| hypothesis | index | components | raw_variables | direction | note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | left_right_ideology | Left-right self-placement | leftright | Lower = left; higher = right | Ipsos coding confirmed as 1 Left to 11 Right |
| H2a | objective_resources_index | Household income decile and subjective social status | country-specific hincome_*; slfstatus | Higher = more resources | |
| H2b | perceived_capacity_index | Financial resilience and household economic evaluation | fresil; ecohhld | Higher = more perceived capacity | |
| H3a | objective_need_index | Receipt of public payments and unpaid/inactive labor-market status | pubpaypens; pubpaychild; pubpayunemp; pubpaydisab; pubpayrent; pubpaymininc; EmploymentStatusKP | Higher = more objective need/risk | |
| H3b | perceived_risk_index | Risk of not coping, unemployment, inability to work, and family-care need | prskcope; prskunemp; prskunwork; prskcare | Higher = more perceived risk | |
| H4 | norms_legitimacy_index | Citizen tax morale and welfare-fraud norms | taxnorm reversed; fraudnorm reversed | Higher = stronger perceived fair contribution norms | Partial test: rednrmdsc is absent from the Hauptfeld file |
| H5a | social_trust_index | General social trust, perceived fairness, and perceived helpfulness | soctrst reversed; percfair; perchelp | Higher = more generalized social trust | |
| H5b | institutional_trust_index | Trust in parliament, judiciary, local authorities, government, European Commission, and satisfaction with democracy | trstparl; trstjudi; trstmuni; trstgov; trsteucom; satdem | Higher = more institutional trust | Partial test: trstpltcns and trstparts are absent from the Hauptfeld file |
| H5c | service_quality_index | Overall service satisfaction, service quality, local services, fairness, efficiency, helpfulness, and integrity | pssatgen; psqhlth; psqschl; psqtxath; psqtrnsp; psqbnft; psqloc; psefair; pseeffi; psehelp; pseintgrt | Higher = better service evaluations | |
| H6a | regional_service_quality_within_country_z | Regional public-service quality within country | EQI qualityp | Higher = better regional service quality than the country average | Context check using the 2021 full-NUTS2 EQI qualityp file |
| H6a | regional_service_quality_country_mean_z | Country mean regional public-service quality | EQI qualityp | Higher = higher national/regional average service quality | Between-country component from the 2021 full-NUTS2 EQI qualityp file |
| H6b | relative_regional_income_z | Regional GDP per capita centered within country | Eurostat regional GDP per capita | Higher = richer than the national regional average | Context check; preregistered expected sign is negative |
PEPSY Core Paper 1 - Results And Discussion Draft
1 Setup
2 Results
We begin by describing the level and structure of political solidarity across the seven countries. We then test whether the main differences in solidarity are better explained by individual foundations, by perceptions of norms and institutional legitimacy, or by regional context.
The full dataset contains 8,066 interviews from Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Sweden. In the main analyses, we do not use population-size weights. The aim is not to estimate an EU-wide population average, but to compare patterns across the seven country cases and to examine whether similar explanatory mechanisms operate across different institutional and regional settings.
2.1 Outcome Measures And Explanatory Blocks
Our primary outcome is the preregistered territorial solidarity index. It measures respondents’ willingness to pay for public redistribution benefiting people in their municipality, their country, and other EU countries. We also examine three secondary outcomes: solidarity toward conventionally deserving groups, solidarity toward migrants, and the gap between the two. The latter captures a form of welfare chauvinism, where support for redistribution remains high for some groups but falls when beneficiaries are migrants.
Most explanatory variables are measured as indices rather than single items. We clean nonresponse, orient all items so that higher values indicate more of the underlying construct, rescale items to a common metric where necessary, and average them within respondents. For the regression models, the indices are standardized so that effect sizes are directly comparable. Table Table 1 documents the construction of the main indices used in the analysis of the main survey data.
The models are organised in three blocks. The first block captures individual foundations: left-right ideology, objective socioeconomic resources, perceived financial capacity, objective need, and perceived personal risk. The second block captures social norms and legitimacy: perceived contribution norms, social trust, institutional trust, and evaluations of public services. The third block adds regional context through measures of regional public-service quality and relative regional prosperity within countries.
The expected signs follow the preregistered hypotheses. We expect more left-wing ideology, higher perceived capacity, greater objective need, greater perceived risk, stronger contribution norms, higher trust, and better service evaluations to be associated with higher political solidarity. For objective resources, the expectation is theoretically more specific. Respondents with greater resources may have more capacity to contribute, but they may also be more likely to see themselves as net contributors. The preregistered resource hypothesis therefore treats resources primarily as a cost-side mechanism, expecting lower solidarity among respondents with greater objective resources, net of perceived capacity.
2.2 Cross-National Overview And Country Heterogeneity
We first describe the outcome space before turning to the regression models. Country means show substantial cross-national variation in political solidarity. Sweden has the highest mean level of territorial solidarity (3.687), while Croatia has the lowest (3.049). The deserving-minus-migrant gap is widest in France (1.153) and smallest in Italy (0.806), suggesting that the level of solidarity and the boundary of solidarity do not necessarily move together.
Before estimating the pooled models, we also inspect whether key associations are concentrated in particular national cases. The country-specific estimates shown below are not treated as definitive hypothesis tests. They are descriptive checks that show whether the relationships between solidarity and three central predictors, ideology, perceived capacity, and public-service evaluations, are broadly similar across countries or driven by one or two cases.
2.3 Testing Strategy
The primary tests use unweighted OLS models with country fixed effects and the preregistered respondent-level controls. We estimate the models in blocks that follow the theoretical framework. Block A includes individual foundations: left-right ideology, objective resources, perceived capacity, objective need, perceived risk, and the interaction between perceived risk and capacity. Block B includes social norms and legitimacy: perceived contribution norms, social trust, institutional trust, and public-service evaluations. The full model combines both blocks.
We treat a hypothesis as supported when the estimate in the unweighted full model points in the preregistered direction and the 95% confidence interval excludes zero. Directionally consistent but imprecise estimates are interpreted as mixed evidence. Estimates that are close to zero or point in the opposite direction are interpreted as not supporting the hypothesis. The two regional-context hypotheses, H6a and H6b, are evaluated separately because they rely on contextual rather than individual-level predictors.
Two preregistered tests are only partially implemented in the final main survey file. For H4, we rely on taxnorm and fraudnorm because rednrmdsc is unavailable. For H5b, we use the institutional trust items retained in the final file, without the originally planned politician and political-party trust items. These deviations do not change the broader theoretical constructs, but they narrow the empirical coverage of the corresponding tests.
2.4 Descriptive Checks
The next figure keeps the preregistered predictors at the centre of the analysis but examines them descriptively rather than parametrically. For each focal predictor, respondents are divided into five roughly equal-sized bins. We then plot the mean predictor value in each bin against the mean level of territorial solidarity. These plots provide a simple visual check of whether the main associations are approximately monotonic, whether they are driven by extreme values, and whether the linear models used below are a reasonable summary of the data.
2.5 Individual Foundations Of Solidarity
The pooled regression analysis now turns the descriptive patterns into comparable model-based tests. The full model retains 7058 respondents (87.5% of the cleaned sample) and explains 34% of the variation in territorial solidarity. Among the individual foundations, left-right ideology is negative and precisely estimated, indicating that more right-wing respondents are less supportive of territorial solidarity (\(\beta = -0.266\), 95% CI [-0.286, -0.246], \(p = <0.001\)).
The resource-and-risk results are more mixed. Perceived capacity to contribute remains positive in the full model (\(\beta = 0.036\), \(p = 0.003\)), and objective need/risk also remains positive (\(\beta = 0.029\), \(p = 0.008\)). Objective resources are close to zero once the attitudinal predictors are included (\(\beta = 0.005\), \(p = 0.764\)), and perceived risk is not statistically distinguishable from zero in the full specification (\(\beta = 0.008\), \(p = 0.455\)). Taken together, the individual-level evidence points most clearly to ideology, perceived capacity, and objective need, while providing weaker support for a simple cost-side resource account.
| Characteristic |
Block A
|
Block B
|
Full
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta | 95% CI | p-value | Beta | 95% CI | p-value | Beta | 95% CI | p-value | |
| H1 Left-right ideology | -0.329 | -0.350, -0.308 | <0.001 | -0.266 | -0.286, -0.246 | <0.001 | |||
| H2a Objective resources | 0.063 | 0.031, 0.094 | <0.001 | 0.005 | -0.025, 0.034 | 0.764 | |||
| H2b Perceived capacity | 0.108 | 0.083, 0.133 | <0.001 | 0.036 | 0.012, 0.059 | 0.003 | |||
| H3a Objective need/risk | 0.054 | 0.030, 0.077 | <0.001 | 0.029 | 0.008, 0.051 | 0.008 | |||
| H3b Perceived risk | -0.029 | -0.052, -0.006 | 0.012 | 0.008 | -0.013, 0.029 | 0.455 | |||
| H3 Risk x Capacity interaction | 0.001 | -0.020, 0.022 | 0.930 | -0.004 | -0.023, 0.015 | 0.681 | |||
| H4 Norms and legitimacy | 0.083 | 0.063, 0.104 | <0.001 | 0.073 | 0.052, 0.094 | <0.001 | |||
| H5a Social trust | 0.192 | 0.169, 0.215 | <0.001 | 0.158 | 0.135, 0.181 | <0.001 | |||
| H5b Institutional trust | 0.183 | 0.155, 0.211 | <0.001 | 0.158 | 0.129, 0.187 | <0.001 | |||
| H5c Service evaluations | 0.150 | 0.122, 0.178 | <0.001 | 0.135 | 0.107, 0.163 | <0.001 | |||
| Abbreviation: CI = Confidence Interval | |||||||||
2.6 Norms, Trust, And Public-Service Legitimacy
The second block of predictors speaks to social norms and institutional legitimacy rather than to distributive position alone. Here the strongest positive associations come from social trust (\(\beta = 0.158\)), institutional trust (\(\beta = 0.158\)), and public-service evaluations (\(\beta = 0.135\)). Norms and legitimacy also remain positive in the full model (\(\beta = 0.073\), \(p = <0.001\)). The main explanatory leverage in the pooled models therefore comes less from objective regional location than from how respondents evaluate reciprocity, institutions, and service performance.
2.7 Regional Context
H6 is examined separately because it asks a different question from the individual-level hypotheses. The regional EQI analysis decomposes public-service quality into a within-country component and a country-mean component. The within-country term asks whether respondents in higher-quality regions are more solidaristic than respondents in lower-quality regions inside the same country. The country-mean term captures cross-national differences in average regional service quality. These models are descriptive rather than causal and use NUTS2-clustered standard errors.
The regional-context results provide little support for H6. Once the full individual-level specification is included, the within-country EQI coefficient is small and statistically insignificant (\(\beta = -0.01\), 95% CI [-0.046, 0.025], \(p = 0.571\)). The country-mean EQI coefficient also becomes statistically insignificant in the fully adjusted model (\(\beta = -0.031\), \(p = 0.128\)). The relative regional income term is likewise not robust (beta = 0.014, p = 0.257). The positive country-level pattern visible in the simpler models does not survive once trust and service-evaluation measures are added.
| Model | N | NUTS2 | Within-country EQI estimate [95% CI] | Within-country EQI p | Country-mean EQI estimate [95% CI] | Country-mean EQI p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 7319 | 124 | -0.026 [-0.065, 0.012] | 0.183 | 0.084 [0.03, 0.139] | 0.003 |
| + demographics | 7319 | 124 | -0.022 [-0.06, 0.017] | 0.272 | 0.075 [0.025, 0.126] | 0.003 |
| + left-right ideology | 6816 | 123 | 0.005 [-0.029, 0.039] | 0.771 | 0.08 [0.028, 0.131] | 0.003 |
| + Block A non-ideology | 6510 | 123 | 0.005 [-0.029, 0.039] | 0.779 | 0.062 [0.014, 0.109] | 0.011 |
| + trust/service | 6504 | 123 | -0.01 [-0.045, 0.026] | 0.601 | -0.032 [-0.073, 0.009] | 0.131 |
| Full model | 6420 | 123 | -0.01 [-0.046, 0.025] | 0.571 | -0.031 [-0.072, 0.009] | 0.128 |
2.8 Hypothesis Assessment
Taken together, the preregistered evidence is uneven rather than uniformly supportive. In the final-model framework, H1, H2b, H3a, H4, H5a, H5b, and H5c are supported. H2a and H3b are only partly supported, which means that the point estimates are directionally compatible with the preregistration but not precise enough to justify a stronger claim. H6a and H6b are not supported in the final specification.
Two caveats matter for interpreting these verdicts. H4 is a partial test because the final main survey file contains taxnorm and fraudnorm but not rednrmdsc. H5b is also a partial test because the available institutional-trust battery does not include politician and party trust. The appendix reports the full hypothesis-by-hypothesis table; the present section highlights the substantive pattern in prose.
2.9 Secondary Outcomes: The Deservingness Gap
The preregistration also called for secondary analyses that separate solidarity toward deserving groups from solidarity toward migrants. We therefore estimate the full specification for the deserving index, the migrant index, and their difference. Substantively, the deserving-minus-migrant gap is the key summary because it captures target-specific differentiation in solidarity.
The ideological divide is sharper when the outcome is welfare chauvinism. More right-wing ideology predicts a larger deserving-minus-migrant gap (\(\beta = 0.276\), 95% CI [0.254, 0.299], \(p = <0.001\)), while institutional trust (\(\beta = -0.2\)) and generalized social trust (\(\beta = -0.094\)) predict a narrower gap. The same trust-related factors that increase territorial solidarity in the main model are therefore associated with less exclusionary target-group differentiation.
| term_label | direction | evidence |
|---|---|---|
| H1 Left-right ideology | Wider deserving-minus-migrant gap | beta = 0.276, 95% CI [0.254, 0.299], p = <0.001 |
| H5b Institutional trust | Narrower deserving-minus-migrant gap | beta = -0.2, 95% CI [-0.232, -0.168], p = <0.001 |
| H5a Social trust | Narrower deserving-minus-migrant gap | beta = -0.094, 95% CI [-0.12, -0.068], p = <0.001 |
| H3a Objective need/risk | Narrower deserving-minus-migrant gap | beta = -0.055, 95% CI [-0.079, -0.03], p = <0.001 |
| H4 Norms and legitimacy | Wider deserving-minus-migrant gap | beta = 0.05, 95% CI [0.026, 0.073], p = <0.001 |
| H2a Objective resources | Wider deserving-minus-migrant gap | beta = 0.048, 95% CI [0.014, 0.082], p = 0.005 |
| H3b Perceived risk | Narrower deserving-minus-migrant gap | beta = -0.038, 95% CI [-0.062, -0.015], p = 0.002 |
3 Discussion
The results are broadly consistent with three cautious conclusions. First, political solidarity in this seven-country sample appears to be structured most clearly by ideology and by attitudes toward institutions, public services, and other people. Second, the evidence for a simple material self-interest account is weaker and less stable across specifications. Third, the regional-context indicators do not show robust direct associations with territorial solidarity once the full set of individual-level attitudes is included.
3.1 Ideology, Capacity, And Need
The strongest pattern in the main model is the ideological gradient. More right-wing respondents are less supportive of territorial solidarity (beta = -0.266, 95% CI [-0.286, -0.246], p = <0.001). This result is consistent with H1 and indicates that distributive orientation remains closely related to broader political ideology in this dataset. At the same time, the cross-sectional design means the estimate should not be read as evidence that ideology independently causes solidarity preferences.
The results for resources and need are more differentiated. Perceived capacity to contribute remains positive in the full model (beta = 0.036, 95% CI [0.012, 0.059], p = 0.003), and objective need or risk also remains positive (beta = 0.029, 95% CI [0.008, 0.051], p = 0.008). These findings are consistent with the idea that solidarity may be stronger among respondents who both feel able to contribute and see stronger reasons for collective protection. By contrast, objective resources are not associated with higher solidarity in the full specification (beta = 0.005, 95% CI [-0.025, 0.034], p = 0.764), and perceived risk is likewise not robust (beta = 0.008, 95% CI [-0.013, 0.029], p = 0.455). Taken together, the estimates do not provide strong support for a simple net-contributor story in which solidarity rises or falls mainly with socioeconomic position.
3.2 Trust, Norms, And Institutional Legitimacy
The attitudinal legitimacy variables are the most consistently supportive of solidarity. Norms and legitimacy remain positive in the full model (beta = 0.073, 95% CI [0.052, 0.094], p = <0.001), and the strongest positive associations come from social trust (beta = 0.158, 95% CI [0.135, 0.181], p = <0.001), institutional trust (beta = 0.158, 95% CI [0.129, 0.187], p = <0.001), and public-service evaluations (beta = 0.135, 95% CI [0.107, 0.163], p = <0.001). These findings are compatible with the view that respondents are more solidaristic when they trust other people, trust institutions, and evaluate public services more positively.
This pattern may matter more for the paper’s substantive argument than the weaker resource effects. The results are consistent with an interpretation in which political solidarity depends not only on who pays and who benefits, but also on whether people believe the system is fair, whether others are contributing, and whether institutions can deliver collective goods competently. Still, these estimates could also partly reflect reverse causality or shared underlying dispositions, so they should be interpreted as robust associations rather than as settled mechanisms.
3.3 Regional Context And The Role Of Perceptions
The regional-context results do not provide robust support for H6 in the fully adjusted models. The within-country EQI coefficient is small and statistically insignificant (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.046, 0.025], p = 0.571), and the country-mean EQI term is also not robust once trust and service evaluations are included (beta = -0.031, 95% CI [-0.072, 0.009], p = 0.128). Relative regional income is likewise not robust (beta = 0.014, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.038], p = 0.257).
One possible reading is that regional context matters mainly through perceptions rather than through direct net effects in the final models. Better-governed or better-performing regions may still shape solidarity, but they may do so partly by affecting trust in institutions and evaluations of service quality. A second, equally plausible interpretation is that within-country regional variation is too limited or too noisy in this dataset to generate precise direct estimates once the attitudinal variables are included. The present models do not allow a strong causal claim either way. They only indicate that the direct regional associations are not robust in the final specification.
3.4 Target-Specific Solidarity And Welfare Chauvinism
The secondary analyses add an important qualification to the main results. Right-wing ideology predicts not only lower territorial solidarity, but also a larger deserving-minus-migrant gap (beta = 0.276, 95% CI [0.254, 0.299], p = <0.001). Institutional trust (beta = -0.2, 95% CI [-0.232, -0.168], p = <0.001) and social trust (beta = -0.094, 95% CI [-0.12, -0.068], p = <0.001) predict a narrower gap. These results are consistent with the view that the same trust-related dispositions associated with higher solidarity overall are also associated with less exclusionary patterns of solidarity across target groups.
This point should also be treated cautiously. The welfare-chauvinism results do not show that ideology and trust exhaust the explanation for target-group differentiation. They do suggest, however, that political solidarity is not a single dimension. Some predictors appear to matter for solidarity in general, while others also matter for who is seen as a legitimate recipient. On that reading, the secondary analyses complement the main models by showing that inclusionary and exclusionary forms of solidarity are at least partly structured by the same underlying attitudes.
3.5 Limitations
Several limitations should be kept in view. First, the analysis is cross-sectional, so the estimates should not be interpreted causally. Trust in institutions and service evaluations may be associated with solidarity because they shape it, because solidarity shapes those evaluations, or because both reflect broader orientations. Second, the study is designed around seven countries and the main models are intentionally unweighted by population size, because the estimand is cross-national patterning rather than an EU-population mean. Third, two preregistered hypotheses are only partial tests because some original items are unavailable in the final main survey file. Fourth, the regional-context models are descriptive and rely on linked contextual indicators that may not capture the full range of subnational variation relevant to solidarity.
There are also limits that point to the next stage of analysis. The weak result for objective resources suggests that income and status may operate in more conditional ways than the preregistered linear specification allows. The regional nulls suggest that future work may need a clearer distinction between direct contextual effects and indirect perception-based pathways. The country-specific heterogeneity results also indicate that some associations vary in strength across national settings, even if the overall pattern is fairly stable.
3.6 Conclusion
Overall, the Core 1 findings are more consistent with an account in which ideological orientation, social trust, institutional trust, and positive evaluations of public services matter more reliably than objective resources or direct regional context. That conclusion should still be treated as provisional and associative rather than causal. Within those limits, the results suggest that territorial solidarity is not well captured by a simple material self-interest model alone. It may be better understood as a politically and institutionally embedded orientation, shaped by beliefs about fairness, competence, reciprocity, and who belongs within the circle of solidarity.
4 Appendix
4.1 Country Map
Country-level descriptive means for territorial solidarity and the deserving-minus-migrant gap.
4.2 Country Outcome Means
| country | n_interviews | analysis_interviews | Deserving solidarity | Migrant solidarity | Territorial solidarity | Deserving-minus-migrant gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Croatia | 1124 | 1124 | 3.905 | 2.782 | 3.049 | 1.122 |
| France | 1115 | 1115 | 3.708 | 2.555 | 3.055 | 1.153 |
| Germany | 1600 | 1600 | 3.899 | 2.778 | 3.202 | 1.121 |
| Italy | 1117 | 1117 | 3.993 | 3.187 | 3.394 | 0.806 |
| Poland | 1005 | 1005 | 3.777 | 2.764 | 3.231 | 1.014 |
| Spain | 1054 | 1054 | 4.094 | 3.201 | 3.543 | 0.893 |
| Sweden | 1051 | 1051 | 4.181 | 3.230 | 3.687 | 0.951 |
4.3 Hypothesis Assessment
| hypothesis | hypothesis_text | how_tested | verdict | evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | More left-leaning individuals show higher political solidarity than more right-leaning individuals. | Unweighted full model using standardized left-right self-placement, where higher values mean more right-wing. | Confirmed | beta = -0.266, 95% CI [-0.286, -0.246], p = <0.001 |
| H2a | Individuals with higher objective socioeconomic resources show higher political solidarity. | Unweighted full model using income and subjective social status. | Mixed | beta = 0.005, 95% CI [-0.025, 0.034], p = 0.764 |
| H2b | Individuals who perceive higher personal capacity to contribute show higher political solidarity. | Unweighted full model using financial resilience and household economic evaluations. | Confirmed | beta = 0.036, 95% CI [0.012, 0.059], p = 0.003 |
| H3a | Individuals with higher exposure to social risks show higher political solidarity. | Unweighted full model using public-payment receipt and labor-market inactivity. | Confirmed | beta = 0.029, 95% CI [0.008, 0.051], p = 0.008 |
| H3b | Individuals who perceive higher personal risk and future need show higher political solidarity. | Unweighted full model using perceived risk plus the preregistered risk x capacity interaction. | Mixed | beta = 0.008, 95% CI [-0.013, 0.029], p = 0.455; interaction beta = -0.004, p = 0.681 |
| H4 | Individuals who believe that others contribute fairly show higher political solidarity. | Partial unweighted test using taxnorm and fraudnorm; rednrmdsc is unavailable in the final data. | Confirmed | beta = 0.073, 95% CI [0.052, 0.094], p = <0.001 |
| H5a | Individuals with higher generalized social trust show higher political solidarity. | Unweighted full model using social trust, perceived fairness, and perceived helpfulness. | Confirmed | beta = 0.158, 95% CI [0.135, 0.181], p = <0.001 |
| H5b | Individuals with higher institutional trust show higher political solidarity. | Partial unweighted test using available institutional trust items; politicians and parties are unavailable. | Confirmed | beta = 0.158, 95% CI [0.129, 0.187], p = <0.001 |
| H5c | Individuals with more positive public-service evaluations show higher political solidarity. | Unweighted full model using public-service satisfaction, quality, and procedural evaluations. | Confirmed | beta = 0.135, 95% CI [0.107, 0.163], p = <0.001 |
| H6a | Residents of regions with higher public-service quality show higher political solidarity. | Unweighted H6 within/between model using 2021 full-NUTS2 EQI qualityp; verdict is based on the within-country coefficient. | Not confirmed | beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.046, 0.025], p = 0.571 |
| H6b | Residents of relatively better-off regions show lower territorial solidarity. | Unweighted full + context model using within-country centered regional GDP. | Not confirmed | beta = 0.014, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.038], p = 0.257 |
4.4 Imputation Summary
Income is the only variable with substantial missingness. Overall, 902 income values are imputed, corresponding to 11.2% of the sample. Other variables have minor missingness and are imputed using simple country-level mean or mode rules.
| country | Observed income | Regression imputed | Country-mean fallback | Total imputed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Croatia | 88.9 | 0.0 | 11.1 | 11.1 |
| France | 90.9 | 4.0 | 5.1 | 9.1 |
| Germany | 88.6 | 4.7 | 6.8 | 11.4 |
| Italy | 85.9 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 14.1 |
| Poland | 85.8 | 5.6 | 8.7 | 14.2 |
| Spain | 88.8 | 4.6 | 6.6 | 11.2 |
| Sweden | 93.0 | 2.9 | 4.2 | 7.0 |
4.5 Missingness And Retention
| variable | meaning | n_total | n_missing | pct_missing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| left_right_ideology | Left-right self-placement, where lower values are left and higher values are right | 8066 | 576 | 7.1 |
| perceived_risk_index | Perceived risk of future need or deterioration index | 8066 | 346 | 4.3 |
| norms_legitimacy_index | Norms and perceived contribution index; partial Hauptfeld version uses tax morale and welfare fraud norms | 8066 | 181 | 2.2 |
| perceived_capacity_index | Perceived personal capacity to contribute index | 8066 | 94 | 1.2 |
| institutional_trust_index | Institutional trust index; partial Hauptfeld version excludes politicians and parties | 8066 | 36 | 0.4 |
| objective_need_index | Objective exposure to social need/risk index | 8066 | 8 | 0.1 |
| solidarity_territorial | Territorial solidarity index: willingness to pay for redistribution at municipal, country, and EU levels | 8066 | 0 | 0.0 |
| objective_resources_index | Objective socioeconomic resources index | 8066 | 0 | 0.0 |
| social_trust_index | Generalized social trust index | 8066 | 0 | 0.0 |
| service_quality_index | Public-service satisfaction, quality, fairness, efficiency, helpfulness, and integrity index | 8066 | 0 | 0.0 |
| income_equiv | Household income equivalized by square-root household size | 8066 | 0 | 0.0 |
| age | Respondent age | 8066 | 0 | 0.0 |
| gender_binary | Gender indicator: 0 male, 1 female | 8066 | 0 | 0.0 |
| education_level | Highest education level | 8066 | 0 | 0.0 |
| migrant_background | Respondent born outside country of interview | 8066 | 0 | 0.0 |
| hincome_imputed | Indicator for household income deciles imputed by country-specific regression or fallback mean | 8066 | 0 | 0.0 |
The unweighted full model retains 7058 of 8066 respondents after listwise deletion (87.5%).