Existential guilt. Primary data from the longitudinal study 1985.

Research Questions/Hypotheses:

Research Design:

Fully Standardized Survey Instrument (provides question formulation and answer options); repeated measurements

Measurement Instruments/Apparatus:

The present study made use survey instruments which had been previously developed by the research group in context of previous studies, though some slight modifications were made (see Montada, Schmitt & Dalbert, 1983; Schneider, Reichle & Montada, 1986).
The survey instrument consists of 14 subunits which were administered at 4 different times. The order was the same at both study times (see the time distribution of the data collection). The following instrument was used: “Demographics Questionnaire Part 1” (Demographiefragebogen Teil 1, or DG2). Taking part in this short questionnaire, which measured age, gender, and number of children, implied consent to participate in the investigation.
“Demographics Questionnaire Part 2” (Demographiefragebogen, or DG3): Covered further demographic data of subjects (university degree, profession, estimation of the probability of their own unemployment or that of their partner, religiosity, income, community size), as well as information on their social and political commitment.
Political activities and objectives (AZ2): To measure subjects’ various public policy objectives it was necessary to assess how meaningful each subject viewed their own political action as well as their willingness to commit themselves to this goal. AZ2 and DG3 yielded the final criterion necessary for group formation.
“Existential Guilt Inventory” Part 1 (Existentielle Schuld Inventar Teil 1, or ES2) and Part 2 (ES3): In combination with 9 situations – presenting 3 areas of potential impact (future prospects of young people, living conditions, working conditions and/or psychosocial situation) for people belonging to 3 groups (the unemployed, people from Third World nations, Turkish guest workers) – 8 thoughts/feelings are formulated to represent cognitive and emotional reactions. The situations 1-3 address the future prospects of young members of these 3 groups.
Groups: Situation 1 portrayed Turkish youth, Situation 2 portrayed young people in the Third World, and Situation 3 portrayed unemployed youth in the Federal Republic of Germany. Situations 4-6 dealt with the issues “living conditions”: Situation 4 focuses on the housing situation of Turkish guest workers in Germany, Situation 5 the general living and housing conditions of people in the Third World, and Situation 6 addressed housing shortages due to unemployment in West Germany. In Situations 7-8, working conditions of the Turkish guest workers (7) and that of people in the Third World (8) are addressed. Situation 9 focuses on the psycho-social consequences of unemployment.
ES2: Relativization of the situation of the disadvantaged, sloped perception between oneself and the disadvantaged, existential guilt, realization of the unjust difference between oneself and the disadvantaged, justification one’s own privileges, blaming those in the situation for the situation itself, self-motivated responsibility to take action, satisfaction with one’s own privileges.
ES3: Compassion for the disadvantaged, concern for one’s own situation in regards to the social discrepencies, realization of the connection between the plight of the disadvantaged and one’s own better social position, fear of privilege loss, anger directed at the disadvantaged, a call to action for those in power, anger at the injustice, hopelessness in regards to possible betterment.
Internal consistency – positive polarity (IK3) and negative polarity (IK4): The instrument measures the self-perceived internal consistency and consistency centrality. In IK3 all items are worded positively; in IK4, negative.
Room for Action (Handlungsspielraum, HS2): Each of the 9 deprived situations (3 deprivation areas x 3 disadvantaged groups) described in ES2 and ES3 should, without being explicitly discussed, elicit subjective thoughts about what one can do about the situation.
Distributive fairness – group-specific (Verteilungsgerechtigkeit, VG2): Principles of justice (achievement principle, basic needs principle) are stated that address that various advantageous and economic strategies which can be created to ease distribution issues when it comes to privileges between industrialized nations and the Third World, between Turkish guest workers and Germans, and between the employed and the unemployed.
Just-World-View (Gerechter-Welt-Glaube, GW2): Addresses a general just-world belief, or the conviction of a basically just world, as well as a domain-specific just-world belief that reflects the view that the differences which are found between the disadvantaged and the privileged in various situations are not unjustified.
Distribution Justice (Verteilungsgerechtigkeit, VG3): Measures 4 principles of justice: achievement principle, basic needs principle, the principle of equality, and the principle of procedural justice. The item contents are formulated according to the categories distribution (possessions, symbolic value, privileges and rights, social standing), context (economic, promotion-oriented, and relationship-oriented) and mode of action (withdrawal, allocation).
Life Satisfaction (Lebenszufriedenheit, LZ2): Subjects assess their general life satisfaction in regards to their past, present, and future. Additionally, domain-specific satisfaction with their personal privileges in regards to secure future privileges, prosperous living, working conditions, and mental health secured through employment, social status, financial security, and housing situation.
Attitudes toward the disadvantaged groups (EO2): Assess this attitude using an adjective list containing positive and negative characteristics as well as measuring sympathy/antipathy for the 3 disadvantaged groups and for successful German citizens. The prevalence of the each groups characteristics is measured.
Social Desirability (CM2): Crowne & Marlowe (1960), translated by Lück & Timaeus (1969). The answers are mainly given on a 6-point rating scales.

Data Collection Method:

Data collection in the absence of an experimenter

• Mail survey

Population:

Germans, who are privileged in terms of their specific characteristics of prosperity, citizenship, and employment in comparison to the disadvantaged groups (people in the Third World, Turkish guest workers, and the unemployed).

Survey Time Period:

Longitudinal analysis
U1: June/July 1985, 4 test time-points with 14 days between; U2: November/December 1985, 4 test time-points with 14 days between; Measures: T1: DG2; T2: DG3, AZ2, ES2, IK3; T3: ES3, HS2, VG2, LV2; T4: VG3, LZ2, IK4, EO2, CM2

Sample:

Sample 1.1: Employees with high job security, such government officials (N = 327).
Sample 1.2: Employees with lower job security, such owners of medium-sized or small companies (N = 393).
Sample 2: localized random sample: Residents of relatively privileged neighborhoods (N = 2,803).
Sample 3.1-3.6. Students of the University of Trier (N = 619).

Gender Distribution:

40,8% female subjects (n=177)
59,2% male subjects (n=257)

Age Distribution: 19-84 years

Spatial Coverage (Country/Region/City): Germany

Subject Recruitment:

Stichprobe 1: Jeder zweite Fernsprechteilnehmer mit in Frage kommender Berufsbezeichnung aus dem amtlichen Fernsprechbuch 16, 1984/85, begrenzt auf die Stadt Trier wurde angeschrieben.
Stichprobe 2 wurde über das Einwohnermeldeamt der Stadt Saarbrücken rekrutiert.
Stichprobe 3: Rekrutierung in Lehrveranstaltungen des Sommersemesters 1985.

Sample Size:

434 individuals

Return/Drop Out:

Of the 4.142 questionnaires distributed, 991 questionnaires were returned (23.9%) at Time 1. Of these subjects, 434 (43.8%) returned questionnaires at Time 2. Drop-out was 56.2%.