Find researchers

In this research the impact of different types of information on preferences for income distribution and redistribution is studied.

The researchers aim to study the ambitions of LISS panel members with regard to their retirement.

This is week 1 of the "Tilburg Election Study 2017".

This survey is about people’s position at work and their social views on inequality.

Two wave survey on voters' opinions: before and after the Dutch parliamentary elections of May 3, 1994. Pre-election wave: reading of newspapers, tv-newscast exposure / most important national problems / party identification and membership / evaluation of government policy on economy, employment and respondents personal finances / perception of main parties' standpoints on various political issues: euthanasia, crime, income differences, nuclear plants, ethnic minorities, R's own viewpoints regarding these matters / voting at last municipal elections /feasibility of multi-party system / sympathy rating of parties and leading politicians / coalition preference / party identification of parents / most essential goals in life / the inflow of asylum-seekers / the meaning of life / the life of Brian / Post-election wave: exposure to election campaigns, participation in it / voting behaviour, time of vote decision, voting stability / image of political parties regarding their ability to solve specific problems: crime, employment, pollution, welfare-fraud, financing deficit, pensioners' incomes / importance ranking of these problems / voting for European parliament / perception of main parties' standpoints on the unification of Europe, R's own standpoints in this matter / who will be the best prime minister / familiarity with politicians / best &amp, worst qualities of leading politicians / left-right rating of political parties / meaning of the concepts of left and right / sense of political efficacy / image of politicians and the political system / civic competence / relation between citizens and politicians / importance of the city council ( gemeenteraad ), provincial states ( provinciale staten ), national and European parliament to R's personal life / importance ranking of various political and personal issues / political participation / who are most entitled to a job / attitude to foreigners / racism / positive discrimination / chance that R will ever vote for other political parties / role of religion in public life, pillarization. Background variables: basic characteristics/ residence/ household characteristics/ occupation/employment/ income/capital assets/ education/ social class/ politics/ religion/ readership, mass media, and 'cultural' exposure/ organizational membership.

This questionnaire is about how people deal with money.

In January 2010, the LISS panel completed a questionnaire about the choices one makes when confronted with a known and unknown probability distribution. The questionnaire was presented to 2,491 panel members, and it was fully completed by 1,933 respondents (response percentage 77.6%).

The respondents were presented with three games, preceded by an example question. Each game consisted of six rounds at most. The chance of winning with the known probability distribution varied from the second round on, depending on the respondent's choice in the previous round (‘known’ or ‘unknown’). A game ended as soon as the respondent indicated to have no preference, or if the chance of winning fell below a certain value (less than 2.5% difference with a so-called ‘floor’ or ‘ceiling’ value[1]).

After three games, two control questions were asked. These questions consisted of a single round each. The chance of winning with these questions depended on the chance of winning in the last round of game 1.

Finally, two questions were posed about risk aversion. These questions also involved a game consisting of six rounds at most. Respondents either chose the option that guaranteed winning a certain sum, or the option that offered a 50% chance of a higher amount and a 50% chance of 0 euro. The amount for the guarantee option varied from the second round on, depending on the choice made in the previous round. A game ended as soon as the respondent indicated to have no preference, or if the amount with the guarantee option fell below a certain value (less than 100 euros difference with the so-called ‘floor’ or ‘ceiling’ value).

Respondents were assigned one of two conditions beforehand. Respondents had 50% chance of being assigned condition 1, and 50% chance of condition 2. Within a household, panel members were assigned the same condition. Respondents under condition 1 knew that this involved a fictitious game and that no extra reward would be paid out. Respondents under condition 2 were informed that a real game would be played at the end, in which they could earn an extra reward of 15 euros.

[1] Read more about these terms in the descriptions of the various questions in the codebook.