@article{Kohler2020, author = {Kohler, Ulrich}, title = {Survey Research Methods during the COVID-19 Crisis}, series = {Survey research methods}, volume = {14}, journal = {Survey research methods}, number = {2}, publisher = {European Survey Research Association}, address = {Konstanz}, issn = {1864-3361}, doi = {10.18148/srm/2020.v14i2.7769}, pages = {93 -- 94}, year = {2020}, language = {en} } @article{LiBuenningKaiseretal.2022, author = {Li, Jianghong and B{\"u}nning, Mareike and Kaiser, Till and Hipp, Lena}, title = {Who suffered most?}, series = {Journal of family research}, volume = {34}, journal = {Journal of family research}, number = {1}, publisher = {University of Bamberg Press}, address = {Bamberg}, issn = {2699-2337}, doi = {10.20377/jfr-704}, pages = {281 -- 309}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Objective: This study examines gender and socioeconomic inequalities in parental psychological wellbeing (parenting stress and psychological distress) during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Background: The dramatic shift of childcare and schooling responsibility from formal institutions to private households during the pandemic has put families under enormous stress and raised concerns about caregivers' health and wellbeing. Despite the overwhelming media attention to families' wellbeing, to date limited research has examined parenting stress and parental psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in Germany. Method: We analyzed four waves of panel data (N= 1,771) from an opt-in online survey, which was conducted between March 2020 and April 2021. Multivariable OLS regressions were used to estimate variations in the pandemic's effects on parenting stress and psychological distress by various demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Results: Overall, levels of parenting stress and psychological distress increased during the pandemic. During the first and third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, mothers, parents with children younger than 11 years, parents with two or more children, parents working from home as well as parents with financial insecurity experienced higher parenting stress than other sociodemographic groups. Moreover, women, respondents with lower incomes, single parents, and parents with younger children experienced higher levels of psychological distress than other groups. Conclusion: Gender and socioeconomic inequalities in parents' psychological wellbeing increased among the study participants during the pandemic.}, language = {en} } @article{HippBuenning2020, author = {Hipp, Lena and B{\"u}nning, Mareike}, title = {Parenthood as a driver of increased genderinequality during COVID-19?}, series = {European societies}, volume = {23}, journal = {European societies}, publisher = {Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {London}, issn = {1461-6696}, doi = {10.1080/14616696.2020.1833229}, pages = {S658 -- S673}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Drawing on three waves of survey data from a non-probability sample from Germany, this paper examines two opposing expectations about the pandemic's impacts on gender equality: The optimistic view suggests that gender equality has increased, as essential workers in Germany have been predominantly female and as fathers have had more time for childcare. The pessimistic view posits that lockdowns have also negatively affected women's jobs and that mothers had to shoulder the additional care responsibilities. Overall, our exploratory analyses provide more evidence supporting the latter view. Parents were more likely than non-parents to work fewer hours during the pandemic than before, and mothers were more likely than fathers to work fewer hours once lockdowns were lifted. Moreover, even though parents tended to divide childcare more evenly, at least temporarily, mothers still shouldered more childcare work than fathers. The division of housework remained largely unchanged. It is therefore unsurprising that women, in particular mothers, reported lower satisfaction during the observation period. Essential workers experienced fewer changes in their working lives than respondents in other occupations.}, language = {en} } @article{HippBuenningMunnesetal.2020, author = {Hipp, Lena and B{\"u}nning, Mareike and Munnes, Stefan and Sauermann, Armin}, title = {Problems and pitfalls of retrospective survey questions in COVID-19 studies}, series = {Survey research methods}, volume = {14}, journal = {Survey research methods}, number = {2}, publisher = {European Survey Research Association}, address = {Konstanz}, issn = {1864-3361}, doi = {10.18148/srm/2020.v14i2.7741}, pages = {109 -- 113}, year = {2020}, abstract = {This paper examines and discusses the biases and pitfalls of retrospective survey questions that are currently being used in many medical, epidemiological, and sociological studies on the COVID-19 pandemic. By analyzing the consistency of answers to retrospective questions provided by respondents who participated in the first two waves of a survey on the social consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, we illustrate the insights generated by a large body of survey research on the use of retrospective questions and recall accuracy.}, language = {en} } @article{GraeberKritikosSeebauer2021, author = {Graeber, Daniel and Kritikos, Alexander and Seebauer, Johannes}, title = {COVID-19}, series = {Journal of population economics}, volume = {34}, journal = {Journal of population economics}, number = {4}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {0933-1433}, doi = {10.1007/s00148-021-00849-y}, pages = {1141 -- 1187}, year = {2021}, abstract = {We investigate how the economic consequences of the pandemic and the government-mandated measures to contain its spread affect the self-employed — particularly women — in Germany. For our analysis, we use representative, real-time survey data in which respondents were asked about their situation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings indicate that among the self-employed, who generally face a higher likelihood of income losses due to COVID-19 than employees, women are about one-third more likely to experience income losses than their male counterparts. We do not find a comparable gender gap among employees. Our results further suggest that the gender gap among the self-employed is largely explained by the fact that women disproportionately work in industries that are more severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Our analysis of potential mechanisms reveals that women are significantly more likely to be impacted by government-imposed restrictions, e.g., the regulation of opening hours. We conclude that future policy measures intending to mitigate the consequences of such shocks should account for this considerable variation in economic hardship.}, language = {en} } @article{ForsterHeinzel2021, author = {Forster, Timon and Heinzel, Mirko Noa}, title = {Reacting, fast and slow}, series = {Journal of European public policy}, volume = {28}, journal = {Journal of European public policy}, number = {8}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {1350-1763}, doi = {10.1080/13501763.2021.1942157}, pages = {1299 -- 1320}, year = {2021}, abstract = {The COVID-19 pandemic created extraordinary challenges for governments to safeguard the well-being of their people. To what extent has leaders' reliance on scientific advice shaped government responses to the COVID-19 outbreak? We argue that leaders who tend to orient themselves on expert advice realized the extent of the crisis earlier. Consequently, these governments would adopt containment measures relatively quickly, despite the high uncertainty they faced. Over time, differences in government responses based on the use of science would dissipate due to herding effects. We test our argument on data combining 163 government responses to the pandemic with national- and individual-level characteristics. Consistent with our argument, we find that countries governed by politicians with a stronger technocratic mentality, approximated by holding a PhD, adopted restrictive containment measures faster in the early, but not in the later, stages of the crisis. This importance of expert-based leadership plausibly extends to other large-scale societal crises.}, language = {en} } @article{PostClassKohler2020, author = {Post, Julia C. and Class, Fabian and Kohler, Ulrich}, title = {Unit nonresponse biases in estimates of SARS-CoV-2 prevalence}, series = {Survey research methods}, volume = {14}, journal = {Survey research methods}, number = {2}, publisher = {European Survey Research Association}, address = {Duisburg}, issn = {1864-3361}, doi = {10.18148/srm/2020.v14i2.7755}, pages = {115 -- 121}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Since COVID-19 became a pandemic, many studies are being conducted to get a better understanding of the disease itself and its spread. One crucial indicator is the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Since this measure is an important foundation for political decisions, its estimate must be reliable and unbiased. This paper presents reasons for biases in prevalence estimates due to unit nonresponse in typical studies. Since it is difficult to avoid bias in situations with mostly unknown nonresponse mechanisms, we propose the maximum amount of bias as one measure to assess the uncertainty due to nonresponse. An interactive web application is presented that calculates the limits of such a conservative unit nonresponse confidence interval (CUNCI).}, language = {en} }