Family Research and Demographic Analysis (FReDA): Evolution, Framework, Objectives, and Design of “The German Family Demography Panel Study”


Family Research and Demographic Analysis (FReDA): Evolution, 
Framework, Objectives, and Design of “The German Family 
Demography Panel Study”

Norbert F. Schneider, Martin Bujard, Christof Wolf, Tobias Gummer, 
Karsten Hank, Franz J. Neyer

Abstract: This article introduces the evolution, framework, objectives, and design 
of the new data infrastructure “FReDA – The German Family Demography Panel 
Study”, which has been funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and 
Research (BMBF) since 2020. FReDA is rooted in the Generation and Gender Survey 
(GGS) and the German Family Panel (pairfam). FReDA was initiated to facilitate 
research on family and demography by providing a comprehensive panel study 
allowing for international comparisons as well as dyadic analyses through a multi-
actor design. The survey covers major fi elds of family research, such as fertility 
behaviour, reproductive health, work-family confl ict, dyadic division of work, gender 
roles, intimate relations, separation and divorce, parenting and intergenerational 
relations, social inequalities, family attitudes, and well-being. FReDA interviews are 
conducted in a self-administered web-based (CAWI) or paper-based (PAPI) manner. 
The infrastructure consists of two different samples. First, the new FReDA-GGS 
survey started in early 2021, with a wave 1 study population of individuals aged 18 
to 49 years and their partners. Second, the FReDA-pairfam survey will continue the 
14-wave pairfam sample from 2022 onwards. The questionnaires of both samples 
will be harmonised as FReDA evolves. Data accessibility, organisation, and future 
perspectives of the data infrastructure are described and discussed in the paper’s 
conclusions.

Keywords: Family research · Social demography · Dyadic multi-actor design · GGS · 
pairfam · Panel survey · Data infrastructure 

Comparative Population Studies
Vol. 46 (2021): 149-186 (Date of release: 21.06.2021)

Federal Institute for Population Research 2021 URL: www.comparativepopulationstudies.de
      DOI: https://doi.org/10.12765/CPoS-2021-06
      URN: urn:nbn:de:bib-cpos-2021-06en7
    



•    Norbert F. Schneider et al.150

1 Introduction – Why is FReDA necessary?

In highly developed countries, fundamental changes for families and their 
surrounding conditions are challenging family researchers and demographers 
(Chambers 2012; Esping-Andersen 2009; Goldscheider et al. 2015; Schneider/
Kreyenfeld 2021; Seltzer et al. 2005). Although the majority of babies are still more 
likely to be born to a mother-father married couple than to any other family type 
(Smock/Greenland 2010: 576), families in Europe and worldwide are increasingly 
heterogeneous and have become a more complex phenomenon for at least nine 
related reasons:

(1) Individualisation processes have led to a growing diversity of intimate 
relationships and a deinstitutionalisation of partnership relations (Chambers 
2012; Schneider 2012). Family forms such as non-married families, single-
parent families, patchwork families, same-sex families, and living apart 
together (LAT) are increasing in almost all European countries. 

(2) In addition, processes of family development are increasingly diverse. 
Concepts of family development and the life cycle (Martin 2018) have become 
less applicable since intimate relationships, career entry, living together, 
marriage, and having children are optional, fl uid, and occur in diverse 
sequences; thus family behaviour and dynamics are changing. Contemporary 
family dynamics are characterised by decreasing institutionalisation, a high 
diversity between social groups, and possibly processes of re-standardisation. 

(3) The emergence of medically assisted reproduction (MAR) technology has 
made the fertility process more diverse (Passet-Wittig/Bujard 2021), allowing 
new variants for third-party parenthood and a slightly longer “window of 
opportunity” for having children (Habbema et al. 2015). 

(4) The gender revolution (Goldscheider et al. 2015) has fundamentally changed 
women’s and (to a lesser degree; England 2010) men’s life courses as well as 
the way couples organise their careers, housework, care, and parenting. In 
some European countries, family policy has reacted to these changes with 
a paradigm shift from familialism to defamilialism (Esping-Andersen 2009). 
The concept of “defamilialism” means that in welfare states, the state and the 
market are increasingly performing tasks that were previously the family’s 
responsibility. 

(5) Thereby, the relationship between family and society has changed, since the 
state now takes responsibility for care, in order to allow for the shift from the 
family as an institution to more individualistic patterns with greater gender 
equity. Concerns about low and lowest low fertility in Europe (Kohler et 
al. 2002) and the perception of policy options to reconcile work and family 
(McDonald 2002) have increased the visibility of family policy. In Germany 
and several other European countries, there was a paradigm shift with new 
parental leave policies and a threefold increase in childcare slots since the 
early 2000s. 

(6) Digitalisation has changed family and private lives in several ways, including 
family communication, the emergence of online dating, options for working 
from home, and time spent with children (Danielsbacka et al. 20 20). 

(7) The spread of new normative patterns regarding education and parenthood 
have led to a signifi cant change in parent-child relationships and to the 



Family Research and Demographic Analysis (FReDA)    • 151

emancipation of children. This has accelerated the transition to families with 
fewer children. Heightened expectations of successful parenting and "good" 
parents have made the transition to parenthood more pre-suppositional 
and the consequences of parenting more palpable for parents (Merkle/
Wippermann 2008). 

(8) The family remains the most important institution for primary socialisation 
(e.g. Grundmann 2021). Everyday social practice in the family is highly different 
compared to social and peer groups. Thereby, its societal importance and 
function varies over time, between societal groups and between cultures. The 
processes of socialisation are primarily infl uenced by changes in children’s 
and parents’ everyday lives, changes in intergenerational relationships, and 
changes in the interfaces between the family and other social institutions, 
namely school, childcare, and the labour market. 

(9) In particular, due to the limitations of the offi cial statistics, FReDA aims to 
improve empirical knowledge on multi-local families. Multi-locality is a 
phenomenon of increasing importance for family life as a consequence of 
increased geographical mobility, divorce and closer intergenerational ties (as 
previously pursued by the pairfam project, Huinink et al. 2011: 78). 

For cutting-edge research on these challenges, appropriate data is key. Despite 
considerable progress in family and demographic research, the gap between data 
needs and existing data has increased over recent decades. This is especially true 
for Germany. At the same time, there has been substantial progress in the area of 
data collection, with novel possibilities due to digitalisation and advances in survey 
infrastructures. However, these general infrastructures were only used for other 
topics, further increasing the gap between existing and potential data for family 
research. The hitherto existing data infrastructures for family and demography on 
younger generations are highly fragmented in Germany, but also in Europe. The 
Generation and Gender Survey (GGS) is a well-established survey programme for 
family and demographic research that has been conducted in 19 countries (Gauthier 
et al. 2018; Vikat et al. 2007), providing representative data after weighting (Fokkema 
et al. 2016). However, the three-year distance between panel waves is a problem for 
panel analyses and leads to a high attrition of respondents. Therefore, only fi ve of 
the original 19 countries (until 2019) conducted more than two GGS waves. Data for 
a second wave are currently available for 14 countries (www.ggp-i.org). Another 
problem of the Generation and Gender Programme was that some countries 
used questionnaires not completely comparable with the general template due to 
country-specifi c interests and circumstances. The German Family Panel pairfam 
(Panel Analysis of Intimate Relationships and Family Dynamics) is a long-running 
annual panel study on partnership and family dynamics which follows a multi-actor 
design (Huinink et al. 2011). Despite the advantages of cohort designs for specifi c 
research questions, its focus on four birth cohorts (1971-73, 1981-83, 1991-93, and 
2001-03) limits its representation of the general population and comparability with 
other studies. Furthermore, substantively more focussed datasets, such as AiD:A 
(Walper et al. 2015) or “Familienleitbilder” (Diabaté et al. 2019; Schneider et al. 2015), 
also offer relevant content for family research. However, they only have two or three 
waves, a lower number of respondents, and are only internationally comparable to 
a certain degree.



•    Norbert F. Schneider et al.152

The fragmentation in family and demographic research becomes apparent when 
contrasted to data infrastructures for other research areas and age groups. The 
German Socio-Economic Panel study (SOEP) (Goebel et al. 2019) and the National 
Educational Panel Study (NEPS) (Blossfeld et al. 2011) are examples of large-scale 
long-term annual surveys covering research areas such as income, wealth, and 
the labour market (SOEP) and education (NEPS). The Survey of Health, Ageing and 
Retirement in Europe (SHARE) has the advantage of strict international comparability 
and currently consists of seven waves for the areas health, socio-economic status, 
and family networks, but is focussed on the age group 50 and older (Börsch-Supan 
et al. 2005). 

At present, the GGP – and the GGS as its core content – is readjusting its 
procedures and restarting data collection efforts. These readjustments comprise 
the organisation and governance of the GGP, the survey modes, as well as a broadly 
renewed GGS questionnaire (Gauthier et al. 2020) and a new data collecting strategy 
in the participating countries. With the end of the long-term funding of pairfam 
by the German Research Foundation (DFG) in 2022, the need and the possibility 
for starting a new family panel in Germany has arisen. The basis of the panel is a 
questionnaire that is comparable with other countries as a GGS and also opens up 
the chance to continue pairfam as a long-term study. 

Building on the experiences gained in the international GGS and in pairfam, the 
project “Family Research and Demographic Analysis” (FReDA) aims to solve the 
data fragmentation problem by integrating the new German GGS sample (FReDA-
GGS), which is comparable with several European countries, and the pairfam sample 
(FReDA-pairfam), with its rich body of longitudinal information from up to 14 previous 
waves of data collection. We thereby create a novel family-demographic panel 
covering the complete family development process for the ages 18-49, including 
partnership, fertility, parenting, and divorce, as well as contexts such as the labour 
market, mobility, health, and social networks. FReDA thus combines the advantages 
of a representative, large-scale long-term annual survey with an international 
comparison. A major characteristic of FReDA is the consistent implementation of 
a multi-actor design by interviewing as many partners as possible for all anchor 
persons. In the initial phase, the project will not collect information from other actors 
in the family, such as children or grandparents. “Multi-actor” here means a dyadic 
multi-actor design. The selection of the contents of the measuring instruments is 
guided by the requirements of the life course paradigm (see below). In order to 
adequately collect life course data, the questionnaire combines well-established 
and innovative user-driven instruments and follows an interdisciplinary strategy 
by including content from sociology, demography, psychology, and economics, as 
well as elements from education and health. Whereas FReDA-pairfam continues 
a successful long-run panel study, FReDA-GGS provides the opportunity of 
starting a fresh panel, allowing for the use of innovative survey design and data 
management methods. Therefore, additional key features of FReDA are the use 
of mixed CAWI/PAPI self-administered questionnaires, bi-annual data collection, 
and to the collection of geo-referenced data. This reference paper introduces the 
development, scope, and design of FReDA, including challenges of family and 



Family Research and Demographic Analysis (FReDA)    • 153

social demography research and key features (Section 2), the questionnaire and 
core research fi elds (Section 3), survey design (Section 4), data accessibility and 
the project’s organisational structure (Section 5), and concludes by providing some 
further perspectives (Section 6).

2 Challenges of family and demographic research and key features of 
FReDA

2.1 Objectives

The main objective of FReDA is to cover the family development processes and 
the interaction of different life spheres such as partnership, parenting, gainful 
employment, and leisure activities during the life course in the ages from 18 to 49. 
FReDA aims to capture the current situation of family life and the above-mentioned 
changes for families and their surrounding conditions in depth – including family 
forms, family dynamics and behaviour, fertility, parenting, socialisation, separation 
and divorce, decision-making processes, changes in attitudes and gender norms, 
effects of policy, and digitalisation. 

The process of family development is embedded in the life course, both of which 
are complex and dynamic processes. Therefore, a dynamic concept for explaining 
individual behaviour and decision-making during the life course is required as a 
basis for the construction of the survey instruments and for their openness. The 
aim of explaining family development in the life course is a demanding task not only 
for theory but also for data and methods, requiring the examination of individuals 
and family members for a longer period. Longitudinal and biographical data that 
are appropriate for event history models and for sequence analyses are needed for 
the study of family trajectories, their timing and sequence, and patterns of family 
development. 

Furthermore, FReDA is intended to enable comprehensive analyses of the 
mechanism of family behaviour in a multi-actor perspective. Causes of outcomes 
of family dynamics, intergenerational bonds, life satisfaction, and family well-
being are often the results of correlated individual and dyadic actions. This ideally 
requires data on all family members, such as partners, children, and grandparents. 
FReDA starts by systematically gathering information stemming from both partners 
independently. 

The functioning of a family, the subjective well-being of family members, and 
the processes of family development are strongly infl uenced by the societal role of 
the family as a social institution. In particular, the interrelationships of family and 
surrounding social institutions (childcare, education, work, and others) are of great 
importance here. FReDA has set itself the goal of collecting data on the changes in 
these interrelations in order to better understand family life and family development.

Finally, as a family-demographic infrastructure, FReDA pursues the goal of 
generating internationally comparable data which are equally suitable for improving 
theoretical and empirical scientifi c research, social reporting, and policy advice. 



•    Norbert F. Schneider et al.154

2.2 Life course perspective and panel data

FReDA is guided by the life course paradigm, in which life spheres are seen as 
interwoven. Changes in one sphere are embedded in, and have consequences for, 
the others (Elder 1994). In the context of family, the life courses of family members 
are also linked with each other. Therefore, the linked life paradigm also guides 
FReDA. 

In a recent work, Bernardi et al. (2019) presented a further developed 
concept of life course as a complex set of interdependencies, which we use as 
the theoretical basis for FReDA. They name three main interdependencies (or 
“fi rst order interdependencies”: ibid: 3): the life history-related interdependence, 
the interdependence of life domains, and those across levels. The multilevel 
interdependence “connects individual action and behaviour over the life course 
…. with the life course of other people, social networks, and the ‘external’ societal 
opportunity structure” (ibid: 2). Consequently, the life course can be seen as a 
“steady fl ow of an individual’s actions and experiences, which modify domain-
specifi c biographical states and affect individual well-being over time” (ibid: 7). 
From this perspective the creation of a systematic connection between the life 
course paradigm, action theory, and event-related data is essential. Another vital 
need is providing data that are appropriate for both theory testing and theory 
development, and that meet the high methodological requirements life course 
research presupposes. Both are main concerns of FReDA. 

In this sense, FReDA follows a universal panel structure with annual interviews, 
wherein a specifi c set of questions will be asked every year in the same way. Some 
questions are even asked twice a year. This frequency, which is higher than the 
three-year rhythm of GGS and partially higher than pairfam and SOEP, allows for 
identifying turning points or disruptions in trajectories due to decisions, partner 
behaviour, and external shocks (Bernardi et al. 2019). Furthermore, the fi rst wave 
of FReDA-GGS features a comprehensive set of biographical questions in order to 
capture central life course events occurring before the panel’s timeframe.

2.3 Individual and dyadic decision-making

Decision-making processes in families and relationships are often dyadic. Therefore, 
individual-level approaches and analyses typically are not suffi cient. At least two 
actors are involved in most family decisions, and outcomes are often the result 
of longer-term bargaining processes and compromises. Dyadic negotiations and 
decision-making processes are integral parts of the life course paradigm, as the 
concept of linked lives shows (Elder 1994). This is also refl ected in psychological 
theories on fertility behaviour (Ajzen/Klobas 2013; Miller et al. 2004), sociological 
approaches (Brehm/Schneider 2019), as well as economic bargaining approaches 
(Beblo 2001). The life course domains for children, work, and mobility have to be 
harmonised within couples to some degree. Despite recent advances using pairfam 
data (Bauer/Kneip 2014; Hudde/Engelhardt 2020; Johnson et al. 2019; Stein/Willen 
2018), there is a clear research gap for dyadic analyses in family science and 



Family Research and Demographic Analysis (FReDA)    • 155

demography, as these theoretical approaches are less often analysed. This is due 
to the lack of dyadic data, since many data infrastructures and panels only collect 
individual data.

FReDA follows a multi-actor design to reduce this lack of information and collects 
data regarding the respondent’s partner every year. One challenge of dyadic data is 
that anchors have different partnerships throughout the life course and the few data 
sets that do include partners only consider the current partner. This does not allow 
for analysing the consequences of separation for both partners. Therefore, FReDA 
also collects partner data in cases of separation for at least one additional wave, and 
aims to integrate new partners into the yearly surveys.

2.4 Culture and structure: international comparison

Structural factors play a key role in rational choice approaches in family science, such 
as the economic theory of the family (Becker 1981) or rational choice approaches 
in Sociology, which challenge utility maximisation and highlight satisfaction, 
information, and frames (Esser 2004; Lindenberg 1985). In contrast, cultural 
approaches highlight roles, different family-specifi c norms; (Schneider et al. 2015; 
for norms on being a “family” see Lück/Ruckdeschel 2018), and attitudes, such as 
the ideal number of children (Testa 2012). Cultural approaches and rational choice 
approaches should be further integrated – following Boudon (2003: 17), “beliefs, 
actions, and attitudes should be treated as rational”. Analyses of culture and 
structure benefi t from combining the micro and macro levels. Macro level factors 
such as institutions, policies, the socio-structural composition of the population, 
economic change, and cultural change can infl uence individual and dyadic 
behaviours of families, and vice versa. The mechanisms and interdependencies 
of the macro-micro-macro-link (Coleman 1990) are decisive in understanding the 
dynamic changes of families and societies. However, macro and micro approaches 
for studying families are often disparate, leading to a fragmentation of research. 
However, the life course paradigm uses a multi-level structure by highlighting the 
institutionalisation of the life course (Kohli 2007) and specifying the connection 
of multilevel structure with time-related interdependencies and multiple domains 
(Bernardi et al. 2019).

Cultural, social, political, and economic conditions infl uence one’s possible 
scope and course of action at different levels: At the macro level, for example, 
through demographic structure, regional contexts, economic framework 
conditions, infrastructure, and socio-political provisions. At the meso level, features 
of the social context such as social networks and institutional embedding in the 
labour market are signifi cant. Finally, at the micro level, individual features of 
the household, partnerships, and family development are at play. These include 
biographical experiences and psychological dispositions of the individual, as well 
as individual and family resources such as time, money, education, social skills, and 
health (Huinink/Feldhaus 2008: 26f.). 

FReDA collects data for economic as well as structural and cultural factors. 
In order to analyse both micro and macro patterns, the international comparison 



•    Norbert F. Schneider et al.156

is decisive. National panel data allow for case studies with individual-level data. 
However, the results of case studies for several research questions are fragmented, 
since they depend on the specifi c context of a country’s institutional setting 
(Aisenbrey/Fasang 2017). Case studies of two or three countries are complex when 
aiming for a comparison using different data sets. Even then, conclusions on the 
infl uence of macro factors such as policy effects on behaviour are limited. Analyses 
of macro level data as conducted by OECD (Thévenon/Luci 2012) allow for comparing 
policies and institutions of twenty or thirty countries, but provide no information 
regarding the mechanism and processes of the individuals or dyads. Internationally 
comparable micro level panel data facilitates the analysis of transitions and 
trajectories in life course, as well as comparisons against the background of different 
institutional country-specifi c contexts by applying systematic micro-macro links. 
However, such data are rare in family science, with the exception of the GGS round 
starting in the 2000s (Vikat et al. 2007). FReDA has the advantage of being part of 
the internationally coordinated GGS surveys with the renewed GGS questionnaire 
 (Gauthier et al. 2020), allowing for analyses of Germany to be compared to the 
cultural, institutional, and economic background of other European countries and 
for analyses of family diversity and of convergence or divergence in family changes 
across Europe (Schneider 2012).

2.5 Combining survey data with regional data by geo-referencing

Cultural and structural factors not only differ between countries, but also within 
them. The cultural heritage of regions is longstanding (e.g. Klüsener/Goldstein 
2016), especially regarding Catholicism and Protestantism as well as the differences 
between former East and West German states (Schneider et al. 2012). In addition, 
structural regional opportunities such as labour markets, GDP, infrastructure, and 
housing strongly vary and are associated with different living conditions and fertility 
levels, to name only two consequences (Bujard/Scheller 2017). Furthermore, the 
regional composition of the population regarding age, education, ethnicity (Hank/
Huinink 2015), and childcare coverage strongly vary on the district level and 
contribute to different labour force participation (Zoch/Hondralis 2017) and attitudes 
towards childcare for toddlers (Zoch/Schober 2018). FReDA will enable combining 
its survey data with contextual information for ecological analyses on different 
levels of aggregation and administrative units  (for pairfam, see Schmiedeberg 2015). 
FReDA will collaborate with the Federal Agency for Cartography and Geodesy (BKG) 
for geo-referencing. 

2.6 Enhancing multidisciplinary research: Family Science and Social 
Demography

Research on the family is generally fragmented across many disciplines; academic 
journals and concepts are related to family sociology, family demography, family 
economy, and so on, but the term “family science” – which we prefer in terms of 
multidisciplinarity – is rarely used. Sociology and demography are often closely 



Family Research and Demographic Analysis (FReDA)    • 157

related, a large proportion of publications in demographic journals come from 
sociologists, so this combined approach can be labelled “social demography” (Hank/
Kreyenfeld 2015). However, many psychological concepts are highly relevant for 
family science but are only occasionally used in demography or in family research. 
A few psychological concepts, such as the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) 
 (Ajzen 1991) or the Traits-Desire-Intension-theory (Miller et al. 2004), are used more 
frequently in demography. The TPB is and will remain a core theoretical foundation 
of the GGS. Some family researchers use measurements such as life satisfaction 
(Pavot/Diener 2008) or simplifi ed indicators of the Big Five personality traits (OCEAN-
model); both of which are elements of pairfam, which seek to combine sociological 
and psychological research. In the longer term, family research should also aim 
to integrate epidemio-, bio-, physio- and neurological research, at least to a basic 
degree. However, the exchange between family sociology and psychology remains 
limited. The economic approach to the family of the “Chicago School” is well known 
(Becker 1981), especially concepts such as opportunity costs (Mincer 1963) and 
bargaining models (Muthoo 1999). While the value of children approach (VOC) (Nauck 
2014) is one example of connectivity between cultural and economic approaches, 
recent economic analyses of the family are often disparate. This is illustrated by the 
low degree of cross-citations between family demography, family economy, and 
family psychology. Beyond the mentioned disciplines, educational science, political 
science, and public health are also relevant for analysing families. Facilitating the 
integration of these diverse perspectives and countering fragmentation is one 
goal of FReDA. FReDA follows a multidisciplinary framework and includes sets of 
items from different disciplines, allowing for analyses of sociological, economic, 
psychological, and public health variables within one panel. Thereby, FReDA aims 
to contribute to a more integrative family science (Fasang et al. 2016).

The description of further key features of FReDA related to its content and survey 
design is the focus of the two following sections. 

3 Questionnaire and core research fi elds

3.1 Overview and comparability over several waves

The guiding principle of the FReDA questionnaire – which follows a modularised 
design – is a mix of well-established scales, new items, and a permanently anchored 
process for innovation. For the initial panel wave (W1), the FReDA-GGS questionnaire 
is based on the German translation of the large-scale renewed international GGS 
questionnaire (Gauthier et al. 2020), thus taking advantage of the readjustment 
of the GGS – a promising strategy since several European countries are planning 
to start a new data collection with a new sample and the renewed questionnaire 
around 2021. Whereas most other countries participating in the GGS follow a 
three-year interval panel design, FReDA uses more frequent data collection with 
annual waves consisting of bi-annual interviews. The annual panel waves consist 
of repeated modules (a “core questionnaire” based on GGS items, which are for a 



•    Norbert F. Schneider et al.158

signifi cant proportion harmonised with pairfam items), additional modules chosen 
from pairfam, as well as “open modules” (Fig. 1). 

The questionnaires include questions that are repeated annually. This is 
important, since analyses with panel data are often based on event history analyses 
(Blossfeld et al. 2019) or fi xed effect analyses (Allison 2009). In SOEP, NEPS, and 
pairfam, the annually repeated part amounts to more than half of the questionnaire. 
The core questionnaire, featuring items comparable with the international GGS, 
records annual changes regarding family, work, mobility, and partnership biography, 
as well as attitudes and psychological items. Several pairfam questions are identical 
to GGS questions in the core questionnaire, or at least comparable (see Hiekel et al. 
2015, for an exemple). These intersections speak to the high comparability of GGS 
and pairfam. Similar items were carefully harmonised in order to achieve the best 
possible comparability (e.g. by translating the GGS to German) for their inclusion 
in FReDA’s core questionnaire. Several existing pairfam modules were selected for 
follow-up waves of FReDA to deepen and expand the initial GGS questionnaire with 
psychological and sociological modules. Furthermore, to refl ect new interests and 
innovative measurement approaches, FReDA will use open calls for questions from 
which so-called open modules will be created. 

For the purpose of international comparability, some GGS items which are not 
part of the FReDA core questionnaire will be asked every three years. Moreover, 
due to the stability of some item batteries (such as the Big Five personality traits), a 
rotating design with constant intervals is used for these items. 

Fig. 1: Content of the FReDA-GGS-questionnaire for the fi rst fi ve waves

Source: own fi gure



Family Research and Demographic Analysis (FReDA)    • 159

The partner questionnaire contains comprehensive coverage of partners’ 
sociodemographic factors, life course events, and attitudes. Therefore, those 
questions from the anchor questionnaire which are of interest for dyadic analyses 
and allow for systematic comparison are used.

3.2 Wave 1: FReDA-GGS

The GGS questionnaire (Gauthier et al. 2020) is a well-known instrument fi rst 
developed in the early 2000s (Vikat et al. 2007) and conducted in 20 countries 
between 2004 and 2020. For these countries, the GGS provides representative data. 
It has more than 4,500 registered users worldwide (Fokkema et al. 2016; Gauthier 
et al. 2018). The GGP conducted a realignment as part of the process for being 
recognised as an EU emerging project by 2017; and the EC-funded project Evaluate, 
Plan, Initiate (GGP-EPI) aimed to prepare the GGP to be part of the EU-recognised 
permanent European-based research infrastructures, such as SHARE and European 
Social Survey (ESS). A crucial part of this alignment is a completely new start of data 
collection with a revised questionnaire and the introduction of new survey modes. 

The basis of the technical alignment within GGP-EPI was a pilot conducted 
by GGP and BiB in Germany, Croatia, and Portugal in 2018 (Emery et al. 2019). It 
tested the questionnaire for both CAWI and face-to-face interviews, which guided 
the process of making the questionnaire suitable for both modes and provided 
information for possible cuts. In November 2018, the GGS questionnaire task force 
suggested extensive changes for renewing the questionnaire to the GGP consortium 
board, which were improved and subsequently implemented and tested. Thereby a 
considerable number of questions which showed high dropout rates in the GGP-EPI 
pilot (Emery et al. 2019), especially parts featuring the theory of planned behaviour 
and the network sections, were shortened. The strategy was to add new questions, 
in order to capture new developments in family research and demography, such 
as enhanced measures for migrants, fertility ideals, health, reproductive health, 
mobility, digitalisation, and attitudes towards gendered working hours (Gauthier et 
al. 2020). In addition, some routings and categories were improved.

The GGS is constructed for a repetition every three years in participating 
European (and several non-European) countries (GGP 2020). Therefore, the FReDA-
GGS Waves 1, 4, 7, and so on are primarily based on the international GGS rounds 
of data collection. These questionnaires are complemented by a few questions 
relevant for the German context such as parental leave and rent. Additionally, Wave 
1 includes questions on the COVID-19 pandemic. In the following, we introduce the 
sections of the GGS questionnaire in the context of current research.

Demography

The demography section of the questionnaire contains socio-demographic 
measures such as age, origin, education, employment, housing, mobility, and – to 
some extent – migration and partnership biographies. In Germany, the proportion 
of persons with a migration background has been increasing for decades: In 2019, 



•    Norbert F. Schneider et al.160

the share of population with migration background was 26 percent, with almost 
one half being foreigners (48 percent) and the other (52 percent) having German 
citizenship (BiB 2020). The shares are higher among the younger generations, which 
are covered in FReDA (BiB 2020). Family events and migration are interdependent 
in the life course (Kulu/Milewski 2007). Migrant fertility patterns are shaped by 
processes of adaptation, socialisation, and disruption (Baykara-Krumme/Milewski 
2017), and there are compositional effects on fertility measures. There is an ever-
increasing relevance of research on diversity and the adaptation of attitudes and 
behaviour of fi rst and second migrant generations, but still a considerable lack of 
data on this topic. Besides measuring the country of birth for the anchor, partner, 
and parents, the renewed GGS also measures languages usually spoken and plans 
of moving to another country. 

For representative studies, adequate coverage of people with migration 
experiences is a special challenge that is diffi cult to meet. FReDA tries to meet this 
challenge in part by offering questionnaires in German and three other languages 
(see Section 4.1.). 

Internal migration plays a key role for the distribution of the population. Europe 
currently shows patterns of urbanisation as well as de-concentration (Rowe et al. 
2019). In the last decade in Germany, families have increasingly moved to lower-
density localities (Stawarz/Sander 2019). Cohort fertility rates vary strongly within 
German counties (Verwaltungskreise), which is substantially associated with 
urbanisation and the availability of spacious dwellings (Bujard/Scheller 2017). The 
questionnaire measures housing, past mobility patterns, and future mobility plans. 
Furthermore, since digitalisation and media use – which are increasing during the 
Covid-19 pandemic – are relevant for families (Coyne et al. 2014), the questionnaire 
captures these items. The combination of measures on internal migration, socio-
demography, housing, and media use with geo-referenced data is a promising 
option for future research and analyses. 

Many life course decisions– such as starting a common household, marriage, 
having children and parenting – are made by couples. Others are at least often 
shaped within relationships, such as working hours or attitudes. The processes of 
communication and disagreement within couples are central for fertility decisions 
(Brehm/Schneider 2019; Miller et al. 2004). Partnership quality and stability are 
shaped by skills and traits, situational factors, as well as communication styles (Sillars 
et al. 2004). The combination of trivial daily events and interpersonal communication 
is decisive for the appraisal of stress in divorce (Bodenmann et al. 2007). Life 
satisfaction and partnership satisfaction are strongly related between intimate 
partners. It is know that one partner’s unemployment or stress in the workplace also 
infl uence the life satisfaction of the other partner (Luhmann et al. 2014). Therefore, 
the questionnaire captures comprehensive sociodemographic information about 
the current partner, but also factors such as partnership satisfaction, confl icts, 
agreement or disagreement on important topics, and patterns of communication.



Family Research and Demographic Analysis (FReDA)    • 161

Life history

Since the onset of the Second Demographic Transition (Lesthaeghe 2010), marriage 
has been declining and cohabitation and non-marital parenthood has been 
increasing in most European countries. Union formation, cohabitation, marriage, and 
childbearing are postponed, often to ages above 30 (Sobotka/Berghammer 2021). 
These family life histories are interrelated and also interact with other life domains 
such as education, work, and mobility. Continuing diversity despite converging 
megatrends characterise the change and the current situation of the family in 
Europe (Schneider 2015). Signifi cant differences can be observed not only between 
but also within countries. Within Germany, especially between East and West, there 
are substantial differences which are not only rooted in different political systems 
during the division of Germany, but also have older historical causes (Klüsener/
Goldstein 2016). Due to different degrees of religiosity, social structures, and quite 
diverse degrees of urbanisation and industrialisation, family patterns were and still 
are different. Family forms have become increasingly complex since the 1960s, with 
a growing proportion of one-parent families, patchwork families, and stepparents 
(Steinbach et al. 2016). Voluntary childlessness within or without marriage is 
widely accepted and established throughout Europe. Social change in the context 
of individualisation and new partner market opportunities increase the chance of 
having a higher frequency of relationships within the life course and increases the 
probability of separation (Rapp et al. 2015). As one consequence of this dynamic, 
the post-separation family has become more and more important. Especially in 
case of parenthood, divorce does not mean the end of the family, but rather the 
transformation into a post-divorce family. Little is known about family relationships 
after separation. For example, knowledge about the father-child relationship and its 
impact on the well-being of all family members in the years following separation 
is limited. Previous studies have, however, shed light on the role of joint custody 
(Köppen et al. 2018).

The complexity of family dynamics poses challenges for measuring the diversity 
of family forms and of fertility. Biological children, adopted children, and children 
from previous partners of both anchor and partner must be measured precisely in 
order to generate reliable data on family forms and social parenthood. 

Fertility

For decades, low and lowest-low fertility – with period total fertility rates (PTFR) 
below 1.5 – has been a phenomenon of several highly-developed countries in Europe 
(Kohler et al. 2002), as well as some East Asian countries. Persistently low fertility 
results in population aging and decline, both of which have severe consequences 
for pensions, health systems, the economy, labour markets, party systems, and 
society (Bujard 2015). The fertility section is the most frequently analysed section 
in the GGS. Plenty of research has used the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen 
1991) to analyse child intentions, using the combination of behavioural, normative, 
and control beliefs (Ajzen/Klobas 2013) and focussing on a specifi c timespan (three 



•    Norbert F. Schneider et al.162

years in the GGS) for “intentions in competing domains” (Vikat et al. 2007). Fertility 
intentions, and the failure to realise them, have been analysed in the context of family 
policies (Billingsley/Ferrarini 2014), post-communist fertility transitions (Spéder/
Kapitány 2014), residential mobility (Vidal et al. 2017), and persistent joblessness 
(Busetta et al. 2019). The GGS questionnaire covers fertility intentions in the next 
three years, necessary conditions, and anticipated effects on various aspects of 
life. The GGS measure of period and cohort fertility is accurate for the younger and 
middle-aged cohorts (Vergauwen et al. 2015). The questionnaire captures the life 
history of previous partners and of anchors’ and partners’ adopted and biological 
children.

There are different measures of “hypothetical fertility” such as intentions, 
norms, attitudes, and ideals (Philipov/Bernardi 2011). An overview of European 
surveys between 2005-2012 shows that around 60 percent of women aged 15-49 
have an ideal family size of two children, refl ecting a persistent two-child norm 
(Sobotka/Beaujouan 2014). Such norms limit the scope of economic approaches 
to fertility, because once a couple has fulfi lled a two-child ideal, policies or income 
lose relevance. However, a two-child norm does not result in PTFR of 2.0, since 
in modern societies the share of permanent childlessness is often around 15 or 
20 percent (Kreyenfeld/Konietzka 2017). In Germany, decomposition analyses show 
that the decline of large families (parity 3 or more) has a higher impact on the 
decrease of the cohort total fertility rates than increasing childlessness does (Bujard/
Sulak 2016). Therefore, understanding changes of fertility ideals is decisive. Fertility 
ideals change over ages and cohorts (Testa 2012), and highly-educated women have 
higher life-time fertility intentions (Testa 2014), resulting in a wider fertility gap for 
this group. The questionnaire askes for the personal and general ideal number of 
children, and captures the norms of a specifi c family size as perceived in society and 
the personal ideal. 

Fertility behaviour and outcomes cannot simply be analysed by referring to 
ideals or planned behaviour; they rather depend on the physiological and medical 
ability to have children. Medical infertility increases with age, especially for women; 
however, lifetime prevalence is rarely measured. In contrast, the self-perception 
of infertility, or more precisely of the inability to procreate, can be measured over 
the life course; it turns out to be a temporal phenomenon which is shaped by 
health, the life course itself, and socio-structural factors (Passet-Wittig et al. 2020). 
Increasingly, the use of medically assisted reproduction (MAR) is a relevant factor 
for fertility behaviour and outcomes (Geyter et al. 2018). Estimations show that MAR 
has had the potential to almost neutralise the postponement effect on the increase 
of involuntary childlessness in recent decades (te Velde et al. 2012). Infertility, its 
perception, and infertility treatment often are associated with distress (Greil et al. 
2011). The questionnaire covers information on reproductive health, MAR, sexual 
intercourse, contraception, and infertility perceptions for both anchor and partner.



Family Research and Demographic Analysis (FReDA)    • 163

Division of housework

It is well known that the previously equal division of housework often becomes 
unequal during the course of a relationship, especially after the birth of children or 
after marriage (Nitsche/Grunow 2016). Inequalities in the division of household work 
are associated with perceptions of unfairness, especially in countries with gender 
equity institutions (Greenstein 2009). The division of household chores follows a 
couple’s bargaining process, whereby attitudes and resources such as different 
earnings potentials are crucial (Esping-Andersen/Schmitt 2020). The questionnaire 
records the division of several different tasks in the household and of childcare, an 
appraisal of fairness, and the decision-making process.

Some households outsource housework to cleaning services. Childcare is also 
often provided outside the household, especially through public care infrastructure 
and social networks. Institutional childcare and the expectation of informal care 
from grandparents can positively infl uence the transition to having a fi rst child 
(Hank et al. 2004). Against this background, the questionnaire measures the use of 
various childcare services and patterns of help within the network and kin.

Generations and well-being

Research suggests that adult intergenerational relationship quality is an important 
contributor to quality of life and enhanced well-being, as well as a precursor to the 
exchange of support and care. Conversely, having distant or fractious relationships 
is associated with deleterious outcomes, such as greater depression, lower life 
satisfaction, increased health diffi culties, and earlier mortality  (for a review, see 
Steinbach/Hank 2016). Fully understanding the complexities of intergenerational 
relations requires theory regarding the dimensions that connect individuals 
across generations. The solidarity-confl ict paradigm proposed by Bengtson and 
colleagues (Bengtson et al. 2002) provides a useful conceptual scheme for mapping 
the emotions, behaviours, and norms that characterise these relationships. The 
questionnaire covers several core dimensions of this model, namely geographic 
proximity and frequency of contact (refl ecting the opportunity structure for 
intergenerational interaction; Hank 2007), as well as the quality of respondents’ 
relationships with their parents (see Hank et al. 2017 for an exemple using pairfam). 
Instruments capturing further dimensions of the model were shifted to the second 
GGS wave scheduled for 2024 (that is, FReDA’s Wave 4). 

Work and Income 

In the life course of young and middle-aged adults, work biographies and family 
trajectories are more or less intertwined with each other at the individual level as well 
as between partners (Aisenbrey/Fasang 2017). The division of gainful employment 
and family work between men and women still features severe differences and 
refl ects societal gender roles and task-sharing in the relationship. However, there 
are considerable differences among women regarding their preferences and needs 



•    Norbert F. Schneider et al.164

concerning employment, family work, and responsibilities in family care (Hakim 
2003). Social norms and expectations infl uence these preferences and the related 
behavioural patterns. European countries have been experiencing a decades-
long, sustained increase of female labour market participation. This development 
is associated with shifts in gender equality and family-oriented policies aiming 
to reconcile work and family; however, these changes remain ongoing (Esping-
Andersen 2009). Beyond progress in reconciliation policies, work-family and family-
work confl icts impair professional careers for many women. Employment patterns 
are frequently “uneven and stalled” (Damaske/Frech 2016), as is the case for an 
increasing number of men in several western countries as well. 

In many countries in Europe and around the world, short-term and irregular work 
arrangements are increasing, including fi xed-term contracts, temporary agency 
work, or part-time work. Working irregularly is known as a risk factor for stress and life 
satisfaction; temporary work is often associated with a lower direct job satisfaction 
and lower life satisfaction due to poorer working conditions (Aleksynska 2018). 
The social stratifi cation for irregular work is well-known, including by gender, age, 
education, and ethnic background (Damaske/Frech 2016). In the work-family context, 
job-related mobility has far-reaching consequences for family-related decisions, 
quality of life, and health (Rüger et al. 2017). Voluntariness and designability are 
most important factors for health and subjective well-being, and therefore also 
are important in family life and family development. The questionnaire covers 
information on occupation biographies, working hours, irregular work, commuting 
time, subjective stress measures concerning work, and other important risk factors 
of well-being. 

Even in many European welfare states, up to one sixth of inhabitants are at-
risk of poverty and in most countries, child poverty exceeds the overall proportion 
(Atkinson/Marlier 2010). Social inequality and income poverty can be associated 
with disadvantages in health, social participation, societal inclusion, education, 
well-being, and housing (Bradshaw/Nieuwenhuis 2021). Higher levels of inequality 
are associated with lower life satisfaction not only for poor, but also for middle class 
families, especially when they have economic worries (Roth et al. 2017). For family 
life, child well-being and family-related decisions, earnings, and income including 
welfare state benefi ts are important factors. Therefore, the questionnaire covers 
different kinds of household income, the subjective appraisal of affordable goods, 
and future expectations.

Attitudes

Family development and family-related decision-making are not only infl uenced 
by structural or economic factors – norms and attitudes are also of importance. 
Attitudes often evolve during the life-long socialisation process, and can be changed 
by life course trajectories, such as the transition to parenthood. Past research has 
shown that attitudes towards motherhood and fatherhood can be affected by 
this transition (Buchler et al. 2017). However, it remains unclear whether attitudes 
infl uence the timing and probability of transitions and in which way transitions 



Family Research and Demographic Analysis (FReDA)    • 165

infl uence attitudes. Plenty of research has established that gender role attitudes 
infl uence behaviour (Katz-Wise et al. 2010), such as attitudes for fertility (Arpino et 
al. 2015). Individual attitudes can also be aggregated and used to measure broader 
norms, as shown by Panova and Buber-Ennser (2016) for the pervasiveness of 
traditional views regarding parental employment for 14 countries with GGS data. 
However, discrepancies between attitudes towards gender roles and real behaviour 
can often be observed. Because gender roles are changing and gender equality is 
increasingly accepted, social desirability is turning more and more important for 
the division of labour in the family. Even in families in which at least one partner has 
traditional attitudes towards gender roles, non-traditional patterns of the division 
of labour can occur. Therefore, the questionnaire covers broad attitudes regarding 
gender equality, as well as practical implementation, such as gendered beliefs 
towards ideal working hours. Furthermore, attitudes towards fertility, parenting, 
and religiosity are asked. One goal is to get more information about the complex 
interplay of structural factors, the economic situation, cultural norms on family 
development, and especially on the transition to parenthood.

COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged many survey research projects, including 
pairfam and FReDA-GGS (see Gummer et al. 2020), which had to adjust fi eldwork 
procedures with respect to the changing situation. At the same time, COVID-19 
triggered a plethora of new data collection efforts, only some of which built upon 
ongoing studies with near real-time information on how the virus changed family 
life (see, for example, the study by Hank and Steinbach (2021) based on the pairfam-
COVID-19 survey, described in Walper et al. 2020). Consequently, the FReDA-
GGS baseline questionnaire includes questions on COVID-19-specifi c concerns 
regarding health, the fi nancial situation, contact to other persons, and the appraisal 
of COVID-19 policies. FReDA is therefore well-positioned to provide insights on 
the medium- and long-term consequences of the pandemic on family life, family 
development, fertility, and family well-being. In addition, more generally, FReDA’s 
panel design with bi-annual interviews allows for the analysis of such exogenous 
shocks’ and policies’ effects on work, partnerships, families, and health, because 
these spheres are continuously covered in the questionnaire (see above).

3.3 Waves 2 and 3: FReDA-GGS core and psychological items derived 
from pairfam

The survey instruments of Waves 2, 3, 5 and 6 consist of core modules that allow 
for change measurements and are therefore repeated annually. Additionally, 
user-driven open modules are included, as are modules taken from the current 
pairfam survey instruments that primarily address psychological topics: (1) partner 
relationship quality, (2) personality and self-concept, and (3) subjective well-being. 
This is intended to better examine the interplay between individual psychological 



•    Norbert F. Schneider et al.166

characteristics and family development processes, living arrangements, and social 
and emotional well-being (Gerstorf et al. 2013; Neyer/Asendorpf 2018). For example, 
life forms such as living in a partnership or as a single person can be seen as an 
expression of the fi t between personality and relationship (Hagemeyer et al. 2015).

Partner Relationship Quality 

Partner relationships are among the closest and most important relationships 
individuals can have in contemporary societies (Neyer et al. 2011). The quality of 
partner relationships is a major predictor of relationship satisfaction and stability 
(Proulx et al. 2017). Based upon the assumption that good relationships are made 
of at least two persons, Finn et al. (2020) showed that co-development between 
individual views and evaluations of partner relationships is a safe baseline for 
satisfi ed and long-lasting units (see also Huston et al. 2001; Schoebi et al. 2012). 
Therefore, pairfam gathered a theoretically-informed set of indicators of relationship 
functioning that will be included in the FReDA panel study and which will be studied 
from the dyadic perspective of both partners. These are the fulfi lment of social needs 
(feelings of connectedness and intimacy), relationship satisfaction, commitment, and 
confl ict, providing a robust set of time-varying aspects of relationship functioning. 

Personality

Personality is defi ned as a relatively stable set of characteristics concerning the 
typical way an individual person thinks, feels, and behaves across a wide variety 
of situations, including social relationships. In pairfam and FReDA, we focus on the 
Big Five taxonomy (comprising the personality traits of neuroticism, extraversion, 
openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) as one of the most prominent 
trait models (Malouff et al. 2010). In addition, we study self-esteem as the central 
evaluative component of the self-concept, which is highly sensitive to relationship 
experiences (Luciano/Orth 2017). We assume that partners and family members 
need to negotiate how they can enact their personalities, pursue their goals, and 
fulfi l their needs within relationships via personality-relationship transactions 
(Neyer/Lehnart 2007). These transactional processes unfold over time and between 
both couple members, which is why it is crucial to assess them repeatedly in anchor 
and partner participants. For example, it has been shown that individual personality 
traits infl uence the relationship satisfaction of both partners (Robins et al. 2000), 
and personality may change in response to relationship experiences (Finn et al. 
2015).

Well-being

Individual and relational well-being are generally viewed as important outcomes 
of relationship and family life (Karney/Bradbury 1995; Reis et al. 2000). However, 
it is quite often overlooked that well-being may also in turn affect relationship and 
individual psychological functioning (Neyer/Asendorpf 2018). We therefore aim at 



Family Research and Demographic Analysis (FReDA)    • 167

assessing various aspects of well-being continuously in pairfam and FReDA. Among 
other factors, we focus on the loneliness that occurs when individuals perceive 
qualitative and quantitative features of their relationships as defi cient (Mund et al. 
2020). Because loneliness is an important predictor of health problems, it is also 
important to study depressiveness as a central indicator of negative affect. Both 
chronic loneliness and depressiveness represent crucial threats to life satisfaction, 
and conversely not feeling lonely and not experiencing negative affect are among 
the central pillars of a happy life.

4 Survey design

FReDA is one survey consisting of two samples: The new FReDA-GGS sample and 
the continued FReDA-pairfam sample. It is designed as a panel survey with bi-annual 
interviews conducted via self-administered mixed modes (online and postal) of the 
German general population between 18 and 49 years of age (and the four particular 
cohorts represented in the pairfam sample, see Section 4.2). The FReDA-GGS 
sample starts in 2021 and will be refreshed every three years; the pairfam sample 
will be continued as “FReDA-pairfam” from 2022 onwards, following 14 waves 
from 2008-2022 (see Fig. 2). We aim to interview anchor persons as well as their 
partners (if applicable). The general design principles of FReDA aim to ensure high 
panel stability, data quality, cost effi ciency, and inclusion of the offl ine population. 
Regarding the latter, we acknowledge that a signifi cant part of the population either 
has no access to the internet or does prefer not to participate in surveys such as 
FReDA via the web. Based on extensive experimentation in the European Values 
Study (EVS) 2017 in Germany, Wolf et al. (2021) report that, if given the choice during 
the fi rst contact, roughly 80 percent of respondents decided to participate via a 
paper-based, mailed questionnaire. In this study, even when nudging respondents 
towards online participation by only providing a paper-based questionnaire with the 
third contact, a signifi cant share of participation via analogue mail remained – even 
for the younger cohorts. Similar fi ndings in favour of providing an additional mail-
in option were reported for other European countries that participated in the EVS 
experiments (Luijkx et al. 2021). To not exclude these cases by design and, thus, risk 
a coverage bias by omitting the offl ine population and those preferring the physical 
questionnaire (e.g., Blom et al. 2017; Cornesse/Schaurer 2021), the project team 
decided to use a mixed-mode design. By offering mixed modes we further aim at 
improving the survey experience by allowing respondents to participate in their 
preferred mode. Previous research has shown that a positive survey experience 
increases the respondents’ likelihood of participating in subsequent panel waves 
(Gummer/Daikeler 2020; Struminskaya 2014, Chapter 4).

4.1 FReDA-GGS: The new sample

The recruitment of FReDA-GGS will start in 2021 with a questionnaire specifi cally 
designed for recruitment purposes (W1R). In two subsequent waves in 2021 



•    Norbert F. Schneider et al.168

(W1A and W1B), the GGS instrument will be administered to respondents who 
were successfully recruited. Every three years when the GGS questionnaire is re-
implemented, a refreshment sample will be drawn. Refreshing the panel serves 
two purposes. First, refreshments are intended to replace the respondents who 
have dropped out of the panel. Even though other academic German mixed-mode 
panels reported promising retention rates (Blom et al. 2015; Bosnjak et al. 2018), a 
panel will always lose respondents over time, lowering the statistical power of the 
data. Second, refreshing the panel serves the purpose of adding respondents from 
younger cohorts who were not eligible in prior sampling. The planned refreshments 
will thus enable researchers to use FReDA not only for analysing individual change, 
but also for investigating social change (Firebaugh 2018; Gummer 2015).

Sampling

For the recruitment of FReDA, a probability-based sample of 100.000 respondents 
was drawn from German municipalities’ population registers. We refer to this sample 
as the FReDA-GGS sample. Based on prior experiences with self-administered 
surveys in Germany, we expect a response rate to W1R of around 30 percent. With 
respect to participation in subsequent panel waves, we assume the retention rates 
to converge to approximately 90 percent, similar to what GIP and the GESIS Panel 
reported (Blom et al. 2016).

The sampling approach of FREDA was initially designed for a face-to-face survey 
with 320 sampling points, however, when the COVID-19 pandemic struck, changes 
were made to the FReDA design (see below) and more addresses were drawn 

Fig. 2: FReDA: Planned design from 2021 to 2027

Note: Regular waves are bi-annual (A and B), whereas new samples are recruited via an 
additional short recruitment interview (R).

Source: own fi gure



Family Research and Demographic Analysis (FReDA)    • 169

from the selected municipalities to facilitate a large-scale mixed-mode survey. 
For the gross sample, individuals aged between 18 and 49 years and registered in 
the selected municipalities were selected. The sampling approach was designed 
to generate a self-weighting sample; thus, all gross sample cases had the same 
inclusion probability. We plan to use the same sampling procedure for future 
refreshment samples to ensure comparability between samples.

Design of W1R, W1A, and W1B

Three surveys are planned for FReDA in 2021. In April, the FReDA-GGS sample 
will be administered the questionnaire of W1R, i.e. the recruitment wave. Here, 
respondents will be provided with a ten-minute questionnaire that collects basic 
information from the respondent and, most importantly, their panel consent (i.e., 
their consent to be re-interviewed in subsequent panel waves). The remainder 
of this short questionnaire features selected questions from FReDA deemed 
especially interesting for the general population. The aim of W1R is to achieve a high 
participation rate and willingness to participate in the panel itself. Thus, in line with 
previous research on survey experience and panel attrition (e.g., Gummer/Daikeler 
2020; Struminskaya 2014), the questionnaire is designed to be short and interesting.

Respondents are contacted up to three times by mail and invited to complete 
in a web-based (link and password are provided) or a paper-based questionnaire 
(stamped return envelops are provided). While providing paper-based 
questionnaires to include the offl ine population and improve the survey experience, 
we nonetheless aim for a high share of participations via web-based questionnaires. 
In the web mode, responsive questionnaire design is used to facilitate the use of 
mobile devices.

Respondents who provided their consent to be contacted again during W1R 
are then invited for two additional surveys in 2021 (W1A, W1B). Fieldwork for W1A 
is scheduled to start in July, W1B in October. The questionnaires of both surveys 
consist of the German-language version of the international GGS questionnaire 
that was split into two parts by the project team. The projected survey length is 25 
minutes per survey. Contacts, mode choice, and incentives are planned to be similar 
to W1R. As before, this approach was selected to ensure that respondents are not 
burdened with an overly lengthy survey, thus facilitating a positive and motivating 
survey experience.

In addition to the German language versions of W1R, W1A and W1B, additional 
versions for the web-based questionnaire will be provided in Arabic, Turkish, and 
Russian. The goal behind these additional efforts is to allow respondents with limited 
German skills to participate in the survey and thus mitigate a possible migration bias 
in the panel. 

Design of W2A, W2B, and subsequent waves

Starting in 2022, FReDA will conduct bi-annual interviews among its active 
participants. Active panellists include respondents who have completed W1R, 



•    Norbert F. Schneider et al.170

consented to take part in re-interviews, and have not missed more than two 
consecutive interviews. Those respondents who do not take part in two consecutive 
interviews (e.g., W2A and W2B) will no longer be considered active in the FReDA 
panel and thus will not receive further invitations to participate (i.e., they will drop 
out of the panel). In addition, panellists will only be surveyed up to the age of 55. 
Whether and how these persons might continue to be surveyed is to be decided.

The design of subsequent waves will be similar to the design of W1R, W1A, and 
W1B. We aim for an average length of 20-25 minutes per survey. Respondents will 
be able to participate by completing web-based and paper-based questionnaires. 
They will be invited to participate in a wave up to three times by mail. Once again, 
responsive questionnaire design will be used to facilitate the use of mobile devices 
when answering the FReDA questionnaire.

Incentives

With the fi rst contact of each wave, each respondent will receive a 5€ unconditional 
incentive. The pre-paid incentive is included in the invitation letter sent to all 
respondents. This incentive strategy is used in W1R and the subsequent waves 
(W1A, W1B, W2A, etc.). In addition to the unconditional incentive, additional funds 
have been reserved to specifi cally incentivise respondents with lower likelihoods of 
participating in later waves of FReDA. Starting W1B, based on their participation in 
W1R and W1A, respondents with a high likelihood of dropping out of the panel will 
be identifi ed and will receive additional incentives. This strategy aims at increasing 
the participation among respondents with high attrition probability and thus to 
reduce attrition bias. 

Partner interviews

FReDA is not limited to collecting information on the anchors, but also on their 
partners. Therefore, beginning with W1A, those respondents who are currently in 
a relationship will be asked to provide contact information for their partners. These 
partners are then also invited to participate in FReDA surveys. Partners receive 
questionnaires which are based on the anchor questionnaire, but are adapted 
and reduced to an approximate length of 20 minutes. Nonetheless, the design of 
the partner survey is similar to the anchor survey. Partners are invited up to three 
times by mail to participate in the self-administered mixed-mode surveys (web- and 
paper-based questionnaires) and receive a 5€ unconditional incentive with each 
fi rst contact. The fi rst partner survey is conducted in parallel to W1A. Starting in 
2022, each regular wave of FReDA will also feature a partner survey.

Necessary adjustments due to COVID-19

FReDA was initially planned to be fi elded in 2020 with a recruitment survey that 
featured the full-length 60-minute GGS questionnaire. The intention was to conduct 
the recruitment interview in-person. This approach aimed at a high recruitment rate 



Family Research and Demographic Analysis (FReDA)    • 171

for the following panel waves and the inclusion of the offl ine population in FReDA. 
However, when the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in early 2020, the project team 
decided to halt preparations for data collection and postpone the fi eld start. Since 
we expected that collecting high quality data by face-to-face interviews in 2021 
would also be impaired by the COVID-19 situation, data collection was switched 
to self-administered systems utilizing web- and paper-based questionnaires. 
A detailed account of an early part of this process and the reasoning behind the 
decisions is given by Gummer et al. (2020). Similar discussions emerged in other 
renowned large-scale survey projects in Germany and other countries (Burton et al. 
2020; Sakshaug et al. 2020; Sastry et al. 2020; Scherpenzeel et al. 2020). 

The changes in the survey design were made to ensure that FReDA data 
collection could start in early 2021 and is affected as little as possible by COVID-19 
developments. Guiding principles of the design changes were to replace the face-
to-face mode by self-administered modes in a way that ensures the inclusion of the 
offl ine population, the achievement of high panel consent rates, as well as high data 
quality. 

By changing the design and fully committing to a more cost-effi cient self-
administered design, additional resources became available. These resources are 
used to mitigate important challenges panel surveys in Germany are likely to face, 
namely a misrepresentation of migrants and selective attrition. The respective 
design decisions are described above.

4.2 FReDA-pairfam: Continuing the 2008 panel with FReDA from 2022

The FReDA-pairfam sample originates from the DFG-funded long-term project 
“Panel Analysis of Intimate Relationships and Family Dynamics” (Huinink et al. 2011). 
pairfam is an annual and currently 14-wave multi-actor panel study in Germany 
covering a wide range of family-related topics. Since 2008, pairfam has collected 
data from a probability-based sample (N=12,000) of the birth cohorts 1991-93, 1981-
83, and 1971-73. With Wave 4, the related study DemoDiff, with its East German 
supplemental sample, was integrated into pairfam (Kreyenfeld et al. 2012). A new 
cohort (born 2001-03) and a sample refreshment for the two younger initial cohorts 
were added in Wave 11 (Brüderl et al. 2020).

Data are collected in annual waves as computer-assisted personal interviews 
(CAPI). The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a mode switch to computer-assisted 
telephone interviewing (CATI) during the fi eldwork for Wave 12 (Gummer et al. 
2020), which was supplemented by a web survey to collect information on family 
life during the COVID-19 crisis (Walper et al. 2020). Wave 13 allowed for both face-
to-face and telephone interviewing to react fl exibly to the highly dynamic situation 
during the pandemic. In regular waves, sensitive questions were administered on-
site as computer-assisted self-interviews (CASI) to ensure respondents’ privacy. 
In addition to the primary respondents ("anchors"), anchors’ partners and children 
aged 8 to 15 years are surveyed as well. Partners receive a paper-based self-
administered questionnaire (PAPI), whereas children are interviewed via CAPI 



•    Norbert F. Schneider et al.172

in the primary respondent’s home. Moreover, in Waves 2 through 8, the anchor 
respondent’s parents were also interviewed in PAPI mode.

Integration of the pairfam sample into FReDA

The integration of the pairfam sample and content into FReDA (as “FReDA-pairfam” 
from Wave 15 onwards) requires several substantial changes to previous procedures 
and will thus already start with the fi nal DFG-funded Wave 14, which will be collected 
in autumn 2021:

(a) Changes in survey mode:

• From Wave 14, both anchor respondents and their partners can opt to be 
interviewed online (CAWI) or with a paper-based questionnaire, instead of the 
previous procedure of CAPI for anchors and PAPI for secondary respondents.

• Due to the mode change, the duration of the interview (and thus the 
questionnaire programme) must be shortened substantially: Wave 14 
interviews are designed to take about 20-25 minutes (rather than currently 
one 60-minute interview).

• Note that pairfam includes a mode experiment in Wave 14 to test whether 
there are differences in answers when data are collected online, by PAPI, or 
CAPI. For this purpose, face-to-face interviews of a random subsample of 
1,000 respondents will be conducted, as in the previous waves. These CAPI 
interviews will be identical to the online survey fi elded for the main sample.

(b) Changes in the multi-actor design:

• In addition to anchor respondents, only partners will be surveyed (as in 
FReDA-GGS). That is, pairfam will abandon the child interview in Wave 14, as 
targeting young children in a mixed-mode survey has proven to be diffi cult 
(Jäckle et al. 2015) .

• Moreover, as the focus of FReDA will mainly be partnership- and fertility-
related issues, pairfam’s extensive parenting questionnaires will be shortened. 
Related content that is relevant for FReDA will be shifted to the main anchor 
and partner surveys in Wave 14.

The guiding principle for the integration of pairfam into FReDA is the harmonisation 
of the questionnaire for both samples, FReDA-GGS and FReDA-pairfam. The 
pairfam questionnaire was shortened and adapted to the above-mentioned mode 
change after Wave 12. Since pairfam and GGS have similar research topics, there 
is a considerable overlap between both questionnaires. For the translation of the 
GGS questionnaire, the goal was to harmonise questions with pairfam if possible, 
in order to strengthen the comparability of German data and to continue pairfam 
under the roof of FReDA.

Despite the described modifi cations, main features of pairfam will remain 
unchanged by the transition to FReDA:

• The questionnaire programme of pairfam, as far as it is relevant with regard to 
FReDA’s family-demographic focus, will be continued (in a harmonised form 
where necessary), and supplements FReDA’s core questionnaire modules.



Family Research and Demographic Analysis (FReDA)    • 173

• The data structure (including respondent identifi ers and variable names) will 
remain unchanged to ease merging information from FReDA-pairfam with 
prior waves of pairfam to be used as a long-term panel data set.

• Quality measures, data management, and documentation will continue at 
their high standard and the data will continue to be distributed via the GESIS 
Data Archive.

Importantly, to facilitate knowledge transfer and enable a smooth, gradual 
transition from pairfam to FReDA-pairfam, Christof Wolf joined the pairfam council 
in 2020, linking the pairfam and FReDA project teams even more closely and 
contributing GESIS’ survey methodological expertise.

5 Data accessibility and organisational structure

Data accessibility

A major goal of FReDA is to create a data infrastructure for the broadest possible 
scientifi c use. Data from all waves are quickly processed and entered into the 
GESIS data archive. Users will be able to search for data via search engines and 
access metadata. The guiding principles in our data publication strategy are timely 
releases, transparency, and user-friendly documentation. FReDA aims for annual 
data releases. These releases will include the new data and updated documentation. 
Datasets will be made available both for anchors and partners with identifi cation 
variables that enable examining the dyadic structure of the data. Each data release 
is issued a persistent identifi er (DOI) to ensure that FReDA data are fi ndable and 
can be properly cited in publications. The use of DOIs allows researchers to search 
for the exact version of FReDA data that was used in a publication and replicate 
published fi ndings. To ensure replication, the GESIS data archive will provide access 
to all data releases of FReDA, not just the newest.

To ease the use of FReDA data for substantive analyses, we aim at providing 
extensive documentation with each release. This documentation will include 
each wave’s questionnaire as well as detailed reports on the data collection 
efforts. The documentation of data collection will not only cover information on 
the methodology (sampling, modes, contact strategy) and outcome metrics such 
as response, retention, and drop-out rates, but also data quality indicators. With 
these additional indicators, we aim to equip researchers with the necessary tools to 
evaluate whether the data contain biases that might affect their analyses. 

FReDA data releases will include additional variables that convey information 
regarding data collection (e.g., dates of fi eldwork period, wave, mode) as well as 
weights – if required – to correct for quality issues (e.g., to correct for nonresponse 
or selectivity). These variables will be described in the supplemental documentation 
along with practical recommendations on how to use these weights. Data will further 
be geo-referenced to enable linking with geospatial and contextual data.

We aim to provide data access with as few barriers as possible. Accordingly, 
FReDA data will be made available as a scientifi c use fi le in which sensitive data are 



•    Norbert F. Schneider et al.174

aggregated. Additional data sets with sensitive and more fi ne-grained data will be 
accessible in the Secure Data Centre at GESIS. Here, users will be able to draw on 
the geo-referenced data and link contextual data with FReDA data. 

Overall, the data publication strategy of FReDA meets the principles of FAIR 
data in that they are fi ndable, accessible, interoperable, and re-usable (European 
Commission 2016). In addition to the FReDA data hosted at GESIS, the FReDA 
project will deliver the German GGS data (from Waves 1, 4, etc.) to NIDI for inclusion 
in the international GGS data set.

Organisational structure

FReDA is a consortium consisting of the Federal Institute for Population Research 
(BiB), GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, and the pairfam consortium 
(represented by the Universities of Cologne and Jena). Each of these three entities 
has two representatives in the board of project partners, that is, FReDA has six 
principal investigators (PIs). The founding PIs are the initiators of the proposal, 
namely Norbert F. Schneider (BiB), Martin Bujard (BiB), Christof Wolf (GESIS), Tobias 
Gummer (GESIS), Karsten Hank (University of Cologne) and Franz J. Neyer (Friedrich 
Schiller University Jena). The consortium was legally established by an agreement in 
2020 (the idea for FReDA was originally born in 2015), and is coordinated at the BiB. 
For the setup and consolidation phase, FReDA is funded by the Federal Ministry of 
Education and Research (BMBF) from 2020-2024. In the case of a successful interim 
evaluation, the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community (BMI) 
intends to fund FReDA permanently through the BiB’s budget from 2025 onwards. 

FReDA aims to provide a multidisciplinary scientifi c community with innovative, 
cross-nationally comparable panel data on family and demography in Germany. 
In addition, FReDA aims to produce data that enable scientifi c analysis for policy 
advice. The composition of the FReDA Council refl ects these intentions. The FReDA 
Council consists of six scientists from different disciplines (survey methodology, 
demography, sociology, psychology, and economics). Further members represent 
federal ministries; the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), the 
German Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community (BMI), the Federal 
Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women, and Youth (BMFSFJ), the 
Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (BMAS), and the Federal Ministry of 
Finance (BMF), who have a status as permanent guests and observers on the FReDA 
Council. 

Furthermore, the BiB ensures the international comparability of FReDA by 
itself being a permanent member of the GGP consortium board, a member of the 
questionnaire task force, and by participating as a node on the operational level of 
GGP together with the coordinator, the Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic 
Institute (NIDI), and the French National Institute for Demographic Studies (INED). 

Exchange with the scientifi c community as well as with policymakers and civil 
society is crucial for FReDA. Therefore, an outreach team is part of the project and 
tasked with developing a communication strategy and ensuring knowledge transfer. 
The FReDA communication strategy features user conferences, user support, a 



Family Research and Demographic Analysis (FReDA)    • 175

website (www.freda-panel.de), a newsletter, social media efforts, and continuous 
exchange with stakeholders. To cover the demands of policymakers, annual policy 
briefs and policy workshops are planned. To serve emerging needs of the scientifi c 
community, a call for open modules inviting new items for the FReDA questionnaire 
programme is open throughout the entire project. 

6 Conclusion and outlook

FReDA – The German Family Demography Panel Study, aims to produce innovative 
data for family research as a collective good for the scientifi c community and for policy 
and society more generally. The core elements of FReDA are (1) representative data 
for the target population, (2) annual panels with bi-annual surveys, (3) a consistent 
multi-actor design, (4) international comparability, (5) the theory-based construction 
of survey instruments, (6) regional data enrichment, (7) multidisciplinarity, (8) the 
combination of well-established and new items in a modularised design of the 
questionnaire, and (9) permanent innovation through user-driven open modules. 

As the central data infrastructure for family demographic research in Germany, 
FReDA makes fi ve primary contributions. 

(1) FReDA contributes to the further development of theoretical perspectives and 
their empirical implementation. The questionnaire construction strongly follows the 
life course paradigm. In order to analyse family development in the interdependent 
spheres of life and under the respective intra- and extra-individual behavioural 
conditions, the survey instruments make use of core elements of decision-making 
and bargaining approaches. Beyond GGS, which is essentially based on the theory 
of planned behaviour, FReDA aims not only to study the effect of attitudes on action, 
but also to make visible the emergence and change of these attitudes over the life 
course. FReDA continues the successful pairfam project, strengthens GGP, and goes 
beyond GGS by offering additional content and consistently applying the life course 
perspective. This is the case because annual panel waves allow for progression 
pattern analyses and event-analytical methods, enabling the identifi cation of cause-
effect relationships (e.g., after events in the individual life course or after political 
reforms). 

(2) FReDA contributes to the advancement of survey methods. In particular, 
further experience with fi elding large-scale population surveys in self-administered 
modes will be gained. Given the current nonresponse and survey cost challenges 
these surveys are facing (see, e.g., Wolf et al. 2021), more insights on the matter 
are needed. FReDA will also provide evidence on the recruitment of a panel survey 
already using self-administered modes in the recruitment interview itself. We 
further expect that FReDA will help to advance methodological research on mixed-
mode surveys and especially on web survey methodology. Furthermore, FReDA 
has several design features, made possible by the design changes in response to 
the challenges imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. These features include, for 
example, an adaptive survey design to increase participation among likely panel 
drop-outs with targeted incentives, as well as by providing questionnaires in multiple 



•    Norbert F. Schneider et al.176

languages to mitigate the misrepresentation of migrants. We expect these design 
features of FReDA to provide further opportunities to advance methodological 
knowledge. 

(3) By consistently implementing partner interviews, new insights into the 
importance of dyadic decision-making processes is expected to be gained, as will 
experience regarding their improved empirical recording. 

(4) By continuing FReDA-pairfam, it will be possible to map long periods of the 
family development process – from its beginning to its later phases – based on 
differentiated data. 

(5) The international comparability of much of the data obtained in FReDA will 
considerably improve the possibilities for international comparative family research. 
The international comparative perspective in relation to other European countries 
will enable the analysis of peculiarities of the demographic situation in Germany 
depending on context-specifi c social, political, and economic factors.

We sincerely hope that FReDA will provide a solid data basis for the improvement 
of theories and methods, and for cutting-edge empirical research on family and 
social demography.

Acknowledgements
Funding of FReDA by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research 
(BMBF) under the grant numbers 01UW2001A, 01UW2001B, and 01UW2001C is 
gratefully acknowledged. 

We would like to thank the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community 
(BMI) for making it possible in 2018 to fi nance the setup phase of the project by 
providing the prospect of institutionalised permanent funding for the project after a 
positive interim evaluation in 2024. We thank the reviewers for thoroughly reading 
this paper and providing useful comments.

References 

Aisenbrey, Silke; Fasang, Anette 2017: The Interplay of Work and Family Trajectories 
over the Life Course: Germany and the United States in Comparison. In: American 
Journal of Sociology 122,5: 1448-1484. https://doi.org/10.1086/691128

Ajzen, Icek 1991: The Theory of Planned Behavior. In: Organizational Behavior and 
Human Decision Process 50,2: 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ajzen, Icek; Klobas, Jane 2013: Fertility intentions: An approach based on the theory of 
planned behavior. In: Demographic Research 29,8: 203-232. 
https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2013.29.8

Aleksynska, Mariya 2018: Temporary employment, work quality, and job satisfaction. In: 
Journal of Comparative Economics 46,3: 722-735. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2018.07.004

Allison, Paul 2009: Fixed effects regression models: Quantitative applications in the 
social sciences 160. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.



Family Research and Demographic Analysis (FReDA)    • 177

Arpino, Bruno; Esping-Andersen, Gøsta; Pessin, Léa 2015: How Do Changes in Gender 
Role Attitudes Towards Female Employment Infl uence Fertility? A Macro-Level 
Analysis. In: European Sociological Review 31,3: 370-382.
https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcv002

Atkinson, Anthony B.; Marlier, Eric (Eds.) 2010: Income and living conditions in Europe. 
Eurostat Statistical Books. Luxembourg: Publications Offi ce of the European Union.
https://doi.org/10.2785/53320

Bauer, Gerrit; Kneip, Thorsten 2014: Dyadic fertility decisions in a life course perspective. 
In: Advances in Life Course Research 21: 87-100. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2013.11.003

Baykara-Krumme, Helen; Milewski, Nadja 2017: Fertility Patterns Among Turkish Women 
in Turkey and Abroad: The Effects of International Mobility, Migrant Generation, and 
Family Background. In: European Journal of Population 33,3: 409-436. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-017-9413-9

Beblo, Miriam 2001: Bargaining over Time Allocation: Economic Modeling and 
Econometric Investigation of Time Use within Families. Heidelberg: Physica. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-57579-2

Becker, Gary S. 1981: A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University 
Press.

Bengtson, Vern et al. 2002: Solidarity, Confl ict, and Ambivalence: Complementary or 
Competing Perspectives on Intergenerational Relationships? In: Journal of Marriage 
and Family 64,3: 568-576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00568.x

Bernardi, Laura; Huinink, Johannes; Settersten, Richard A. 2019: The life course cube: A 
tool for studying lives. In: Advances in Life Course Research 41,100258.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2018.11.004

BiB 2020: Bevölkerung mit Migrationshintergrund (2005-2018) [https://www.bib.bund.
de/DE/Fak ten/Fak t /B47-Bevoelkerung-mit-Migrationshintergrund-ab-2005.html, 
14.04.2021]. 

Billingsley, Sunnee; Ferrarini, Tommy 2014: Family Policy and Fertility Intentions in 21 
European Countries. In: Journal of Marriage and Family 76,2: 428-445. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12097

Blom, Annelies G. et al. 2016: A Comparison of Four Probability-Based Online and 
Mixed-Mode Panels in Europe. In: Social Science Computer Review 34,1: 8-25.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315574825

Blom, Annelies G.; Gathmann, Christina; Krieger, Ulrich 2015: Setting Up an Online 
Panel Representative of the General Population: The German Internet Panel. In: Field 
Methods 27,4: 391-408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X15574494

Blom, Annelies G. et al. 2017: Does the Recruitment of Offl ine Households Increase the 
Sample Representativeness of Probability-Based Online Panels? Evidence From the 
German Internet Panel. In: Social Science Computer Review 35,4: 498-520.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439316651584

Blossfeld, Hans-Peter; Roßbach, Hans-Günther; von Maurice, Jutta (Eds.) 2011: 
Education as a Lifelong Process – The German National Educational Panel Study 
(NEPS). In: Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft: Special Issue 14. Wiesbaden: VS 
Verlag.

Blossfeld, Hans-Peter; Rohwer, Gotz; Schneider, Thorsten 2019: Event History Analysis 
With Stata (2st ed.). London, New York: Routledge.



•    Norbert F. Schneider et al.178

Bodenmann, Guy et al. 2007: The role of stress in divorce: A three-nation retrospective 
study. In: Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 24,5: 707-728.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507081456

Börsch-Supan, Axel; Hank, Karsten; Jürges, Hendrik 2005: A new comprehensive and 
international view on ageing: Introducing the 'Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement 
in Europe'. In: European Journal of Ageing 2,4: 245-253. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-005-0014-9

Bosnjak, Michael et al. 2018: Establishing an Open Probability-Based Mixed-Mode Panel 
of the General Population in Germany: The GESIS Panel. In: Social Science Computer 
Review 36,1: 103-115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317697949

Boudon, Raymond 2003: Beyond Rational Choice Theory. In: Annual Review of Sociology 
29,1: 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100213

Bradshaw, Jonathan; Nieuwenhuis, Rense 2021: Poverty and family in Europe. In: 
Schneider, Norbert F.; Kreyenfeld, Michaela (Eds.): Research Handbook on the 
Sociology of the Family. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar: 293-305. 

Brehm, Uta; Schneider, Norbert F. 2019: Towards a Comprehensive Understanding of 
Fertility: The Model of Dyadic Pathways. In: Comparative Population Studies 44.
https://doi.org/10.12765/CPoS-2019-01

Brüderl, Josef et al. 2020: The German Family Panel: Study Design and Cumulated Field 
Report (Waves 1 to 11). Pairfam Technical Paper 01.

Buchler, Sandra; Perales, Francisco; Baxter, Janeen 2017: Does Parenthood Change 
Attitudes to Fathering? Evidence from Australia and Britain. In: Sex Roles 77,9-10: 
663-675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0757-8

Bujard, Martin 2015: Consequences of Enduring Low Fertility – A German Case Study: 
Demographic Projections and Implications for Different Policy Fields. In: Comparative 
Population Studies 40,2: 131-164. https://doi.org/10.12765/CPoS-2015-06

Bujard, Martin; Scheller, Melanie 2017: Impact of Regional Factors on Cohort Fertility: 
New Estimations at the District Level in Germany. In: Comparative Population 
Studies 42. https://doi.org/10.12765/CPoS-2017-07

Bujard, Martin; Sulak, Harun 2016: Mehr Kinderlose oder weniger Kinderreiche? In: 
Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 68,3: 487-514. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-016-0373-6

Burton, Jonathan; Lynn, Peter; Benzeval, Michaela 2020: How Understanding Society: 
The UK Household Longitudinal Study adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic. In: Survey 
Research Methods 14,2: 235-239. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2020.v14i2.7746

Busetta, Annalisa; Mendola, Daria; Vignoli, Daniele 2019: Persistent joblessness and 
fertility intentions. In: Demographic Research 40,8: 185-218. 
https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2019.40.8

Chambers, Deborah 2012: A sociology of family life. Cambridge: Polity.

Coleman, James S. 1990: Commentary: Social Institutions and Social Theory. In: 
American Sociological Review 55,3: 333-337.

Cornesse, Carina; Schaurer, Ines 2021: The Long-Term Impact of Different Offl ine 
Population Inclusion Strategies in Probability-Based Online Panels: Evidence From 
the German Internet Panel and the GESIS Panel. In: Social Science Computer Review 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320984131

Coyne, Sarah M. et al. 2014: “Media Time = Family Time”: Positive Media Use in Families 
With Adolescents. In: Journal of Adolescent Research 29,5: 663-688. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558414538316



Family Research and Demographic Analysis (FReDA)    • 179

Damaske, Sarah; Frech, Adrianne 2016: Women’s Work Pathways Across the Life 
Course. In: Demography 53,2: 365-391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-016-0464-z

Danielsbacka, Mirkka; Tanskanen, Antti O.; Billari, Francesco C. 2020: Meeting online 
and family-related outcomes: Evidence from three German cohorts. In: Journal of 
Family Studies: 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2020.1835694

Diabaté, Sabine et al. 2019: Familienleitbilder 2012 and 2016 – Methodology Report on 
the Panel Study. BiB Daten- und Methodenberichte 1/2019. Wiesbaden: Bundesinstitut 
für Bevölkrungsforschung.

Elder, Glen H. 1994: Time, Human Agency, and Social Change: Perspectives on the Life 
Course. In: Social Psychology Quarterly 57,1: 4-15. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786971

Emery, Tom et al. 2019: GGP Technical Case & E-needs. In: SocArXiv. 
https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/439wc

England, Paula 2010: The Gender Revolution: Uneven and Stalled. In: Gender & Society 
24,2: 149-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243210361475

Esping-Andersen, Gøsta 2009: Incomplete Revolution: Adapting Welfare States to 
Women’s New Roles. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Esping-Andersen, Gøsta; Schmitt, Christian 2020: Multi-dimensional couple bargaining 
and housework allocation. In: Acta Sociologica 63,1: 3-22. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0001699319859418

Esser, Hartmut 2004: In guten wie in schlechten Tagen? Das Framing der Ehe und das 
Risiko der Scheidung. In: Esser, Hartmut (Ed.): Soziologische Anstöße. Frankfurt/
Main: Campus: 255-300.

European Commission 2016: H2020 Programme. Guidelines on FAIR Data Management 
in Horizon 2020.

Fasang, Anette Eva; Huinink, Johannes; Pollmann-Schult, Matthias 2016: Aktuelle 
Entwicklungen in der deutschen Familiensoziologie: Theorien, Daten, Methoden. In: 
Zeitschrift Für Familienforschung 28,1: 112-143. https://doi.org/10.3224/zff.v28i1.22923

Finn,  Christine; Johnson, Matthew D.; Neyer, Franz J. 2020: Happily (n)ever after? 
Codevelopment of romantic partners in continuing and dissolving unions. In: 
Developmental Psychology 56,5: 1022-1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000897

Finn, Christine; Mitte, Kristin; Neyer, Franz J. 2015: Recent Decreases in Specifi c 
Interpretation Biases Predict Decreases in Neuroticism: Evidence From a Longitudinal 
Study With Young Adult Couples. In: Journal of Personality 83,3: 274-286. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12102

Firebaugh, Glenn 2018: Seven rules for social research. Princeton: Princeton University 
Press.

Fokkema, Tineke et al. 2016: Generations and Gender Programme Wave 1 data collection: 
An overview and assessment of sampling and fi eldwork methods, weighting 
procedures, and cross-sectional representativeness. In: Demographic Research 
34,18: 499-524. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2016.34.18

Gauthier, Anne H.; Cabaço, Susana; Emery, Tom 2018: Generations and Gender Survey 
study profi le. In: Longitudinal and Life Course Studies 9,4: 456-465. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.14301/llcs.v9i4.500

Gauthier, Anne H. et al. 2020: Generations and Gender Survey Baseline Questionnaire 
3.0.1. The Hague [https://www.ggp-i.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/GGS-
Questionnaire-3_0_1-1.pdf, 15.04.2021].



•    Norbert F. Schneider et al.180

Gerstorf, Denis et al. 2013: Longitudinal change in spousal similarities in mental health: 
Between-couple and within-couple perspectives. In: Psychology and Aging 28,2: 540-
554. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032902

Geyter, Christian de et al. 2018: ART in Europe, 2014: results generated from European 
registries by ESHRE. In: Human Reproduction 33,9: 1586-1601.

Goebel, Jan et al. 2019: The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP). In: Journal of 
Economics and Statistics 239,2: 345-360. https://doi.org/10.1515/jbnst-2018-0022

Goldscheider, Frances; Bernhardt, Eva; Lappegård, Trude 2015: The Gender Revolution: 
A Framework for Understanding Changing Family and Demographic Behavior. In: 
Population and Development Review 41,2: 207-239. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2015.00045.x

Greenstein, Theodore N. 2009: National Context, Family Satisfaction, and Fairness in 
the Division of Household Labor. In: Journal of Marriage and Family 71,4: 1039-1051. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00651.x

Greil, Arthur L. et al. 2011: Infertility treatment and fertility-specifi c distress: A 
longitudinal analysis of a population-based sample of U.S. women. In: Social Science 
& Medicine 73,1: 87-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.04.023

Grundmann, Matthias 2021: Sozialisation und Familienbeziehungen. In: Ecarius, Jutta; 
Schierbaum, Anja (Eds.): Handbuch Familie. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-19416-1_11-1

Gummer, Tobias 2015: Multiple Panels in der empirischen Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden: 
Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-09343-3

Gummer, Tobias; Daikeler, Jessica 2020: A Note on How Prior Survey Experience With 
Self-Administered Panel Surveys Affects Attrition in Different Modes. In: Social 
Science Computer Review 38,4: 490-498. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318816986

Gummer, Tobias et al. 2020: The impact of Covid-19 on fi eldwork efforts and planning in 
pairfam and FReDA-GGS. In: Survey Research Methods 14,2: 223-227.
https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2020.v14i2.7740

Habbema, J. Dirk et al. 2015: Realizing a desired family size: When should couples start? 
In: Human Reproduction 30,9: 2215-2221.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev148

Hagemeyer, Birk et al. 2015: When “together” means “too close”: Agency motives and 
relationship functioning in coresident and living-apart-together couples. In: Journal of 
Personality and Social Psychology 109,5: 813-835. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000031

Hakim, Catherine 2003: A New Approach to Explaining Fertility Patterns: Preference 
Theory. In: Population and Development Review 29,3: 349-374. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2003.00349.x

Hank, Karsten; Kreyenfeld, Michaela; Spieß, C. Katharina 2004: Kinderbetreuung und 
Fertilität in Deutschland. In: Zeitschrift für Soziologie 33: 228-244.

Hank, Karsten 2007: Proximity and contacts between older parents and their children: A 
European comparison. In: Journal of Marriage and Family 69,1: 157-173.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00351.x

Hank, Karsten; Huinink, Johannes 2015: Regional Contexts and Family Formation: 
Evidence from the German Family Panel. In: Hank, Karsten; Kreyenfeld, Michaela (Eds.): 
Social Demography. Forschung an der Schnittstelle von Soziologie und Demografi e. 
Wiesbaden: Springer VS: 41-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-11490-9_3



Family Research and Demographic Analysis (FReDA)    • 181

Hank, Karsten; Kreyenfeld, Michaela (Eds.) 2015: Social Demography. Forschung an der 
Schnittstelle von Soziologie und Demografi e. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-11490-9

Hank, Karsten; Salzburger, Veronika; Silverstein, Merril 2017: Intergenerational 
transmission of parent-child relationship quality: Evidence from a multi-actor survey. In: 
Social Science Research 67: 129-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.06.004

Hank, Karsten; Steinbach, Anja 2019: Families and Their Institutional Contexts: The 
Role of Family Policies and Legal Regulations. In: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und 
Sozialpsychologie 71,1: 375-398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-019-00603-z

Hank, Karsten; Steinbach, Anja 2021: The virus changed everything didn’t it? Couples’ 
division of housework and childcare before and during the Corona crisis. In: Journal 
of Family Research 33,1: 99-114. https://doi.org/10.20377/jfr-488

Hiekel, Nicole; Huinink, Johannes; Peter, Timo 2015: Combining data from the Generations 
and Gender Surveys and the German Family Panel to conduct comparative research 
on couples' and family dynamics. In: Pairfam Working Paper 22. The Hague/Bremen.

Hudde, Ansgar; Engelhardt, Henriette 2020: Intra-Couple (Dis)Similarity in Gender Role 
Attitudes and the Transition to Parenthood in Germany. In: European Sociological 
Review 36,6: 852-867. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcaa024

Huinink, Johannes et al. 2011: Panel Analysis of Intimate Relationships and Family 
Dynamics (pairfam): Conceptual framework and design. In: Zeitschrift Für 
Familienforschung 23,1: 77-101. https://doi.org/10.20377/jfr-235

Huinink, Johannes; Feldhaus, Michael 2008: Beziehungs- und Familienentwicklung – 
eine konzeptionelle Einführung in ein Forschungsprogramm. In: Feldhaus, Michael; 
Huinink, Johannes (Eds.): Neuere Entwicklungen in der Beziehungs- und Familien-
forschung. Würzburg: Ergon: 13-45.

Huston, Ted L. et al. 2001: The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of 
marital delight, distress, and divorce. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 
80,2: 237-252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.237

Jäckle, Annette; Lynn, Peter; Burton, Jon 2015: Going Online with a Face-to-Face 
Household Panel: Effects of a Mixed Mode Design on Item and Unit Non-Response. 
In: Survey Research Methods 9,1: 57-70. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2015.v9i1.5475

Johnson, Matthew D.; Horne, Rebecca M.; Neyer, Franz J. 2019: The Development of 
Willingness to Sacrifi ce and Unmitigated Communion in Intimate Partnerships. In: 
Journal of Marriage and Family 81,1: 264-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12544

Karney, Benjamin R.; Bradbury, Thomas N. 1995: The longitudinal course of marital 
quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. In: Psychological 
Bulletin 118,1: 3-34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3

Katz-Wise, Sabra L.; Priess, Heather A.; Hyde, Janet S. 2010: Gender-role attitudes and 
behavior across the transition to parenthood. In: Developmental Psychology 46,1: 18-
28. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017820

Klüsener, Sebastian; Goldstein, Joshua R. 2016: A Long-Standing Demographic East-
West Divide in Germany. In: Population, Space and Place 22,1: 5-22. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1870

Kohler, Hans-Peter; Billari, Francesco C.; Ortega, José Antonio 2002: The Emergence 
of Lowest-low Fertility in Europe during the 1990s. In: Population and Development 
Review 28,4: 641-680. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2002.00641.x



•    Norbert F. Schneider et al.182

Kohli, Martin 2007: The Institutionalization of the Life Course: Looking Back to Look 
Ahead. In: Research in Human Development 4,3-4: 253-271. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/15427600701663122

Köppen, Katja; Kreyenfeld, Michaela; Trappe, Heike 2018: Loose Ties? Determinants of 
Father-Child Contact After Separation in Germany. In: Journal of Marriage and Family 
80,5: 1163-1175. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12504

Kreyenfeld, Michaela et al. 2012: DemoDiff: A Dataset for the Study of Family Change in 
Eastern (and Western) Germany. In: Schmollers Jahrbuch: Journal of Applied Social 
Science Studies 132,4: 653-660. https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.132.4.653

Kreyenfeld, Michaela; Konietzka, Dirk (Eds.) 2017: Childlessness in Europe: Contexts, 
Causes and Consequences. Demographic research monographs. Cham: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44667-7

Kulu, Hill; Milewski, Nadja 2007: Family change and migration in the life course: An 
introduction. In: Demographic Research 17: 567-590. 
https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2007.17.19

Lesthaeghe, Ron 2010: The Unfolding Story of the Second Demographic Transition. In: 
Population and Development Review 36,2: 211-251. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2010.00328.x

Lindenberg, Siegwart 1985: An Assessment of the New Political Economy: Its Potential 
for the Social Sciences and for Sociology in Particular. In: Sociological Theory 3,1: 99-
114. https://doi.org/10.2307/202177

Luciano, Eva C.; Orth, Ulrich 2017: Transitions in romantic relationships and development 
of self-esteem. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 112,2: 307-328.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000109

Lück, Detlev; Ruckdeschel, Kerstin 2018: Clear in its core, blurred in the outer contours: 
Culturally normative conceptions of the family in Germany. In: European Societies 
20,5: 715-742. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2018.1473624

Luhmann, Maike et al. 2014: Honey, I got fi red! A longitudinal dyadic analysis of the 
effect of unemployment on life satisfaction in couples. In: Journal of Personality and 
Social Psychology 107,1: 163-180. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036394

Luijkx, Ruud et al. 2021: The European Values Study 2017: On the Way to the Future 
Using Mixed-Modes. In: European Sociological Review 37,2: 330-346. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcaa049

Malouff, John M. et al. 2010: The Five-Factor Model of personality and relationship 
satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta-analysis. In: Journal of Research in Personality 
44,1: 124-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.004

Martin, Todd F. 2018: Family Development Theory 30 Years Later. In: Journal of Family 
Theory & Review 10,1: 49-69. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12237

McDonald, Peter 2002: Sustaining Fertility through Public Policy: The Range of Options. 
In: Population 57,3: 417-446. https://doi.org/10.2307/3246634

Merkle, Tanja; Wippermann, Carsten 2008: Eltern unter Druck. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.

Miller, Warren B.; Severy, Lawrence J.; Pasta, David J. 2004: A Framework for Modelling 
Fertility Motivation in Couples. In: Population Studies 58,2: 193-205. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/0032472042000213712

Mincer, Jacob 1963: Market Prices, Opportunity Costs, and Income Effects. In: Christ, 
Carl F. et al. (Eds.): Measurement in economics; studies in mathematical economics 
and econometrics in memory of Yehuda Grunfeld. Stanford: Stanford University 
Press: 67-82.



Family Research and Demographic Analysis (FReDA)    • 183

Mund, Marcus et al. 2020: The Stability and Change of Loneliness Across the Life Span: 
A Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Studies. In: Personality and Social Psychology Review 
24,1: 24-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868319850738

Muthoo, Abhinay 1999: Bargaining theory with applications. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press.

Nauck, Bernhard 2014: Value of children and fertility: Results from a cross-cultural 
comparative survey in eighteen areas in Asia, Africa, Europe and America. In: Advances 
in Life Course Research 21: 135-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2014.01.004

Neyer, Franz J.; Asendorpf, Jens B. 2018: Psychologie der Persönlichkeit (6. Aufl .). Berlin: 
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30264-0

Neyer, Franz J.; Lehnart, Judith 2007: Relationships Matter in Personality Development: 
Evidence From an 8-Year Longitudinal Study Across Young Adulthood. In: Journal of 
Personality 75,3: 535-568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00448.x

Neyer, Franz J. et al. 2011: Principles of relationship differentiation. In: European 
Psychologist 16,4: 267-277. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000055

Nitsche, Natalie; Grunow, Daniela 2016: Housework over the course of relationships: 
Gender ideology, resources, and the division of housework from a growth curve 
perspective. In: Advances in Life Course Research 29: 80-94. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2016.02.001

Panova, Ralina; Buber-Ennser, Isabella 2016: Attitudes towards parental employment: A 
ranking across Europe, Australia and Japan. In: Journal of Research in Gender Studies 
6,2: 11-37.

Passet-Wittig, Jasmin; Bujard, Martin 2021: Medically assisted reproduction in 
developed countries: Overview and societal challenges. In: Schneider, Norbert F.; 
Kreyenfeld, Michaela (Eds.): Handbook on the Sociology of the Family. Cheltenham: 
Edward Elgar: 306-322.

Passet-Wittig, Jasmin et al. 2020: Is perception of inability to procreate a temporal 
phenomenon? A longitudinal exploration of changes and determinants among women 
and men of reproductive age in Germany. In:  Advances in Life Course Research 45, 
100339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2020.100339

Pavot, William; Diener, Ed 2008: The Satisfaction With Life Scale and the emerging 
construct of life satisfaction. In: The Journal of Positive Psychology 3,2: 137-152.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701756946

Philipov, Dimiter; Bernardi, Laura 2011: Concepts and Operationalisation of Reproductive 
Decisions. Implementation in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. In: Comparative 
Population Studies 36,2-3: 495-530. https://doi.org/10.12765/CPoS-2011-14

Proulx, Christine M.; Ermer, Ashley E.; Kanter, Jeremy B. 2017: Group-Based Trajectory 
Modeling of Marital Quality: A Critical Review. In: Journal of Family Theory & Review 
9,3: 307-327. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12201

Rapp, Ingmar et al. 2015: Partner Market Opportunities and Relationship Stability. In: 
Comparative Population Studies 40,3: 229-250. 
https://doi.org/10.12765/CPoS-2015-08.

Reis, Harry T.; Collins, W. Andrew; Berscheid, Ellen 2000: The relationship context of 
human behavior and development. In: Psychological Bulletin 126,6: 844-872.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.126.6.844



•    Norbert F. Schneider et al.184

Robins, Richard W.; Caspi, Avshalom; Moffi tt, Terrie E. 2000: Two personalities, one 
relationship: Both partners' personality traits shape the quality of their relationship. 
In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79,2: 251-259. 
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.2.251

Roth, Bettina; Hahn, Elisabeth; Spinath, Frank M. 2017: Income Inequality, Life 
Satisfaction, and Economic Worries. In: Social Psychological and Personality Science 
8,2: 133-141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616664955

Rowe, Francisco et al. 2019: Impact of Internal Migration on Population Redistribution 
in Europe: Urbanisation, Counterurbanisation or Spatial Equilibrium? In: Comparative 
Population Studies 44: 201-234. https://doi.org/10.12765/CPoS-2019-18

Rüger, Heiko et al. 2017: Does perceived stress mediate the relationship between 
commuting and health-related quality of life? In: Transportation Research Part F: 
Traffi c Psychology and Behaviour 50: 100-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.07.005

Sakshaug, Joseph W. et al. 2020: Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Labor Market 
Surveys at the German Institute for Employment Research. In: Survey Research 
Methods 14,2: 229-233. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2020.v14i2.7743

Sastry, Narayan; McGonagle, Katherine; Fomby, Paula 2020: Effects of the COVID-19 
Crisis on Survey Fieldwork: Experience and Lessons From Two Major Supplements 
to the U.S. Panel Study of Income Dynamics. In: Survey Research Methods 14,2: 241-
245. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2020.v14i2.7752

Scherpenzeel, Annette et al. 2020: Collecting survey data among the 50+ population 
during the COVID-19 outbreak: The Survey of Health Ageing and Retirement in Europe 
(SHARE). In: Survey Research Methods 14,2: 217-221. 
https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2020.v14i2.7738

Schmiedeberg, Claudia 2015: Regional Data in the German Family Panel (pairfam). 
Pairfam Technical Paper No. 07.

Schneider, Norbert F. 2012: The Future of the Family in Europe: Diversity and 
Convergence. In: Bertram, Hans; Ehlert, Nancy (Eds.): Family, Ties and Care. Opladen: 
Barbara Budrich: 225-239.

Schneider, Norbert F.; Naderi, Robert; Ruppenthal, Silvia 2012: Familie in Deutschland 
nach dem gesellschaftlichen Umbruch. Sind Ost-West-Differenzierungen in der Fami-
lienforschung zwanzig Jahre nach der Wiedervereinigung noch sinnvoll? In: Huinink, 
Johannes; Kreyenfeld, Michaela; Trappe, Heike (Eds.): Familie und Partnerschaft in 
Ost- und Westdeutschland: Ähnlich und doch immer noch anders. Sonderheft der 
Zeitschrift für Familienforschung 24: 29-53.

Schneider, Norbert F. 2015: Familie in Westeuropa. In: Hill, Paul B.; Kopp, Johannes 
(Eds.): Handbuch Familiensoziologie. Wiesbaden: Springer: 21-53. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02276-1_2

Schneider, Norbert F.; Diabaté, Sabine; Ruckdeschel, Kerstin (Eds.) 2015: Familienleit-
bilder in Deutschland: Kulturelle Vorstellungen zu Partnerschaft, Elternschaft und Fa-
milienleben. Opladen: Barbara Budrich. https://doi.org/10.3224/84740663

Schneider, Norbert F.; Kreyenfeld, Michaela (Eds.) 2021: Research Handbook on the 
Sociology of the Family. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781788975544

Schoebi, Dominik; Karney, Benjamin R.; Bradbury, Thomas N. 2012: Stability and change 
in the fi rst 10 years of marriage: Does commitment confer benefi ts beyond the effects 
of satisfaction? In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102,4: 729-742.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026290



Family Research and Demographic Analysis (FReDA)    • 185

Seltzer, Judith A. et al. 2005: Explaining Family Change and Variation: Challenges for 
Family Demographers. In: Journal of Marriage and Family 67,4: 908-925.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00183.x

Sillars, Alan; Canary, Daniel J.; Tafoya, Melissa 2004: Communication, confl ict, and 
the quality of family relationships. In: Vangelisti, Anita L. (Ed.): LEA's communication 
series. Handbook of family communication. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: 
413-446.

Smock, Pamela J.; Greenland, Fiona Rose 2010: Diversity in Pathways to Parenthood: 
Patterns, Implications, and Emerging Research Directions. In: Journal of Marriage and 
Family 72,3: 576-593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00719.x

Sobotka, Tomáš; Beaujouan, Éva 2014: Two Is Best? The Persistence of a Two-Child 
Family Ideal in Europe. In: Population and Development Review 40,3: 391-419.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2014.00691.x

Sobotka, Tomáš; Berghammer, C. 2021: Demography of family change in Europe. 
In: Schneider, Norbert F.; Kreyenfeld, Michaela (Eds.): Research Handbook on the 
Sociology of the Family. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar: 119-137

Spéder, Zsolt; Kapitány, Balázs 2014: Failure to Realize Fertility Intentions: A Key Aspect 
of the Post-communist Fertility Transition. In: Population Research and Policy Review 
33,3: 393-418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-013-9313-6

Stawarz, Nico; Sander, Nikola 2019: The Impact of Internal Migration on the Spatial 
Distribution of Population in Germany over the Period 1991-2017. In: Comparative 
Population Studies 44: 291-316. https://doi.org/10.12765/CPoS-2020-06

Stein, Petra; Willen, Sebastian 2018: Familiengründung als Ergebnis eines partner-
schaftlichen Aushandlungsprozesses. In: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozi-
alpsychologie 70,4: 655-688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-018-0578-y

Steinbach, Anja; Hank, Karsten 2016: Familiale Generationenbeziehungen aus bev-
ölkerungssoziologischer Perspektive. In: Niephaus, Yasemin; Kreyenfeld, Michaela; 
Sackmann, Reinhold (Eds.): Handbuch Bevölkerungssoziologie. Wiesbaden: Springer 
Fachmedien Wiesbaden: 367-391. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-01410-0_18

Steinbach, Anja; Kuhnt, Anne-Kristin; Knüll, Markus 2016: The prevalence of single-
parent families and stepfamilies in Europe: Can the Hajnal line help us to describe 
regional patterns? In: The History of the Family 21,4: 578-595.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1081602X.2016.1224730

Struminskaya, Bella 2014: Data quality in probability-based online panels: Nonresponse, 
attrition, and panel conditioning. Utrecht: Utrecht University.

Te Velde, Egbert et al. 2012: The effect of postponement of fi rst motherhood on 
permanent involuntary childlessness and total fertility rate in six European countries 
since the 1970s. In: Human Reproduction 27,4: 1179-1183.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der455

Testa, Maria Rita 2012: Family Sizes in Europe: Evidence from the 2011 Eurobarometer 
Survey Contents. European Demographic Research Papers. Wien.

Testa, Maria Rita 2014: On the positive correlation between education and fertility 
intentions in Europe: Individual- and country-level evidence. In: Advances in Life 
Course Research 21: 28-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2014.01.005

Thévenon, Olivier; Luci, Angela 2012: Reconciling Work, Family and Child Outcomes: 
What Implications for Family Support Policies? In: Population Research and Policy 
Review 31,6: 855-882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-012-9254-5



•    Norbert F. Schneider et al.186

Vergauwen, Jorik et al. 2015: Quality of demographic data in GGS Wave 1. In: 
Demographic Research 32: 723-774. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2015.32.24

Vidal, Sergi; Huinink, Johannes; Feldhaus, Michael 2017: Fertility Intentions and 
Residential Relocations. In: Demography 54,4: 1305-1330. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-017-0592-0

Vikat, Andres et al. 2007: Generations and Gender Survey (GGS): Towards a better 
understanding of relationships and processes in the life course. In: Demographic 
Research 17: 389-440. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2007.17.14

Walper, Sabine; Bien, Walter; Rauschenbach, Thomas (Eds.) 2015: Aufwachsen in 
Deutschland heute. München: Deutsches Jugendinstitut e.V. 

Walper, Sabine et al. 2020: The pairfam COVID-19 survey. 
https://doi.org/10.4232/pairfam.5959.1.0.0 

Wolf, Christof et al. 2021: Conducting General Social Surveys as Self-Administered 
Mixed-Mode Surveys. In: Public Opinion Quarterly. 
https://doi.org/10.7802/2150

Zoch, Gundula; Hondralis, Irina 2017: The Expansion of Low-Cost, State-Subsidized 
Childcare Availability and Mothers’ Return-to-Work Behaviour in East and West 
Germany. In: European Sociological Review 33,5: 693-707. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcx068

Zoch, Gundula; Schober, Pia S. 2018: Public Child-Care Expansion and Changing Gender 
Ideologies of Parents in Germany. In: Journal of Marriage and Family 80,4: 1020-1039.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12486

Date of submission: 12.02.2021  Date of acceptance: 09.04.2021

Prof. Dr. Norbert F. Schneider (), PD. Dr. Martin Bujard. Federal Institute for Population 
Research. Wiesbaden, Germany.
E-mail: norbert.schneider@bib.bund.de, martin.bujard@bib.bund.de
URL: https://www.bib.bund.de/DE/Institut/Mitarbeiter/Schneider/Schneider.html

https://www.bib.bund.de/DE/Institut/Mitarbeiter/Bujard/Bujard.html

Prof. Dr. Christof Wolf, Dr. Tobias Gummer. GESIS Leibniz Institute for the Social 
Sciences. Mannheim, Germany. 
E-mail: christof.wolf@gesis.org, tobias.gummer@gesis.org
URL: https://www.gesis.org/en/institute/staff/person/christof.wolf

https://www.gesis.org/en/institute/staff/person/tobias.gummer

Prof. Dr. Karsten Hank. University of Cologne, Institute of Sociology and Social 
Psychology (ISS). Cologne. Germany. E-mail: hank@wiso.uni-koeln.de
URL: https://iss-wiso.uni-koeln.de/en/institute/staff/h/prof-dr-karsten-hank 

Prof. Dr. Franz J. Neyer. University of Jena, Department of Personality Psychology and 
Psychological Assessment. Jena. Germany. E-mail: franz.neyer@uni-jena.de
URL: https://www.perpsy.uni-jena.de/en/team/prof_+dr_+franz+j_+neyer



Published by
Prof. Dr. Norbert F. Schneider

Federal Institute for Population Research 
D-65180 Wiesbaden / Germany

 2021

Managing Editor 
Prof. Dr. Johannes Huinink
Dr. Katrin Schiefer

Editorial Assistant
Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs
Wiebke Hamann

Layout
Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs

E-mail: cpos@bib.bund.de

Scientifi c Advisory Board
Karsten Hank (Cologne)
Michaela Kreyenfeld (Berlin)
Marc Luy (Vienna) 
Natalie Nitsche (Rostock)
Zsolt Spéder (Budapest)
Rainer Wehrhahn (Kiel)

Comparative Population Studies

www.comparativepopulationstudies.de

ISSN: 1869-8980 (Print) – 1869-8999 (Internet)

Board of Reviewers
Bruno Arpino (Barcelona)
Kieron Barclay (Rostock)
Laura Bernardi (Lausanne)
Gabriele Doblhammer (Rostock)
Anette Eva Fasang (Berlin)
Michael Feldhaus (Oldenburg)
Tomas Frejka (Sanibel)
Alexia Fürnkranz-Prskawetz (Vienna)
Birgit Glorius (Chemnitz)
Fanny Janssen (Groningen)
Frank Kalter (Mannheim)
Stefanie Kley (Hamburg)
Bernhard Köppen (Koblenz)
Anne-Kristin Kuhnt (Duisburg)
Hill Kulu (St Andrews)
Nadja Milewski (Wiesbaden)
Roland Rau (Rostock)
Thorsten Schneider (Leipzig)
Tomas Sobotka (Vienna)
Jeroen J. A. Spijker (Barcelona)
Heike Trappe (Rostock)
Helga de Valk (The Hague)
Sergi Vidal (Barcelona)
Michael Wagner (Cologne)