Everyday Life in Germany and Europe 2020 (Solikris)

The study, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, is carried out jointly by GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, the University of Heidelberg and the Berlin Social Science Center as part of the Solikris project. Solikris investigates the effects of crises on solidarity dynamics in society and politics. To this end, the study asks for data on everyday life, social and political issues in Germany and Europe in 2020. The focus is largely on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the opinions and feelings of the surveyed citizens about everyday life and the political situation in their respective countries.<br>1. Interest in politics; left-right self-placement; how likely that respondent would ever vote for party (country-specific query); satisfaction with democracy in the country; trust in political institutions (governement, parliament); agreement with the following statements: In general, people can be trusted, policy makers pay less attention to the needs of younger people than to the needs of older people; views on social and political issues (a woman should be prepares to reduce on her paid work for the sake of her family, parents should get something back from their children in later life for the education they provided, adult children should live close to their parents if possible, elderly people should be able to rely on their children to help the in matters of daily life, immigration to the country should be decreased significantly, people who brack the law schould be given much harsher sentences than they are these days, private enterprise ist the best way to solve country´s economic problems, politics should abstain from intervening in the economy, income and wealth should be redistributed towards ordinary people); worries about global problems (climate change, international terrorism, global spread of COVID-19, a maajor global economic downturn); attitude towards the rolte and influence of science in society (scientific studies present the truth and not just opinions, scientific studies should have mor influence on important societal decisions, scientific studies have been very helpful in fighting COVID-19); feeling close to the European Union; rating of the country´s European Union membership; attitude towards European enlargement (European integration should be taken further vs. has already gone too far).

2. COVID-19 pandemic:

Experiment on a hypothetical situation and the way in which the government of the hypothetical country has reacted to it; assessment of the situation.

Acutal life situation, the impact of the pandemic on everyday life and on society as a whole: contact with family members (mother, father); distance from mother and father; feeling close to mother and father; respondent has helped father and mother with the following issues since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic: help in everyday life, personal assistance and financial assistance; respondent has helped father and mother with the aforementioned issues before the COVID-19 pandemic; attitude towads financial support in the event of a global international pandemic for countries in Africa, in Asia, in central and South America, in North America, and in Oceania; attitude towads financial support in the event of a global international pandemic for France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Sweden, Spain, Hungary, the UK, and Germany; opinion on financial support to an EU member state (experiment: one EU member state is in a severe financial crisis due to the COVID-19 pandemic, one EU member state which has always/ which has never supported other Euopean countries in previous crises is in a severe financial crisis due to the COVID-19 pandemic); agreement with various statements on the management of financial crises (common European solution should be found where each EU member state makes a financial contribution based on its economic performance, a fund (financed by a newly introduced Europe-wide tax) should be established to enable states to receive direct financial aid in financial emergencies).

Immigration: generally bad or good for country´s economy; country´s cultural life is underminded vs. enriched by immigrants; country is made a worse vs. a better place to live by immigrants; COVID-19 pandemic in the country is caused by immigrants; country´s health system benefits from the presence of immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic vs. immigrants are a burden on the health system; country´s economy benefits from the presence of immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic vs. immigrants are a burden on the economy; attitude towards more help for refugees in the Mediterranean; assessment of the period after the COVID-19 pandemic: country should take in more or fewer refugees than it did before the COVID 19 pandemic; opinion on limiting immigration from outside the EU after the COVID-19 pandemic (EU´s external borders should reain largely closed afterwards s well, borders should not reamin closed, the pre-crisis situation should be restored, borders should not remain closed and should be opened further than beforte the crisis); opinion on limiting immigration from within the EU after the COVID-19 pandemic (EU´s internal borders should reain largely closed afterwards s well, borders should not reamin closed, the pre-crisis situation should be restored, borders should not remain closed and should be opened further than beforte the crisis).

General questions: rating the measures as appropriate to control COVID-19; concerns about country´s future because of the COVID-19 pandemic; confirmed COVID infection the the immediate environment (family,circle of friends, neighbourhood) since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic; contact with anyone who may have been infected with the coronavirus in the last 14 days; practiced soical distancing in the last 14 days; respondent currently works from home at least partially due to the pandemic; respondent has worn a face mask in buildings, shops or on public transport; belonging to a so-called risk group; nervous because of the current situation and unvertainty; concerns aobut the health of family members; respondent is stressed whe he has to leave the house; personal reasons for keeping distance and avoiding non-urgent contacts (e.g. it is socially responsible, I do not want others to become ill, etc.); how much did the respondent oppose the lockdown/ curfew; willingness to take risks (e.g. I avoid dangerous situations, I enjoy being reckless, adventurous, ect.); extent of feeling lonely in the last week; feeling lonely in a typical week before the pandemic compared to last week; employment status; likelyhood of unemployment in the next 12 months; influence of the current COVID-19 pandemic on the probability of becoming unemployed in the next 12 months; rating the standard of living in the household; changes in the financial situation of the household as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic; rating the threat of the pandemic for respondent´s financial situation; year of birth of father and mother; respondent´s country of birth; marital status; number of children under 16 years of age living in the household; use of childcare: regular help with childcare from a day nursery, kindergarten, pre-school, after-school care centre, babysitter or other institutional or paid facility; religious denomination; religiosity.

Demography: sex; age; education (country-specific).

Additonally coded: unique ID across country; country; begin of survey; completion of survey; date of entering the panel (only available in DE, UK, AT, FR and GR); amount of completed surveys in the last 12 months (only in DE, UK, AT); time to complete survey; recoded ESS Education (ISCED).