Conference Agenda

The Europeans’ Understandings and Evaluations of Democracy module was first fielded in the European Social Survey in 2012/13 before being selected as a repeat module for the 2020/21 round. In this presentation, we will first introduce the ESS, and then summarise the main design decisions that underpinned both the original and repeat module. We will then discuss the decision-making around which items to repeat and which to discard from the earlier module. Finally, we will discuss how the face-to-face ESS fieldwork was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic leading to delays in data collection. In addition to the delays, some ESS countries had to switch data collection from face-to-face (in-person and web interviews) to self-completion mode (web and paper self-completion) to remove or reduce face-to-face contact during the pandemic. Unlike Round 6, nine of the 31 countries used self-completion instead of face-to-face. The potential impact of this change on the analysis of the democracy module will be discussed, drawing on two parallel-run experiments conducted in Finland and Great Britain during fieldwork. We will compare the data collected using face-to-face methods with data collected via self-administered surveys. The results show that self-completion yielded significantly lower scores than face-to-face on the democracy scales, although the effect sizes were small. At the same time, we will show that the conceptual models worked similarly regardless of mode. The presentation will conclude that whilst ESS still provides robust comparative data, users should be aware of potential mode differences and the possible impact of disrupted fieldwork periods. Despite these issues, the ESS module provides one of the most in-depth, theoretically driven comparative pictures of Europeans’ Understandings and Evaluations of Democracy. The transparency that ESS provides for the quality of its data is a key asset of the infrastructure allowing users to conduct informed analysis and be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the data.

The ongoing discussion on “the crisis of democracy” is not a new one. It has been particularly revived and augmented because of widespread political, economic, and social changes and by the electoral success of right-wing parties as well as populists throughout the Western world. In recent years, democracy backsliding, distrust in democratic decision-making, and eroding satisfaction with the way democracy works has become evident not only during the corona pandemic, but especially in so-called “illiberal democracies”. Against this background, this year's elections in Europe and the United States are important touchstones that could have a major impact on democracy and its key institutions.

Given the extensive literature from the social sciences and the various empirical approaches, it quickly becomes apparent that not only the concepts associated with regime support, but also the terms itself and its use are by no means consistent. Moreover, the causes and consequences of (changing) notions of democracy as a form of rule are frequently investigated, but it often remains unclear whether certain indicators really measure the associated concepts (predictive and concurrent validity) or if the measurement models hold across countries or even within countries regarding different societal groups (e.g., at least configural and metric measurement invariance). Therefore, in terms of the conceptual diversity and multidimensionality, it is hardly surprising that the question of suitable measurement instruments traditionally occupies a central and by no means undisputed topic of discussion.

With the ESS 10, which replicates the democracy module first applied in ESS 6, an excellent opportunity is given to analyze different conceptions of regime support more profoundly across time and countries. In the module, a scale is included that taps different normative conceptions of democracy, that is, the liberal, social, direct, and populist model. Theoretically, it is assumed that these alternative models of democratic rule might be held by the governed, whereas they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Instead, people might have individual views on certain democratic features and thus conceive or prioritize them rather differently which in turn has drawbacks on their regime preference and support. Regarding the two periods of fielding with a ten-year distance and rapidly changing conditions (economically, politically) as well as lasting demographic change, the issue of measurement equivalence as a precondition for substantive comparative analyses of regime support is increasingly relevant.

With our work we want to contribute to a better understanding of the concept of regime support by focusing on the comparability of the utilized measurements in the ESS 6/10. Consequently, we want to tackle the question how the notions of democracy can be mapped in European countries which is of utmost importance for evidence-based policies to understand and counteract anti-democratic developments. In doing so, we apply variable-centered approaches to asses construct validity and reliability (MGCFA, ESEM, Alignment), but also go beyond and additionally apply person-centered methods (LCA) as well as a combined approach (FFM) to investigate so far potentially undiscovered patterns.

When survey respondents say that they support democracy and liberal-democratic institutions, do they genuinely hold such beliefs, or do they engage in ``cheap talk''? Democracy requires democratic citizens to function. Much research has, therefore, been devoted to understanding citizens' attitudes toward democracy. Disconcertingly, it has been suggested that while citizens say they support democracy, they might not firmly hold such beliefs. In this article, we report the results from three studies examining the extent of social desirability in surveys on democratic attitudes. First, we leverage exogenous variation in survey mode on ESS modules on democratic attitudes to estimate generalized difference-in-difference models in 24 countries. Second, we exploit a unique parallel run “quasi-experiment” in the United Kingdom and Finland, in which parallel sampling with different survey modes was performed. Finally, we fielded a double-list experiment in Portugal to estimate the prevalence of anti-democratic attitudes. We find little evidence that responses to questions about democracy are affected by social desirability pressures. Our findings have important implications for our understanding of democratic attitudes.