GESIS - DBK - ZA6810
 

ZA6810: TV Debate Analysis, Survey (GLES 2017)

Downloads and Data Access


Downloads

We are currently not allowing direct download or shopping cart orders of restricted files, only non-restricted files can be downloaded directly. More information here.

Data access

Datasets

sortsort


Questionnaires

sortsort


Other Documents

sortsort

Availability Availability A - Data and documents are released for academic research and teaching.
Download of Data and Documents Download of Data and Documents All downloads from this catalogue are free of charge. Data-sets available under access categories B and C must be ordered via the shopping cart. Charges apply! Please respect our Terms of use.


Bibliographic Citation

Citation Citation    Roßteutscher, Sigrid; Schmitt-Beck, Rüdiger; Schoen, Harald; Weßels, Bernhard; Wolf, Christof; Faas, Thorsten; Maier, Jürgen; Maier, Michaela (2019): TV Debate Analysis, Survey (GLES 2017). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA6810 Data file Version 1.0.0, https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13256
Study No.ZA6810
TitleTV Debate Analysis, Survey (GLES 2017)
Current Version1.0.0, 2019-4-8, https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13256
Date of Collection03.09.2017 - 30.10.2017
Principal Investigator/ Authoring Entity, Institution
  • Roßteutscher, Sigrid - Universität Frankfurt
  • Schmitt-Beck, Rüdiger - Universität Mannheim
  • Schoen, Harald - Universität Mannheim
  • Weßels, Bernhard - Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung
  • Wolf, Christof - GESIS – Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften
  • Faas, Thorsten - Freie Universität Berlin
  • Maier, Jürgen - Universität Koblenz-Landau
  • Maier, Michaela - Universität Koblenz-Landau

Methodology

Geographic Coverage
  • Germany (DE)
UniverseGerman citizens who were eligible to vote in the 2017 German federal election at the time of the survey
Analysis Unit Analysis Unit
  • Individual
Sampling Procedure Sampling Procedure
  • Non-probability: Availability
  • Non-probability: Quota
The self-recruited participants were selected using a quota plan.
Mode of Collection Mode of Collection
  • Self-administered questionnaire: Paper
Self-administered questionnaire: Paper (last two waves by mail)
Time Method Time Method
  • Longitudinal: Panel
Kind of Data Kind of Data
  • Numeric
  • Text
Data CollectorThis study was conducted by Prof. Dr. Thorsten Faas (Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz), Prof. Dr. Jürgen Maier (University of Koblenz-Landau) and Prof. Dr. Michaela Maier (University of Koblenz-Landau) at Mainz and Landau.
Date of Collection
  • 03.09.2017 - 30.10.2017

Errata & Versions

VersionDate, Name, DOI
1.0.0 (current version)2019-4-8 first archive edition https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13256
Errata in current version
DateSubjectDescription
2019-4-8Questionnaire completion on/after election dayThree respondents indicated that they had filled out the wave 3 questionnaire on or after the day of election. These respondents have been included in the dataset and they can be identified using the variable report_datum.
2019-4-8Erroneous date of completionNine respondents indicated a date of completion too far in the future or too far in the past in at least one questionnaire of waves 3 and 4. The date of postal receipt has been used instead. It is possible to identify these respondents using the variable report_datum.
2019-4-8Filter error a21s (name of group)2 respondents indicated the name of a group although they did not indicate a group affiliation (a21). Their information has not been recoded.
2019-4-8Filter error a23 (Economic situation own class: retrospective):2 respondents indicated the name of a group although they did not indicate a group affiliation (a21). Their information has not been recoded.
2019-4-8Filter error a24 (Economic situation own class: current): 2 respondents indicated the name of a group although they did not indicate a group affiliation (a21). Their information has not been recoded.
2019-4-8Filter error a25 (Responsibility of government: Development of economic situation of own class):2 respondents indicated the name of a group although they did not indicate a group affiliation (a21). Their information has not been recoded.
2019-4-8Filter error a26 (Economic situation own class: prospective):2 respondents indicated the name of a group although they did not indicate a group affiliation (a21). Their information has not been recoded.
2019-4-8Filter error b21s (name of group)A respondent indicated the name of a group although he/she did not indicate a group affiliation (b21). His/her information has not been recoded.
2019-4-8Filter error b23 (Economic situation own class: retrospective):A respondent indicated the name of a group although he/she did not indicate a group affiliation (b21). His/her information has not been recoded.
2019-4-8Filter error b24 (Economic situation own class: current): A respondent indicated the name of a group although he/she did not indicate a group affiliation (b21). His/her information has not been recoded.
2019-4-8Filter error b25 (Responsibility of government: Development of economic situation of own class):A respondent indicated the name of a group although he/she did not indicate a group affiliation (b21). His/her information has not been recoded.
2019-4-8Filter error b26 (Economic situation own class: prospective):A respondent indicated the name of a group although he/she did not indicate a group affiliation (b21). His/her information has not been recoded.
Version changes

Further Remarks

Number of Units: 216
Number of Variables: 1171
Analysis System(s): SPSS, Stata

Publications

Relevant full texts
from SSOAR (automatically assigned)

Groups

Research Data Centre
Groups
  •  German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES)
    The German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES) is a DFG-funded project which made its debut just prior to the 2009 federal election. GLES is the largest and most ambitious election study held so far in Germany. Although the initial mandate is to examine and analyse the electorate for three consecutive elections, the aspired goal is to integrate the project within GESIS as an institutionalized election study after the federal election of 2017, and hence to make it a permanent study.