Research data from the manuscript "Respect and political disagreement: Can intergroup respect reduce the biased evaluation of outgroup arguments?"

Social Psychology

Authors(s) / Creator(s)

Eschert, Silke
Simon, Bernd

Abstract

Past research indicates that in political debates the same arguments are judged very differently depending on the perceiver's own position on the issue, because positions on controversial issues are often tied to collective identities. In this series of studies we tested the assumption that equality-based respect from an opposing opinion-based group can reduce such biases. Results confirmed that identification as an opponent or proponent of a contested issue was negatively related to evaluations of outgroup arguments (Study 1) and that this negative link was no longer significant when intergroup respect was experimentally induced (Study 2). Results support the notion that disagreements over political issues are intergroup conflicts, in which different socio-political groups struggle for recognition, and that approaches that protect collective identities and improve intergroup relations should be employed to de-escalate them.

Persistent Identifier

https://doi.org/10.5160/psychdata.etse16re12

Year of Publication

2019

Funding

German Research Foundation (DFG), Grant SI 428/20-1; Volkswagen Foundation, Grant 87 389

Citation

Eschert, S. & Simon, B. (2019). Research data from the manuscript "Respect and political disagreement: Can intergroup respect reduce the biased evaluation of outgroup arguments?" (Version 1.0.0) [Data and Documentation]. Trier: Research Data Center at ZPID. https://doi.org/10.5160/psychdata.etse16re12

Study Description

Research Questions/Hypotheses:

A negative link between ingroup identification and the evaluation of outgroup arguments was expected (Hypothesis 1). Further, we proposed that this negative bias should be weakened or even removed when respect was received from the outgroup (Hypothesis 2).

Research Design:

Pretest:Questionnaire Data – Fully Standardized Survey Instrument; Study 1: Questionnaire Data – Fully Standardized Survey Instrument; Study 2: Experiment Data – Experimental Factor, Quasi-experimental Factor, Group Comparison, Laboratory Experiment; single measurement

Measurement Instruments/Apparatus:

A detailed description of the pretest, study 1 and study 2 can be found in Eschert, S. & Simon, B. (2019).

Data Collection Method:

Pretest & Study 1:
Data collection in the absence of an experimenter

  • Online Survey

Study 2:
Data collection in the presence of an experimenter

  • Individual Administration
  • Computer-Supported

Population:

Students from a German university

Survey Time Period:

Pretest: 2015-12-08 until 2015-12-10
Study 1: 2015-12-17 until 2015-12-23
Study 2: 2016-01-15 until 2016-02-01

Sample:

Convenience sample

Gender Distribution:

Pretest:
61 % female subjects (N=56)
38 % male subjects (N=35)
1 % no answer (N=1)

Study 1:
62 % female subjects (N=64)
37 % male subjects (N=38)
1 % no answer (N=1)

Study 2:
51 % female subjects (N=75)
48 % male subjects (N=70)
1 % no answer (N=1)

Age Distribution: Pretest: 18-31 years; Study 1: 18-45 years; Study 2: 19-32 years

Spatial Coverage (Country/Region/City): Germany/-/Kiel

Subject Recruitment:

Pretest & Study 1:
Student participants were recruited through social network groups of their university.
Study 2:
Student participants were recruited on campus and invited to the lab by student assistants

Sample Size:

Pretest: 92 individuals; Study 1: 103 individuals; Study 2: 137 individuals

Return/Drop Out:

etse16re12_readme.txt
Text file - 2 KB
Sharing Level 1 (Scientific Use)
Description: Description of the files

etse16re12_fd1.txt
Text file - 5 KB
MD5: 720518c83a5524e8d11872c4bda8cbe4
Sharing Level 1 (Scientific Use)
Description: Research data file of pretest

etse16re12_fd2.txt
Text file - 11 KB
MD5: cd1e5fd963e568bcaefe25c57c003866
Sharing Level 1 (Scientific Use)
Description: Research data file for study 1

etse16re12_fd3.txt
Text file - 63 KB
MD5: 2a3f884ad6bc70c8a28255902ed5514d
Sharing Level 1 (Scientific Use)
Description: Research data file for study 2

etse16re12_kb1.txt
Text file - 4 KB
Sharing Level 1 (Scientific Use)
Description: Codebook of research data file etse16re12_fd1.txt, pretest

etse16re12_kb2.txt
Text file - 11 KB
Sharing Level 1 (Scientific Use)
Description: Codebook of research data file etse16re12_fd2.txt, study 1

etse16re12_kb3.txt
Text file - 10 KB
Sharing Level 1 (Scientific Use)
Description: Codebook of research data file etse16re12_fd3.txt, study 2

etse16re12_sy1.txt
Text file - 2 KB
Sharing Level 1 (Scientific Use)
Description: Syntax file with scoring calculations for study 1

etse16re12_sy2.txt
Text file - 2 KB
Sharing Level 1 (Scientific Use)
Description: Syntax file with scoring calculations for study 2

Position Name Label Valid Values Missing Values
1 CASE participant number 83-212 "participant number" 999 "missing"
2 D101_01 age 18-31 "years" -99 "missing"
3 D102 sex 1 "male" 2 "female" 3 "do not wish to answer" -9 "missing"
4 T101_01 Position on issue1 (veggie day in university cafeterias) 1 "strongly in favor" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strongly against" -9 "missing"
5 T103_01 Issue1: personal importance 1 "not important at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "very important" -9 "missing"
6 T201_01 Position on issue2 (army advertising on our campus) 1 "strongly against" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strongly in favor" -9 "missing"
7 T203_01 Issue2: personal importance 1 "not important at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "very important" -9 "missing"
8 T301_01 Position on issue3 (access to messages in social networks for security agencies) 1 "strongly against" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strongly in favor" -9 "missing"
9 T303_01 Issue3: personal importance 1 "not important at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "very important" -9 "missing"
10 T401_01 Position on issue4 (limitation for numbers of refugees that can enter Germany) 1 "strongly against" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strongly in favor" -9 "missing"
11 T403_01 Issue4: personal importance 1 "not important at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "very important" -9 "missing"
12 T501_01 Position on issue5 (rule against wearing religious symbols on our campus) 1 "strongly against" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strongly in favor" -9 "missing"
13 T503_01 Issue5: personal importance 1 "not important at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "very important" -9 "missing"
14 T601_01 Position on issue6 (affirmative action for women as professors) 1 "strongly against" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strongly in favor" -9 "missing"
15 T603_01 Issue6: personal importance 1 "not important at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "very important" -9 "missing"
16 T701_01 Position on issue7 (german companies should pay for social freezing) 1 "strongly against" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strongly in favor" -9 "missing"
17 T703_01 Issue7: personal importance 1 "not important at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "very important" -9 "missing"
18 T801_01 Position on issue8 (cooperations between our university and the military) 1 "strongly against" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strongly in favor" -9 "missing"
19 T803_01 Issue8: personal importance 1 "not important at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "very important" -9 "missing"
20 T901_01 Position on issue9 (religious education in schools) 1 "strongly against" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strongly in favor" -9 "missing"
21 T903_01 Issue9: personal importance 1 "not important at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "very important" -9 "missing"
22 TZ01_01 Position on issue10 (involvement of the German army in the war on terror) 1 "strongly against" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strongly in favor" -9 "missing"
23 TZ03_01 Issue10: personal importance 1 "not important at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "very important" -9 "missing"
Page 1 of 3
Items per page: 10 25 50
Position Name Label Valid Values Missing Values
1 CASE Interview-Nummer (fortlaufend) 82-274 "interview number" 999 "missing"
2 D101 age -99-45 "years" 99 "missing"
3 D102 sex 1 "male" 2 "female" 3 "do not wish to answer" -9 "missing"
4 E101_01 participant position 1 "strongly against -5" 2 "-4" 3 "-3" 4 "-2" 5 "-1" 6 "+1" 7 "+2" 8 "+3" 9 "+4" 10 "strongly in favor +5" -9 "missing"
5 E102_01 questionnaire order 1-2 "questionnaire order" -9 "missing"
6 ID02_01 IDopponent: I see myself as an opponent 1 "do not agree at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fully agree" -9 "missing"
7 ID02_02 IDopponent: I feel a bond with others, who also oppose surveillance 1 "do not agree at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fully agree" -9 "missing"
8 ID02_03 IDopponent: Being an opponent is an important part of how I see myself 1 "do not agree at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fully agree" -9 "missing"
9 ID03_01 IDproponent: I see myself as a proponent 1 "do not agree at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fully agree" -9 "missing"
10 ID03_02 IDproponent: I feel a bond with others, who also support surveillance 1 "do not agree at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fully agree" -9 "missing"
11 ID03_03 IDproponent: Being a proponent is an important part of how I see myself 1 "do not agree at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fully agree" -9 "missing"
12 A101_01 ProArgument1: Public statements on the internet must be prosecuted just like statements made on the street (e.g., insults, xenophobia). 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
13 A101_02 ProArgument2: ISIS uses the internet to spread propaganda and to recruit new members. Security agencies must have access to this communication in order to prevent recruitment attempts. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
14 A101_03 ProArgument3: In the 20th century letters or phone calls were examined. Nowadays, it must be possible to use communication in social networks for prosecution. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
15 A101_04 ProArgument4: Privacy is important, but the fight against crime or terrorism it is about saving lives. That's more important than privacy! 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
16 A101_05 ProArgument5: People have control over what they write on social networks. Nobody is forced to reveal anything about themselves in social networks. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
17 A101_06 ProArgument6: If a terrorist attack happens here, I don' t know who would still insist on the protection of their privacy in this situation. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
18 A101_07 ProArgument7: Most people will be in favor of such measures when they have themselves become victims of crime. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
19 A101_08 ProArgument8: If security agencies can make our lives safer, it doesn't matter whether they know that Lisa and Tom broke up. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
20 A101_09 ProArgument9: People who reveal everything about themselves on the internet, shouldn't be surprised that that info can also be used against them. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
21 A102_01 ProArgument10: The rights of respectable citizens are not curtailed. Only when someone becomes suspicious in the eyes of the police / intelligence agencies, their data are examined! 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
22 A102_02 ProArgument11: Pedophiles often log in to children's forums to get in contact with children. It must be possible to track and prosecute that. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
23 A102_03 ProArgument12: Identity theft, i.e. by creating a profile under the name of another (real) person, can be used for criminal intent. It is important that security agencies can track such processes. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
24 A102_04 ProArgument13: Most people don't think it's problematic when Google uses our data. Using data for prosecution is more important than the usage by private companies. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
25 A102_05 ProArgument14: The attacks in Paris have shown that conventional police methods are insufficient to prevent acts of terrorism. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
26 A102_06 ProArgument15: Currently, the fight against ISIS on the information technology level is led by questionable organizations such as Anonymous. This competence belongs in state hands! 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
27 A102_07 ProArgument16: Those who do not pursue criminal intentions have nothing to fear, and those who talk so freely about their private lives in social networks, should not complain. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
28 A102_08 ProArgument17: I'd rather have security agencies see my data, than see serious crime or a terrorist attack happen. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
29 A102_09 ProArgument18: With surveillance ISIS would no longer stand a chance. A military intervention against ISIS wouldn't even be necessary. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
30 A103_01 ConArgument1: Searching communication data without specific reason violates the secrecy of correspondence and should not be allowed in a constitutional state. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
31 A103_02 ConArgument2: Governments have no control over their intelligence services. The parliament has no information about what the secret service does. Therefore, there will always be a lack of transparency. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
32 A103_03 ConArgument3: Studies have shown that very comprehensive profiles can be created from such data, including private thinking and acting and social circles. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
33 A103_04 ConArgument4: It cannot be that a whole society is classified as "suspicious". 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
34 A103_05 ConArgument5: If you know that Facebook;Twitter posts are viewed by the police and intelligence services, then you behave differently on the Internet - more conforming! 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
35 A103_06 ConArgument6: I do not believe that terrorists announce their attacks on Facebook. Protests, on the other hand, are often announced on Facebook and the police can make a list of who has agreed to participate. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
36 A103_07 ConArgument7: If I imagine the federal police rummaging in my posts, I find that disturbing. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
37 A103_08 ConArgument8: When I tell a friend about my love life in a cafe, I do not expect a police officer to overhear. And I do not want to think that happens on the internet, either. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
38 A103_09 ConArgument9: Imagine the police knocks on your door to ask you about your posts on Facebook or Twitter. Who wants to experience that? 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
39 A104_01 ConArgument10: There is a fundamental right to informational self-determination! That is, people should have control about the disclosure and use of their personal data. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
40 A104_02 ConArgument11: It has already happened that charges were pressed against people who talked badly about authorities or politicians on the internet. This threatens the right for free speech. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
41 A104_03 ConArgument12: The principle of legality states that a police officer observing a crime must also investigate. That is, they would have to report any insult or copyright infringement they see on the internet. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
42 A104_04 ConArgument13: I do not want to live in a world where people no longer know which person or authority knows what about them. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
43 A104_05 ConArgument14: A surveillance state does not guarantee safety! 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
44 A104_06 ConArgument15: The more freedom you give to security agencies, the less they shy away from wanting to use all the data that you can ever collect about people's behavior. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
45 A104_07 ConArgument16: I can't see how it should help security agencies when they can read who broke up with whom. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
46 A104_08 ConArgument17: It is mostly young people writing on social networks. That is, young people become transparent citizens, older people do not. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
47 A104_09 ConArgument18: If someone is arrested, can the police then rummage through their Facebook profile and look at party photos? This isn't right. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
Page 1 of 5
Items per page: 10 25 50
Position Name Label Valid Values Missing Values
1 CASE participant number 142-323 "participant number" 999 "missing"
2 D101_01 age 19-32 "years" 99 "missing"
3 D102 sex 1 "male" 2 "female" 3 "do not wish to answer" -9 "missing"
4 I001_01 Respect condition (experimental manipulation) 1 "low respect" 2 "high respect" -9 "missing"
5 E101_01 participant position 1 "strongly against -5" 2 "-4" 3 "-3" 4 "-2" 5 "-1" 6 "+1" 7 "+2" 8 "+3" 9 "+4" 10 "strongly in favor +5" -9 "missing"
6 A101_01 OwnProArgument1 Zeichenkette "write your own arguments" -9 "missing"
7 A104_01 OwnConArgument1 Zeichenkette "write your own arguments" -9 "missing"
8 A105_01 OwnConArgument2 Zeichenkette "write your own arguments" -9 "missing"
9 A106_01 OwnConArgument3 Zeichenkette "write your own arguments" -9 "missing"
10 A102_01 OwnProArgument2 Zeichenkette "write your own arguments" -9 "missing"
11 A103_01 OwnProArgument3 Zeichenkette "write your own arguments" -9 "missing"
12 ID02_01 IDopponent: I see myself as an opponent 1 "do not agree at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fully agree" -9 "missing"
13 ID02_02 IDopponent: I feel a bond with others, who also oppose surveillance 1 "do not agree at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fully agree" -9 "missing"
14 ID02_03 IDopponent: Being an opponent is an important part of how I see myself 1 "do not agree at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fully agree" -9 "missing"
15 ID03_01 IDproponent: I see myself as a proponent 1 "do not agree at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fully agree" -9 "missing"
16 ID03_02 IDproponent: I feel a bond with others, who also support surveillance 1 "do not agree at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fully agree" -9 "missing"
17 ID03_03 IDproponent: Being a proponent is an important part of how I see myself 1 "do not agree at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fully agree" -9 "missing"
18 M102_01 ManipCheckRespect: I feel treated equally 1 "do not agree at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fully agree" -9 "missing"
19 M102_02 ManipCheckRespect: I feel treated like a person of equal worth 1 "do not agree at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fully agree" -9 "missing"
20 M102_05 ManipCheckRespect: My group is treated equally 1 "do not agree at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fully agree" -9 "missing"
21 M102_06 ManipCheckRespect: My group is taken seriously 1 "do not agree at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fully agree" -9 "missing"
22 A301_01 ProArgument1: People have control over what they write on social networks. Nobody is forced to reveal anything about themselves in social networks. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
23 A301_02 ProArgument2: Identity theft, i.e. by creating a profile under the name of another (real) person, can be used for criminal intent. It is important that security agencies can track such processes. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
24 A301_03 ProArgument3: In the 20th century letters or phone calls were examined. Nowadays, it must be possible to use communication in social networks for prosecution. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
25 A301_04 ProArgument4: The attacks in Paris have shown that conventional police methods are insufficient to prevent acts of terrorism. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
26 A301_05 ProArgument5: Privacy is important, but the fight against crime or terrorism it is about saving lives. That's more important than privacy! 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
27 A301_06 ProArgument6: With surveillance ISIS would no longer stand a chance. A military intervention against ISIS wouldn't even be necessary. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
28 A302_01 ProArgument7: People who reveal everything about themselves on the internet, shouldn't be surprised that that info can also be used against them. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
29 A302_02 ProArgument8: Pedophiles often log in to children's forums to get in contact with children. It must be possible to track and prosecute that. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
30 A302_03 ProArgument9: The rights of respectable citizens are not curtailed. Only when someone becomes suspicious in the eyes of the police / intelligence agencies, their data are examined! 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
31 A302_04 ProArgument10: Currently, the fight against ISIS on the information technology level is led by questionable organizations such as Anonymous. This competence belongs in state hands! 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
32 A302_05 ProArgument11: If security agencies can make our lives safer, it doesn't matter whether they know that Lisa and Tom broke up. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
33 A302_06 ProArgument12: I'd rather have security agencies see my data, than see serious crime or a terrorist attack happen. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
34 A303_01 ConArgument1: Searching communication data without specific reason violates the secrecy of correspondence and should not be allowed in a constitutional state. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
35 A303_02 ConArgument2: There is a fundamental right to informational self-determination! That is, people should have control about the disclosure and use of their personal data. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
36 A303_03 ConArgument3: I do not want to live in a world where people no longer know which person or authority knows what about them. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
37 A303_04 ConArgument4: It is mostly young people writing on social networks. That is, young people become transparent citizens, older people do not. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
38 A303_05 ConArgument5: If I imagine the federal police rummaging in my posts, I find that disturbing. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
39 A303_06 ConArgument6: Imagine the police knocks on your door to ask you about your posts on Facebook or Twitter. Who wants to experience that? 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
40 A304_01 ConArgument7: It has already happened that charges were pressed against people who talked badly about authorities or politicians on the internet. This threatens the right for free speech. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
41 A304_02 ConArgument8: A surveillance state does not guarantee safety! 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
42 A304_03 ConArgument9: It cannot be that a whole society is classified as "suspicious". 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
43 A304_04 ConArgument10: The more freedom you give to security agencies, the less they shy away from wanting to use all the data that you can ever collect about people's behavior. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
44 A304_05 ConArgument11: When I tell a friend about my love life in a café, I do not expect a police officer to overhear. And I do not want to think that happens on the internet, either. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
45 A304_06 ConArgument12: If someone is arrested, can the police then rummage through their Facebook profile and look at party photos? This isn't right. 1 "weak argument" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "strong argument" -9 "missing"
46 D201 Social Networks: Active in any social network? 1 "yes" 2 "no" -9 "missing"
47 D202 Social Networks: number of social networks selected 0-5 "number of social networks selected" -9 "missing"
48 D202_01 Social Networks: Facebook 1 "not selected" 2 "selected" -9 "missing"
49 D202_03 Social Networks: Twitter 1 "not selected" 2 "selected" -9 "missing"
50 D202_04 Social Networks: MySpace 1 "not selected" 2 "selected" -9 "missing"
51 D202_05 Social Networks: Instagram 1 "not selected" 2 "selected" -9 "missing"
52 D202_06 Social Networks: other 1 "not selected" 2 "selected" -9 "missing"
53 D202_06A Social Networks: other (enter name) Zeichenkette "name of social network" -9 "missing"
Page 1 of 6
Items per page: 10 25 50