Search

Justice evaluations are proposed to provide a link between the objective level of inequality and the consequences at the individual and societal level. Available instruments, however, focus on the subjective perception of inequality and income distributions. In light of findings that subjective perceptions of inequality and income levels can be biased and subject to method effects, we present the newly developed Justice Evaluation of the Income Distribution (JEID) Scale, which captures justice evaluations of the actual earnings distribution. JEID comprises five items that provide respondents with earnings information for five groups at different segments along the distribution of earnings in a given country. We provide a German-language and an English-language version of the scale. The German-language version was developed and validated based on three comprehensive heterogeneous quota samples from Germany; the translated English-language version was validated in one comprehensive heterogeneous quota sample from the UK. Using latent profile analysis and k-means clustering, we identified three typical response patterns, which we labeled “inequality averse,” “bottom-inequality averse,” and “status quo justification.” JEID was found to be related to normative orientations in the sense that egalitarian views were associated with stronger injustice evaluations at the bottom and top ends of the earnings distribution. With a completion time of between 1.50 and 2.75 min, the JEID scale can be applied in any self-report survey in the social sciences to investigate the distribution, precursors, and consequences of individuals’ subjective evaluations of objective differences in earnings, ZIS - The Collection of Items and Scales for the Social Sciences

HBV-DNA levels are low or even undetectable in the majority HDV-infected patients. The impact of PEG-IFNα on HBV-DNA kinetics in HDV-infected patients has not been studied in detail. We analysed data of a prospective treatment trial where 120 HDV-RNA–positive patients were randomized to receive PEG-IFNα-2a plus tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate (PEG-IFNα/TDF, n = 59) or placebo (PEG-IFNα/PBO; n = 61) for 96 weeks. At week 96, HBV-DNA was still quantifiable in 71% of PEG-IFNα/PBO-treated patients but also in 76% of PEG-IFNα/TDF-treated patients, despite low HBV-DNA baseline values. Surprisingly, a transient HBV-DNA increase between weeks 12 and 36 was observed in 12 in PEG-IFNα/TDF-treated and 12 PEG-IFNα/PBO-treated patients. This increase was positively associated with HBsAg loss [(P = 0.049, odds ratio (OR) 5.1] and HDV-RNA suppression (P = 0.007, OR 4.1) at week 96. Biochemical markers of cell death (M30 and ALT) were higher during the HBV-DNA peak but no distinct systemic immune pattern could be observed by screening 91 soluble inflammatory markers. In conclusion, an early increase in HBV-DNA during PEG-IFNα-2a therapy occurred in more than 20% of patients, even in TDF-treated patients. This transient HBV-DNA rise may indicate PEG-IFNα–induced cell death and lead to long-term HDV-RNA suppression and HBsAg loss. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Um mit der Corona-Pandemie möglichst angemessen umgehen zu können, ist es wichtig, dass die Menschen hierzulande eine realistische Vorstellung davon haben, wie hoch ihr individuelles Risiko einer Erkrankung ist. Wie aktuelle Analysen der SOEP-CoV-Studie nun zeigen, sind sich die meisten Menschen in Deutschland durchaus bewusst, dass Faktoren wie das Lebensalter, Vorerkrankungen und der Beruf einen starken Einfluss auf ihr individuelles Risiko haben, lebensbedrohlich an Covid-19 zu erkranken. Gleichzeitig wird das durchschnittliche Risiko dafür deutlich überschätzt. Dies könnte durchaus dazu beitragen, dass die Bevölkerung die derzeitigen Schutzmaßnahmen wie das Abstandhalten und das Tragen von Masken auch bei geringen Neuinfektionszahlen beibehält. Nichtsdestoweniger ist die Politik gefordert, den Informationsstand und die Risikomündigkeit der Bevölkerung weiter zu stärken.

Um die Corona-Krise und die Wahrnehmung ihrer Risiken zu untersuchen, wird für die vorliegenden Ausführungen auf Informationen aus der Längsschnittstudie Sozio-oekonomisches Panel (SOEP) und der darin eingebetteten SOEP-CoV-Studie zurückgegriffen, bei der im Zeitraum vom 1. April bis 5. Juli 2020 wurde unter anderem die Frage gestellt wurde: "Für wie groß halten Sie die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass das neue Corona-Virus bei Ihnen im Laufe der nächsten 12 Monate eine lebensbedrohliche Erkrankung auslöst?". Als Antwort konnten die Befragten Prozentangaben von null bis hundert machen. Die Angaben von 5.783 Befragten zeigen, dass sich die Befragten von dieser durchaus nicht einfach zu beantwortenden Frage nicht überfordert fühlen. Der Anteil derer, die keine Angabe machen, beträgt nur 2,3 Prozent. Die durchschnittliche subjektive Wahrscheinlichkeit für eine lebensbedrohliche COVID-19-Infektion wird mit 25,9 Prozent angegeben (gewichtetes Ergebnis). Diese subjektive Einschätzung steigt sowohl mit dem Alter wie auch mit einer - im Jahr 2019 selbst berichteten - Vorerkrankung an. Auch wer selbst getestet wurde oder in seinem Haushalt einen Test erlebt hat, gibt ein höheres Risiko für eine lebensbedrohende Erkrankung durch das neue Coronavirus. To investigate the coronavirus crisis and perceptions of risks associated with the virus, we analyzed data from the longitudinal Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) study and the SOEP-CoV study, which is embedded in the SOEP. In the period from April 1 to July 5, 2020, the CoV-questionnaire included the item: "How likely do you think it is that the novel coronavirus will cause you to become critically ill in the next 12 months?" Respondents responded by estimating the likelihood on a scale from 0 to 100 percent. The apparent difficulty of this question did not pose an obstacle for most of the 5,783 respondents: Only 2.3 percent of all respondents gave no answer. The average subjective probability of a life-threatening COVID-19 infection amounted to 25.9 percent (weighted average). This subjective estimate increases both with age and with preexisting medical conditions (self-reported in 2019). Those who had been tested themselves or who lived in the same household as someone who had been tested estimated a higher risk of becoming critically ill as a result of the novel coronavirus.

Contains fulltext : 161254.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) This article examines the reasons for inequalities of earnings in Germany and the extent to which these inequalities are considered to be legitimate. We focus on three major inequality-generating factors derived from labour market and inequality research: individual, firm-specific and structural factors. We then investigate empirically the importance of these factors in the emergence of differences of earnings and the extent to which employees consider the rents of each factor to be just or unjust. Analyses based on data from the German Socio-Economic Panel reveal that wage differentials are considered as just if they can be attributed to individual factors (level of education, professional experience). In contrast, wage differentials due to firm-specific factors (atypical employment, seniority-based pay) and structural factors (certain occupational groups/industries, differences between regions) are the major reasons for perceived earnings injustice. The results of this study will contribute to the debate concerning increasing wage inequalities and reveal that distinguishing between just and unjust inequalities is essential, especially in discussions regarding the social or political consequences of this trend. 27 p.

Gerechtigkeitsideologien beschreiben einen Kernbereich von Werthaltungen, die mit Gerechtigkeitsüberzeugungen zu tun haben. Die vier Gerechtigkeitsideologien Askriptivismus, Etatismus, Individualismus und Fatalismus wurden vom Berliner Gerechtigkeitsprojekt mit den Daten des International Social Justice Project (ISJP) empirisch rekonstruiert. Das Instrument wurde bereits in zwölf Ländern eingesetzt., Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen (ZIS)