check” where organizational change is needed and develop change initiatives that better support diversity, inclusivity, and equity." (Author's abstract, IAB-Doku, Published by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons) ((en))

Zitatform

Ziano, Ignazio, Christophe Lembregts & Mario Pandelaere (2022): People weigh salaries more than ratios in judgments of income inequality, fairness, and demands for redistribution. In: Journal of Economic Psychology, Jg. 89. DOI:10.1016/j.joep.2022.102495

Abstract

"Five experiments (total n = 2422, with U.S. American and French participants, four preregistered) show that people are more likely to use median salaries rather than CEO-median employee compensation ratios when making inequality and fairness judgments based on company compensation data. In separate evaluation of companies, we find no significant impact of compensation ratios, which express objective levels of income inequality, but a significant impact of median salaries. In joint evaluation, ratios have an impact, but median salaries have a bigger impact. Our results point to a difference between perceived and actual inequality indicators: people do not perceive inequality based on a widely-used indicator of inequality (compensation ratios), but rather use representative workers' salaries, and believe lower representative wages are connected to higher inequality. We discuss theoretical implications for the psychological understanding of economic inequality, and practical implications for the regulation of the presentation of compensation data." (Author's abstract, IAB-Doku, © 2022 Elsevier) ((en))

Zitatform

Hüther, Michael & Judith Niehues (2021): Inequality and Unemployment in Germany: Perception and Reality. In: Journal of contextual economics, Jg. 141, H. 1/2, S. 25-45. DOI:10.3790/schm.141.1-2.25

Abstract

"Data for the time before the corona pandemic reveal a largely positive picture of the economic and social development in Germany. Most individuals perceived their own situation as very positive, but their views on society are rather pessimistic and overly critical. Contrasting abstract redistributive preferences with prevailing norms of justice reveals further inconsistencies. Thus, it is increasingly unlikely that policymakers can adequately address the concerns and wishes of the population. The pronounced discrepancy between empirical findings on distributional aspects and citizens' perceptions constitutes a veritable problem for democratic processes. That is because this discrepancy is the basis for mistrust between citizens (principals) and politics (agents). Therefore, it becomes increasingly important that politicians explain the logic of their actions in an understandable way. An important prerequisite for more communicable politics is a comprehensive infrastructure for research data that enables politicians, the media, and the public to make valid assessments." (Author's abstract, IAB-Doku) ((en))

Zitatform

Jann, Ben, Barbara Zimmermann & Andreas Diekmann (2021): Lohngerechtigkeit und Geschlechternormen: Erhalten Männer eine Heiratsprämie? In: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Jg. 73, H. 2, S. 201-229. 2021-05-10. DOI:10.1007/s11577-021-00757-9

Abstract

"Der geschlechtsspezifische Lohnunterschied hat sich in der Schweiz ebenso wie in Deutschland in den letzten zwei Jahrzehnten zwar leicht verringert, die Lücke ist aber immer noch beträchtlich und lässt sich nur zum Teil durch produktivitätsrelevante Faktoren erklären. Um zu untersuchen, ob sich ein entsprechender „gender wage gap“ auch darin wiederfindet, welche Löhne als gerecht angesehen werden, haben wir im Rahmen von Schweizer Bevölkerungsumfragen drei randomisierte Vignettenexperimente durchgeführt. Im Unterschied zu den meisten anderen Experimenten wurde den Befragten nur jeweils eine Vignette vorgelegt, um Einflüsse sozialer Wünschbarkeit zu vermindern. Das erste Experiment belegt eine geschlechtsspezifische Doppelmoral bei der Einkommensbewertung: Bei Männern wurde ein gegebenes Einkommen eher als zu gering beurteilt als bei Frauen. Der Befund konnte in einem zweiten Experiment mit ähnlichem Design jedoch nicht repliziert werden, wobei ein zentraler Unterschied zwischen den beiden Experimenten in dem in den Vignetten beschriebenen Haushaltskontext lag. In einem dritten Experiment haben wir deshalb den Einfluss der familiären Situation systematisch untersucht. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass nur bei verheirateten Personen ein Unterschied zwischen Frauen und Männern gemacht wird, nicht jedoch bei Singles. Im Einklang mit dem Stereotyp des männlichen Haupternährers zeigt sich ein ausgeprägter Effekt einer „Heiratsprämie“. Verheirateten Männern wird in der Wahrnehmung der Bevölkerung bei sonst gleichen Merkmalen ein höherer Lohn zugestanden als verheirateten Frauen." (Autorenreferat, IAB-Doku, © Springer-Verlag)

Zitatform

Mijs, Jonathan J. B. (2021): The paradox of inequality: income inequality and belief in meritocracy go hand in hand. In: Socio-economic review, Jg. 19, H. 1, S. 7-35. DOI:10.1093/ser/mwy051

Abstract

"Inequality is on the rise: gains have been concentrated with a small elite, while most have seen their fortunes stagnate or fall. Despite what scholars and journalists consider a worrying trend, there is no evidence of growing popular concern about inequality. In fact, research suggests that citizens in unequal societies are less concerned than those in more egalitarian societies. How to make sense of this paradox? I argue that citizens’ consent to inequality is explained by their growing conviction that societal success is reflective of a meritocratic process. Drawing on 25 years of International Social Survey Program data, I show that rising inequality is legitimated by the popular belief that the income gap is meritocratically deserved: the more unequal a society, the more likely its citizens are to explain success in meritocratic terms, and the less important they deem nonmeritocratic factors such as a person’s family wealth and connections." (Author's abstract, IAB-Doku) ((en))

Zitatform

Scholz, Robert & Sigurt Vitols (2021): Mitbestimmt ist nicht gleich mitbestimmt: Pfadabhängige Variation der Unternehmensmitbestimmung in Deutschland. In: Industrielle Beziehungen, Jg. 28, H. 3, S. 317-341. DOI:10.3224/indbez.v28i3.05

Abstract

"Von Pfadabhängigkeit wird gesprochen, wenn Entscheidungen in der Vergangenheit die Handlungsoptionen heute beeinflussen oder sie sogar einengen. Der am Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung entwickelte Mitbestimmungsindex (MBix) analysiert anhand von sechs Indikatoren die Konfiguration der Repräsentation von Arbeitnehmer*innen primär im Aufsichtsrat. Da die Daten über mehrere Jahre erfasst werden, nimmt der vorliegende Beitrag die zeitliche Perspektive in Betracht und kommt zu zwei zentralen Ergebnissen: erstens variiert die Verankerung der Mitbestimmung stark zwischen den Unternehmen, zweitens bleibt das jeweilige unternehmensspezifische Niveau der Mitbestimmung über die Zeit stabil. Die Unternehmen nähern sich also im Zeitverlauf weder an, noch driften sie auseinander. Der institutionelle Kontext, etwa beeinflusst durch Gesetze, Betriebs- und Sozialpartnerschaft, bedingt eine pfadabhängige Kontinuität und macht ein Abschwächung oder Stärkung auch für die Akteur*innen aufwendig oder sie wird gar nicht beabsichtigt. Stattdessen scheint die jeweilige unternehmensspezifische Konfiguration der Mitbestimmung selbst Stabilität und Erwartungssicherheit zu verschaffen, auch für die Seite der Anteilseigner*innen. Die einzige Option, um die Mitbestimmung zu schwächen, ist sich dem System gänzlich zu entziehen, etwa durch die Umfirmierung in eine ausländische Rechtsform, so dass die deutschen Mitbestimmungsgesetze nicht anzuwenden sind." (Autorenreferat, IAB-Doku)

Zitatform

Ugur, Zeynep B. (2021): How does Inequality Hamper Subjective Well-being? The Role of Fairness. In: Social indicators research, Jg. 158, H. 2, S. 377-407. DOI:10.1007/s11205-021-02711-w

Abstract

"In this study, we aim at clarifying the role of economic inequality on the subjective well-being of individuals. For this purpose, we use more than 180,000 individuals from 51 countries in the most recent five waves (1990–2014) of the World Values Survey. We observe a significant tradeoff between life satisfaction, happiness and the Gini coefficient. Also, inequality is negatively associated with life satisfaction and happiness for lower-income groups as well as higher-income groups. Interestingly, our data also shows large scale embracement of inequality in self-reported attitudes as even almost half (49%) of the lower-income group support the statement that some inequality is necessary for sustaining individual effort. Perceived freedom, and perceived social mobility partially mediates the relationship between the Gini coefficient and subjective wellbeing indicators. Yet, there remains a substantial negative effect of inequality on subjective well-being. Nevertheless, when individuals' perception of fairness is included, the effect of inequality disappears for both higher-income and lower-income groups. Overall, our findings suggest that people are bothered by inequality primarily due to fairness concerns." (Author's abstract, IAB-Doku, © Springer-Verlag) ((en))

Zitatform

Kuhn, Andreas (2020): The individual (mis-)perception of wage inequality: measurement, correlates and implications. In: Empirical economics, Jg. 59, H. 5, S. 2039-2069. DOI:10.1007/s00181-019-01722-4

Abstract

"This paper presents a simple conceptual framework specifically tailored to measure individual perceptions of wage inequality. Using internationally comparable survey data, the empirical part of the paper documents that there is huge variation in inequality perceptions both across and within countries as well as survey-years. Focusing on the association between aggregate-level inequality measures and individuals' subjective perception of wage inequality, it turns out that there are both a high correlation between the two measures and a considerable amount of misperception of the prevailing level of inequality. The final part of the analysis shows that subjective inequality perceptions appear to be more important, in a statistical sense, in explaining variation in individual-level attitudes toward social inequality than objective measures of inequality. This underlines the conceptual and practical importance of distinguishing between subjective perceptions of inequality and the true level of inequality." (Author's abstract, IAB-Doku, © Springer-Verlag) ((en))

Zitatform

Osiander, Christopher, Monika Senghaas, Gesine Stephan, Olaf Struck & Richard Wolff (2020): “Acceptance of social- and labor market programs and regulations”: Methodological report on the first survey wave. (IAB-Forschungsbericht 07/2020), Nürnberg, 32 S.

Abstract

"Das FIS-geförderte Projekt „Die Akzeptanz sozial- und arbeitsmarktpolitischer Maßnahmen und Regelungen“ befragt Bürgerinnen und Bürger zu ihrer Einschätzung konkreter Ausgestaltungsalternativen der Sozial- und Arbeitsmarktpolitik in Deutschland. Dieser Bericht beschreibt das Design und die Feldorganisation der ersten Online-Befragung im Rahmen des Projekts. Er präsentiert zudem eine Selektivitätsanalyse der Kontakt- und Teilnahmewahrscheinlichkeiten sowie eine Analyse der Zustimmung zur Verknüpfung der Antworten mit prozessproduzierten Daten. Ein zentraler Bestandteil der hier beschriebenen Online-Befragung sind faktorielle Surveys. Darüber hinaus erhebt die Umfrage ausgewählte demografische Merkmale und Einstellungen der Teilnehmenden. Aus den prozessgenerierten Daten der BA wurden für die Kontaktierung von potenziellen Teilnehmenden zwei Stichproben gezogen: Eine erste Stichprobe umfasst Personen, die in den letzten Jahren mit der BA in Kontakt standen und für die eine E-Mail-Adresse verfügbar war. Diese Personen wurden per E-Mail kontaktiert. Eine zweite Stichprobe besteht aus Personen, die in den letzten Jahren nicht bei der BA registriert waren, sondern für die ausschließlich Beschäfti-gungsmeldungen vorlagen. Diese Personen erhielten einen Brief, in dem sie zur Teilnahme an der Befragung eingeladen wurden." (Autorenreferat, IAB-Doku)

Zitatform

Tepe, Markus & Pieter Vanhuysse (2020): Taking social policy personally: How does neuroticism affect welfare state attitudes? In: Social Policy and Administration, Jg. 54, H. 5, S. 699-718. DOI:10.1111/spol.12568

Abstract

"The role of the “Big Five” personality traits in driving welfare state attitudes has received scant attention in social policy research. Yet neuroticism in particular - a disposition to stress, worry, and get nervous easily - is theoretically likely to be an important driver of welfare attitudes precisely because welfare states deliver social “security” and “safety” nets. Using cross-sectional data from the German Socio-Economic Panel, we study three distinct attitude types (dissatisfaction with the social security system, feelings of personal financial insecurity, and preferences for state provision) and multiple social need contexts (including unemployment, ill health, old age, and nursing care). Controlling for established explanations such as self-interest, partisanship, and socialization, neuroticism does not systematically affect support for state provision. But it robustly increases general dissatisfaction with social security, as well as financial insecurity across various need contexts. Neurotic people are thus less happy with welfare state programmes across the board, yet they also appear to need these programmes more. This trait may be an important deeper layer driving other social attitudes." (Author's abstract, IAB-Doku, Published by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons) ((en))

Zitatform

Adriaans, Jule, Philipp Eisnecker, Sebastian Hülle, Julian Klassen, Stefan Liebig & Peter Valet (2019): "Erwartungen an Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft" - Legitimation of inequality over the life-span. Feldbericht und Codebuch zur zweiten Welle (LINOS-2). (Data documentation 97), Berlin, 343 S.

Abstract

"Die Studie 'Legitimation of Inequality Over the Life-Span' (LINOS) wird im Kontext des durch die DFG geförderten Projekts 'Strukturelle Bedingungen von Gerechtigkeitseinstellungen über den Lebensverlauf' durchgeführt. Auf Grundlage eines handlungstheoretisch begründeten, soziologischen Erklärungsansatzes (Liebig & Sauer, 2013, 2016), wird in drei aufeinander bezogenen Forschungslinien untersucht, wie die strukturellen Bedingungen der sozialen Kontexte, in denen Individuen eingebunden sind (z.B. Betriebe, soziale Netzwerke, Partnerschaften/ Familien), ihre Gerechtigkeitseinstellungen beeinflussen und welche Mechanismen der Einstellungsbildung dabei wirksam werden. Im Mittelpunkt stehen dabei Gerechtigkeitseinstellungen in Bezug auf (1) das eigene Erwerbseinkommen und der Einkommensverteilung in der Gesellschaft (ergebnisbezogene Gerechtigkeitseinstellungen), (2) die Regeln, nach denen Güter und Lasten in der Gesellschaft verteilt werden sollten (ordnungsbezogene Gerechtigkeitseinstellungen) und (3) die Verfahren, wie Ungleichheiten in der Gesellschaft generiert werden (verfahrensbezogene Gerechtigkeitseinstellungen). Die LINOS-Studie ist als Langfristpanel angelegt und zielt somit auf eine zentrale Schwäche der empirischen Gerechtigkeitsforschung ab. In dieser fehlt es bisher an genau solchen Längsschnittbeobachtungen auf Individualebene, die es erlauben, die Entwicklung von Gerechtigkeitseinstellungen über den Lebensverlauf zu untersuchen." (Textauszug, IAB-Doku)

Zitatform

Bilancini, Ennio & Leonardo Boncinelli (2019): Wage inequality, labor income taxes, and the notion of social status. In: Economics. The open-access, open-assessment e-journal, Jg. 13, S. 1-35. DOI:10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2019-32

Abstract

"The authors investigate the desirability of income taxes when the objective is to mitigate wasteful conspicuous consumption generated by people's status-seeking behavior. They consider the joint role of pre-tax wage inequality and of social norms determining how social status is assigned. They find that when social status is ordinal (i.e., only one's rank in the income distribution matters) inequality and taxation are substitutes. Instead, when status is cardinal (i.e., also the shape of the income distribution matters) inequality and taxation can be complements, although the relationship is in general non-monotonic. This is because the value of social status is endogenous, potentially giving rise to a perverse selfreinforcing mechanism where more waste in conspicuous consumption induces a greater competition for status and vice versa." (Author's abstract, IAB-Doku) ((en))

Zitatform

Breznau, Nate & Carola Hommerich (2019): The limits of inequality: Public support for social policy across rich democracies. In: International journal of social welfare, Jg. 28, H. 2, S. 138-151. DOI:10.1111/ijsw.12341

Abstract

"Does public opinion react to inequality, and if so, how? The social harms caused by increasing inequality should cause public opinion to ramp up demand for social welfare protections. However, the public may react to inequality differently depending on institutional context. Using ISSP and WID data (1980?2006), we tested these claims. In liberal institutional contexts (mostly English-speaking), increasing income inequality predicted higher support for state provision of social welfare. In coordinated and universalist contexts (mostly of Europe), increasing inequality predicted less support. Historically higher income concentration predicted less public support, providing an account of the large variation in inequality within the respective liberal and coordinated contexts. The results suggest opinions in liberal societies - especially with higher historical inequality - reached the limits of inequality, reacting negatively; whereas in coordinated/universalist societies - especially with lower historical inequality - opinions moved positively, as if desiring more inequality." (Author's abstract, Published by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons) ((en))

Zitatform

Buss, Christopher (2019): Public opinion towards workfare policies in Europe. Polarisation of attitudes in times of austerity? In: International journal of social welfare, Jg. 28, H. 4, S. 431-441. DOI:10.1111/ijsw.12368

Abstract

"Increasing wage inequality, strong labour market divides and welfare retrenchment are widely believed to result in more polarised public opinion towards the welfare state. The present study examined if attitudes towards workfare policies have become more polarised in Europe over recent decades. To achieve this aim, the study analysed public opinion data from the European Value Study (EVS) from 23 European countries in the years 1990 - 2008, using multi-level regression analysis. It is found that individuals who are most affected by workfare - the unemployed, the poor and the young - most strongly oppose workfare concepts. Against expectations, there was no evidence of an increasing polarisation of attitudes in Europe. Attitudinal cleavages based on employment status, income and education have remained stable. Differences between age groups have even dissolved because younger cohorts increasingly favour strict workfare policies. The results suggest that warnings of increasing social conflicts and an erosion of solidarity in European societies are exaggerated" (Author's abstract, Published by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons) ((en))

Zitatform

Collischon, Matthias (2019): Relative Pay, Rank and Happiness: A Comparison Between Genders and Part- and Full-Time Employees. In: Journal of happiness studies, Jg. 20, H. 1, S. 67-80., 2017-11-01. DOI:10.1007/s10902-017-9937-z

Abstract

"This paper investigates the effects of comparison pay on job and life satisfaction with longitudinal survey data from Germany. I use linear fixed effects models to account for unobserved heterogeneity and define the reference groups as individuals within the same occupation and industry. Men and women are expected to behave differently to comparison pay and are therefore investigated separately. Additionally, I investigate full- and part-time employees separately because the effect of relative positions in the reference group should affect life satisfaction for full-time employees only. The findings indicate that both relative pay and the individual rank within the respective reference group affect job and life satisfaction for full-time employed males only, while part-time employed females gain job satisfaction with increasing rank within their reference group. Part-time employees experience no change in their life satisfaction due to changes in either inequality dimension." (Author's abstract, © 2019 Springer Nature ((en))

Zitatform

Corgnet, Brice, Ludivine Martin, Peguy Ndodjang & Angela Sutan (2019): On the merit of equal pay: Performance manipulation and incentive setting. In: European Economic Review, Jg. 113, H. April, S. 23-45. DOI:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2018.12.006

Abstract

"Work performance is often difficult to assess thus leaving room for manipulation of commonly-used metrics. We created a laboratory workplace in which we can precisely assess both work performance along with manipulation activities. Using two independent experiments we show that, whenever pay for performance is used, manipulation is pervasive leading to both a waste of organizational resources and a weakening of incentives. By contrast, paying organizational members equally effectively deters manipulation attempts leading to higher organizational production." (Author's abstract, © 2019 Elsevier) ((en))

Zitatform

Gerlach, Gisela I. (2019): Linking justice perceptions, workplace relationship quality and job performance : The differential roles of vertical and horizontal workplace relationships. In: German journal of human resource management, Jg. 33, H. 4, S. 337-362. DOI:10.1177/2397002218824320

Abstract

"Due to decentralization, flat organizational structures and prevalence of team work, employees interact more frequently and intensively within horizontal relationships with coworkers than within vertical relationships with supervisors. The present study contributes to a more complete understanding of antecedents and outcomes of local, interpersonal workplace relationships by simultaneously investigating employee - supervisor and employee - coworker relationships. Drawing on organizational justice theory and social exchange theory as well as data collected from 571 employees at two points in time, this study explores how justice perceptions affect social exchange relationships with supervisors and coworkers, and identifies mechanisms through which these, in turn, enhance employee job performance. Results suggest that informational and interpersonal justice differentially affect the quality of employee - supervisor and employee - coworker relationships, underlining the relevance of considering both supervisors and coworkers as sources of justice. Moreover, the findings indicate that employee - supervisor and employee - coworker relationships contribute to job performance, but through distinct paths. Job satisfaction mediates the link between both social exchange relationships and job performance, while quality of employee - coworker relationships further enhances job performance through employees' motivation to engage in learning and knowledge sharing." (Author's abstract, IAB-Doku) ((en))

Zitatform

Laenen, Tijs, Federica Rossetti & Wim van Oorschot (2019): Why deservingness theory needs qualitative research. Comparing focus group discussions on social welfare in three welfare regimes. In: International Journal of Comparative Sociology, Jg. 60, H. 3, S. 190-216. DOI:10.1177/0020715219837745

Abstract

"This article argues that the ever-growing research field of welfare deservingness is in need of qualitative research. Using focus group data collected in Denmark, Germany, and the United Kingdom, we show that citizens discussing matters of social welfare make explicit reference not only to the deservingness criteria of control, reciprocity, and need but also to a number of context-related criteria extending beyond the deservingness framework (e.g. equality/universalism). Furthermore, our findings suggest the existence of an institutional logic to welfare preferences, as the focus group participants to a large extent echoed the normative criteria that are most strongly embedded in the institutional structure of their country's welfare regime. Whereas financial need is the guiding criterion in the 'liberal' United Kingdom, reciprocity is dominant in 'corporatist-conservative' Germany. In 'social-democratic' Denmark, it appears impossible to single out one dominant normative criterion. Instead, the Danish participants seem torn between the criteria of need, reciprocity, and equality/universalism." (Author's abstract, IAB-Doku) ((en))

Zitatform

Laenen, Tijs & Bart Meuleman (2019): Public support for the social rights and social obligations of the unemployed. Two sides of the same coin? In: International journal of social welfare, Jg. 28, H. 4, S. 454-467. DOI:10.1111/ijsw.12369

Abstract

"In light of the ever-growing shift towards activation in European welfare states, the present article examines the relationship between citizens' welfare generosity (i.e., support for social rights) and welfare conditionality (i.e., support for social obligations) with regard to the unemployed. Using data from the 2014 Belgian National Elections Study, we found that generosity and conditionality appear to be two sides of the same coin. The two factors are negatively correlated, and most of their respective attitudinal drivers are quite similar in strength, yet opposite in direction. In addition to self-interest and conventionally recognised ideational beliefs, such as egalitarianism and individualism, beliefs about welfare deservingness - an explanatory factor that has remained understudied in the field - are particularly influential in shaping people's welfare preferences. A stronger emphasis on criteria of deservingness such as control, attitude and reciprocity considerably lowers support for social rights and strengthens support for social duties." (Author's abstract, Published by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons) ((en))

Zitatform

Lee, Soomi, Jacqueline A. Mogle, Chandra L. Jackson & Orfeu M. Buxton (2019): What's not fair about work keeps me up: Perceived unfairness about work impairs sleep through negative work-to-family spillover. In: Social science research, Jg. 81, H. July, S. 23-31. DOI:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.03.002