A survey by the organization Plan caused a stir with shocking results on violence against women. But there is increasing criticism of the method.
The most important things at a glance
The report is entitled “The tension between masculinity – this is how young men between the ages of 18 and 35 tick in Germany”. “We wanted to find out what young men and women in Germany understand by ‘masculinity’, how they perceive it and how they deal with it,” it says literally. But did it really work well? t-online provides an overview.
Who was interviewed?
According to the plan report, the survey took place from March 9th to 21st as a standardized written online survey – i.e. using a questionnaire that the participants filled out online. 1,000 men and 1,000 women were questioned on various aspects. This also includes the topic of the use of force, which is now particularly in focus.
The market research institute Moweb, which regularly conducts surveys among users who are registered with Moweb and receives financial compensation for taking part, was commissioned to carry out the Plan survey. This is important to mention, because other opinion research institutes such as the research group Wahlen, Allensbach or Civey, with whom t-online also works, pay survey participants nothing. The market research institute transpekte took on the coordination of the survey and the subsequent analysis of the data.
Moweb selected the participants for the survey sample according to quota specifications: three age groups were divided for each gender (18 to 24, 25 to 29 and 30 to 35 years), and the market researchers also classified the participants according to their level of education (no to intermediate qualifications, here understood as higher education entrance qualification and completed studies). Regionally there were four areas (North, East, South, West). The idea behind it: The quota specifications should be based on official statistics, they are not mentioned in the Plan report.
How representative are the results really?
According to Plan, the sample is intended to represent the total population in the 18-35 age group “with a high degree of probability” – at least in the three queried characteristics. However, Plan’s report is missing several statistical parameters that indicate the quality of the results. In response to a t-online request, Plan announced that these values had not been determined at all.
In addition, not every result of the study is actually backed by 1,000 (for gender-specific questions) or 2,000 people (for non-gender-specific questions). A total of 104 questionnaires were filled out incorrectly, Plan says. Therefore, only the information from 949 women and 947 men was included in the result.
In addition, further differentiation was made: the gender selection “diverse” was also possible – on request, Plan stated that they had received the women’s questionnaire. 13 people had given corresponding information. In addition, among those who chose “male”, a further distinction was made between heterosexual and homosexual men. Only heterosexuals would have received questions about their relationship to women in the partnership, homosexuals corresponding questions about male partners. According to a plan spokeswoman, 91 percent of the men said they were straight.
In the report, Plan does not state how many men actually received the questions about violence against women, for example. It is also not clear whether the group of heterosexual men is still representative. There is no official information on this, so no specifications could be made to ensure representativeness, Plan said on request.
It also remains unclear in the report how men who identify neither as heterosexual nor as homosexual were dealt with. When asked, a spokeswoman for the plan said that 13 men with no sexual interest had been sorted out in advance and not evaluated. She did not say how men who identify as bisexual or pansexual were treated.
