Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research 17

Sabine Andresen
Susann Fegter
Klaus Hurrelmann
Ulrich Schneekloth Editors

Well-being,
Poverty and
Justice from a
Child’s Perspective
3rd World Vision Children Study
 Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research
Volume 17
Series Editor:
ASHER BEN-ARIEH
Paul Baerwald School of Social Work & Social Welfare, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Editorial Board:

J. LAWRENCE ABER DAGMAR KUTSAR

New York University, USA University of Tartu, Estonia
JONATHAN BRADSHAW KENNETH C. LAND
University of York, U.K. Duke University, Durham, UK
FERRAN CASAS BONG JOO LEE
University of Girona, Spain Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
ICK-JOONG CHUNG JAN MASON
Duksung Women’s University, Seoul, University of Western Sydney, Australia
Korea KRISTIN A. MOORE
HOWARD DUBOWITZ Child Trends, Washington, USA
University of Maryland Baltimore, USA BERNHARD NAUCK
IVAR FRØNES Chemnitz University of Technology,
University of Oslo, Norway Germany
FRANK FURSTENBERG USHA S. NAYAR
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Tata Institute, Mumbai, India
USA WILLIAM O’HARE
ROBBIE GILLIGAN Kids Counts project, Annie E. Casy
Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland Foundation, Baltimore, USA
ROBERT M. GOERGE SHELLY PHIPPS
University of Chicago, USA Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova
IAN GOUGH Scotia, Canada
University of Bath, U.K. JACKIE SANDERS
AN-MAGRITT JENSEN Massey University, Palmerston North,
Norwegian University of Science and New Zealand
Technology, Trondheim, Norway GIOVANNI SGRITTA
SHEILA B. KAMERMAN University of Rome, Italy
Columbia University, New York, USA THOMAS S. WEISNER
JILL E. KORBIN University of California, Los Angeles, USA
Case Western Reserve University, HELMUT WINTERSBERGER
Cleveland, USA University of Vienna, Austria
This series focuses on the subject of measurements and indicators of children’s well
being and their usage, within multiple domains and in diverse cultures. More spe-
cifically, the series seeks to present measures and data resources, analysis of data,
exploration of theoretical issues, and information about the status of children, as
well as the implementation of this information in policy and practice. By doing so it
aims to explore how child indicators can be used to improve the development and
the well being of children.
With an international perspective the series will provide a unique applied per-
spective, by bringing in a variety of analytical models, varied perspectives, and a
variety of social policy regimes.
Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research will be unique and exclusive in
the field of measures and indicators of children’s lives and will be a source of high
quality, policy impact and rigorous scientific papers.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8162

Sabine Andresen • Susann Fegter 
Klaus Hurrelmann  •  Ulrich Schneekloth
Editors

Well-being, Poverty and

Justice from a Child’s
Perspective
3rd World Vision Children Study
Editors
Sabine Andresen Susann Fegter
Department of Education, Institute of Social Department of Humanities, Institute of
Pedagogy and Adult Education Educational Sciences
Goethe University Frankfurt Technische Universität Berlin
Frankfurt am Main, Germany Berlin, Germany

Klaus Hurrelmann Ulrich Schneekloth

Hertie School of Governance Kantar Public
Berlin, Germany München, Germany

Translated by  Jonathan Harrow

Originally published in German language: 3. World Vision Kinderstudie. Wie gerecht ist
unsere Welt? by Sabine Andresen et al. (Eds.) Copyright © 2013 Beltz Verlag. Translated into
the English language: Well-being, Poverty and Justice from a Child’s Perspective: 3rd World
Vision Children Study by Sabine Andresen et  al. (Eds.) Copyright © 2017 Springer
International Publishing Switzerland. Springer International Publishing AG is part of
Springer Science+Business Media All Rights Reserved.

ISSN 1879-5196     ISSN 1879-520X (electronic)

Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research
ISBN 978-3-319-57573-5    ISBN 978-3-319-57574-2 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57574-2

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017944443

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Foreword from World Vision Deutschland e.V.

Once again, the researchers carrying out the Third World Vision Child Study have
entered uncharted territory and opened up previously untapped areas for childhood
studies. This particularly includes the focus on “justice”—a topic that research in
this field is beginning to address only recently. The first two World Vision Child
Studies (2007 and 2010) already showed how closely children associate well-being
with justice. Even younger children reveal a marked sense of justice. However, they
also link justice closely to equal opportunity and equality of treatment—as the pres-
ent study also shows (see Chap. 2).
The Third World Vision Child Study focuses once again on the subjective well-­­
being of children and thereby the world they experience. Well-being is more than
just safeguarding children’s rights and being guided by the best interests of the child
as understood in legal terms. It is a multidimensional concept containing both objec-
tive and subjective criteria. By asking 6- to 11-year-old children to give their own
subjective appraisals of their well-being, the child study confirms once again that
children are able to give competent and authentic accounts of their own life situa-
tion; they are the specialists on their own lives. In addition, the study grants children
in Germany a voice that deserves to be heard—not only by parents and teachers but
also by academics and politicians. Children need child-oriented surroundings and a
child-oriented society.
As the results of the quantitative and qualitative surveys in this study show, child
well-being has much to do with participation in society and how far children are
able to participate and to develop their capabilities. The Second World Vision Child
Study (2010) already placed great value on the concept of self-efficacy, showing
how this gains in strength the more children are able to codetermine the environ-
ment in which they live. However, the precondition of codetermination is for par-
ents (and other persons involved in rearing and educating children) to take children
seriously, to listen to them attentively and honestly, and to devote enough time to
them. Here, the study shows once again that when parents have to go to work, this
does not necessarily impede the quality of the time and care they devote to their
children.

v
vi Foreword from World Vision Deutschland e.V.

Well-being also involves a fine balance between care and freedom. The children
tell us that too many regulations and prohibitions can constrain their well-being.
However, the granting of freedom to children can only develop its full potential
when they also have the chance to use the existing possibilities to shape their own
lives. Here is where we so clearly see that we are living in a four-fifths society in
Germany—one in which most children are growing up comparatively contentedly,
but one-fifth are living in precarious circumstances and have only very limited pos-
sibilities of participating in society.
Poverty and the risks of poverty, the Third World Vision Child Study reveals once
again, remain an urgent social problem in Germany. However, child poverty is a
multifaceted phenomenon: It is characterized by the constrained financial possibili-
ties of the parents, by their ability or inability to get by with the money available to
them, and, above all, by limited participation in social and cultural activities.
The risks that can lead to child poverty include unemployment, single parent-
hood, a migration background, fear of failure, and parents who lack an educational
background and educational aspirations—or a combination of these factors.
However, how do children perceive their own poverty? How do they deal with it?
How do they cope with poverty and the other constraints to their well-being? When
asked, most children place themselves in the middle between poor and rich and
indicate that they are fully aware of their responsibility for their own lives. However,
whereas some children seem to have an almost fatalistic outlook and simply accept
their fate of having limited opportunities, others display an amazing resistance to
everyday strains and obstacles. The secret of this resilience has yet to be worked out
in full.
The World Vision Child Study starts off by reviewing the situation of children in
Germany. However, it also aims to go beyond just a review: It should grant the chil-
dren a voice, give parents and teachers new findings to work with, and point to fields
in which policymakers can actively strive to create a society that is friendlier to
children. To underline clearly what policymakers need to address, the authors of the
study have once again devoted a special chapter to this topic under the heading
“Policy for Children” (see Chap. 9). Because poverty and disadvantage affect all
areas of life, the challenge for policymakers is to counter the growing social divi-
sions in our society. Poverty is always relative, because exclusion and limited par-
ticipation are generally perceived to be more painful than mere financial
constraints.
When a children’s charity such as World Vision, which has predominantly taken
up the fight against global poverty, once again addresses the subjective well-being
of children in Germany, this is in no way a sign of inconsistency. First of all, in our
developmental work throughout the world, the principle of child well-being has
become increasingly the decisive criterion for measuring the efficacy of our pro-
grams, and, second, the poverty that we have committed ourselves to fight does not
respect national borders. The gap between poor and rich no longer runs along the
divide between north and south but right through the middle of all societies, and that
includes Germany.
Foreword from World Vision Deutschland e.V. vii

At this point, we wish to thank Sabine Andresen, Klaus Hurrelmann, Ulrich

Schneekloth, and their research team for their comprehensive and painstaking
research along with their competent and careful analyses. We also particularly wish
to thank the children and their parents who first made this survey possible. Our wish
is that policymakers and the society will hear the voices of these children and strive
to create more child-oriented conditions. Indeed, it is only when we can offer chil-
dren a promising future that this will also come about to the benefit of us all.

World Vision Institute for Research and Innovation Hartmut Kopf

Friedrichsdorf, Germany Kurt Bangert
Summary

When asked about their well-being, the great majority of children in Germany give
positive or even very positive answers. This reflects the security and care they expe-
rience within their own families and the active ways in which their parents attend to
their needs. One central aspect in the eyes of the 6- to 11-year-old children in our
study is to have their opinions taken seriously and not to be ignored. Other essential
aspects for their well-being are their circle of friends, being able to organize their
leisure time by themselves, and having a variety of leisure-time pursuits. These are
the areas in which children absorb important (informal) learning incentives that
extend and substantially supplement the formal education processes they experi-
ence at school.
One finding that also stands out in this new 2013 World Vision Child Study is
that the social origins of children continue to be a recurring theme in their life situ-
ations and the accompanying chances for them to participate in society. The results
of the latest 2013 Child Study indicate that it is above all those children coming
from the lowest social class1 who are being broadly left behind. These children are
unable to participate adequately in the wide range of services and opportunities
available in Germany. Instead, social risks accumulate in their daily lives, and, as a
consequence, they are denied their chances of development, capabilities, and
thereby life perspectives.

 In this study, social class is used in a similar way to socioeconomic status. Our use of this term
1

will be explained in detail in Sects. 1.3 and 3.5.

ix
x Summary

The Focus on Justice

Equality and Reciprocity as Benchmarks in the Sense of Justice

One of the focuses in this Third World Vision Child Study is on the topic of justice.
Children orient themselves strongly toward their need for equality and equality of
treatment when they express their sense of justice. This includes not only personal
fairness when dealing with others but also being sure that there are equal chances
for everybody to join in. This is why they think that goods and opportunities of
access should be shared out among themselves. Depending on the situation they are
in, children initially favor the principle of equal distribution (equality) in their daily
lives, although, generally speaking, only when this is simultaneously accompanied
by respect for the principle of reciprocity. If this is not the case, for example, when
a few children do not stick to the rules or do not make any contribution themselves,
then they also evaluate this as unjust and intolerable. The sense of justice developed
by children in this age range has a clearly recognizable altruistic dimension and
serves not only their own interests but also the well-being of others. It is interesting
to see how the views of children and their desire for justice link up with the debate
on social justice. Even in the “grown-up” world, the final concern is “that we share
with each other and don’t leave anybody just standing there” (girl aged 7 years).

 igh Level of Satisfaction with Life but with Some “Fine

H
Differences”

More than 90% of the children give positive or even very positive reports on their
personal life satisfaction. Indeed, satisfaction even seems to be showing a slight
increase. In contrast, 28% of the children from the lowest social class give ratings
ranging from negative to neutral and trail notably behind this positive appraisal.

 hildren Judge Their Own Family and Their Personal

C
Surroundings to Be Just and Germany as Well—Though
with Some Reservations

About 90% of children rate the social interaction within their own family and circle
of friends as being just, and almost 80% consider social interaction at school to be
just as well. Almost 50% consider Germany as a whole to be just, but only 16%
think that the world is just. Slightly more than one-quarter of the children were
unable to give any answer to these last two questions.
Summary xi

 ot Only Lower-Class Children but Also Children

N
with a Migration Background, Children from Single-Parent
Families, and Children from Large Families with a Lot
of Children Feel Disadvantaged

A total of 44% of the children report disadvantages in daily life—10% frequently

and 34% occasionally. Children with the lowest social origins report these by far the
most frequently at 68%. Disproportionally frequently, 51% of children with a
migration background report personally experiencing disadvantages in their daily
lives. The same applies to 51% of the children growing up in single-parent families
and 50% of the children from large families with a lot of children.
The latter matches the views of parents: Here as well, it is 51% of single parents
who report having difficulties in reconciling family and profession (38% just about
okay, 13% less well). Likewise, 32% of parents with three or more children (23%
just about okay, 9% less well) report being confronted with difficulties more fre-
quently than average (26% just about okay, 6% less well).

Family and Background

 iversity of Family Lifestyles and the Mothers’ Wish to Have

D
a Job

Today’s children are growing up in a variety of different kinds of family. Recent

years reveal an increasing trend toward more children (in our age range from 6 to 11
years) having two working parents: For 35% of the children (2010, 30%; 2007,
25%), either one parent works full-time, while the other works part-time, or both
work part-time. In contrast, at currently 32% (2010, 40%; 2007, 42%), the “classic”
single-earner family is in decline. For 13% of the children, both parents work full-­­
time (2010 and 2007, 10%); 12% in single-parent families have a parent in full- or
part-time work (2010, 12%; 2007, 10%); 4% have unemployed parents (2010, 5%;
2007, 8%), and, as in the first two surveys, 4% have a parent who is studying, train-
ing, or looking after the home without participating on the labor market.
Mothers who work part-time report being most satisfied with their working hours
(74% are positive, 8% would like to work more, and 18% would like to work less).
However, the majority of mothers who work full-time are also satisfied with their
working hours (59% are positive, 35% would like to work less, and 6% would like
to work more). The majority of unemployed mothers would also prefer to work
part-time (55% prefer part-time, 31% prefer full-time, and 14% say that things are
fine the way they are).
xii Summary

 oth Children and Parents Consider That Going to Work Is

B
Compatible with Reliable Care for Children

As a trend, children continue to complain most frequently about a lack of care and
attention (“Both parents do not have enough time or one parent does not have
enough time; the other parent, sometimes yes and sometimes no”) when they have
either a working single parent (2013, 32%; 2010, 31%; 2007, 35%) or a parent who
is unemployed or not working for other reasons (2013, 29%; 2010, 30%; 2007,
29%). However, the proportion of children who lack care and attention when both
parents are employed either part- or full-time has remained constant at 8%.
Parents’ estimates do not differ from those of their children. Reconciling family
and work is most difficult for working single parents (49% just about okay or less
well) and also for parents who are unemployed or not employed for other reasons
(46% just about okay or less well). Relatively speaking, compatibility is considered
to work best in families in which both parents go to work either full- or part-time
(27% just about okay or less well).

 xperiencing Poverty and Participation Risks Continues

E
to Be an Everyday Reality for Significant Numbers of Children

Eighteen percent of children report personally experiencing poverty: They report

experiencing one of the nine indicators of poverty tapped in our survey in their daily
lives. Here as well, however, the more frequently that both parents are employed,
the lower the risk of poverty.
According to the social class (origins) index developed specially for our child
studies, 29% of the children belong to the middle class, 30% to the upper middle
class, and 16% to the upper class. This leaves 16% in the lower middle class and 9%
in the lower class. Trends indicate that the proportion in the lower middle class is
declining slightly (2010, 18%; 2007, 19%), whereas the proportion in the upper
classes is rising slightly. The reason for this is above all the improvements in the
educational status of parents over time. In contrast, the proportion of children from
the lowest and thereby least educated class remains constant at 9%.
The background to this slight general improvement with regard to the risks of
poverty and exclusion is naturally the comparatively favorable economic situation
and the proportionally low unemployment throughout Northern Europe. This makes
it all the more discouraging when looking at the trend since our first child study to
see that there have been hardly any changes in the life situation and the poor chances
of participation among those children with the lowest social origins. The life condi-
tions of a portion of the children from the lower middle class also continue to be
precarious. As a result, it has to be assumed that roughly one-fifth of all children
continue to be constrained in their developmental possibilities because of their
social origins and are in need of the support of society.
Summary xiii

Only 15% of the parents of lower-class children and also a disproportionately

low 22% of the parents of lower middle-class children report that their children used
to attend a day nursery (middle class, 25%; upper middle class, 31%; upper class,
27%). Earlier attendance of a preschool (kindergarten) is also reported for only 78%
of lower-class children. In contrast, more than 90% of children in the lower middle
class, as in the other classes, attended a preschool. For the 6- to 11-year-old children
in our survey, this information was gathered retrospectively in the parent question-
naire. Nonetheless, it still underlines the importance of a quantitatively adequate,
reliable, and simultaneously high-quality institutional care service.

Migration Background

A total of 34% of the children (aged 6–11 years) have a migration background. The
majority of these children also have German citizenship and were born in Germany.
A migration background is found in 59% of children from the lower class and also
a slightly disproportionally high proportion of 41% of children in the lower middle
class. Hence, children with a migration background continue to come dispropor-
tionately frequently from families of origin with little education. The lower the edu-
cation in the class of origin, then the likelier it is that the children from migrant
families will not speak German at home. Our results showed that 33% of the chil-
dren with a migration background speak predominantly their parents’ mother
tongue at home (2010, 33%; 2007, 35%), and here, it is 43% of the children from
the lower classes of origin compared to 26% from the upper classes of origin.

School

 ardly Any Changes in the Relation Between Origins

H
and Educational Position of Children

Compared to most other nations, children’s academic performance is shaped more

strongly by social origins in Germany. Hence, which grade 6- to 11-year-old chil-
dren attend in school and which type of school they attend are unequally distributed
according to social origins. Slightly more than every fifth child surveyed from the
lower class is attending a fifth- or sixth-grade class compared to every third upper-­­
class child. Two-thirds of the 6- to 11-year-old children surveyed, and therefore the
majority, are still attending elementary school, but the one-third that have already
left elementary school are distributed very unequally across the different kinds of
secondary school. Whereas the majority of lower-class children are attending the
xiv Summary

Hauptschule,2 the upper-class children are particularly frequently attending a

Gymnasium. Compared to the last two surveys in 2007 and 2010, this has hardly
changed.

 ecline in Those Wishing to Complete Their Secondary

D
Education with “Abitur”

Regarding the aspired school-leaving qualifications, the number wishing to com-

plete their secondary education with the university entrance qualification, the
Abitur, has declined over the years—and this applies to all social classes of origin.
Moreover, the ideas about which secondary school-leaving qualification can be
attained seem to have become less clear over time, as shown by the increased pro-
portion of “don’t know/don’t care” responses.

Markedly More Children Attend All-Day Schools

Since the first survey in 2007, the proportion of children attending an all-day school
or class has grown markedly. Among the 8- to 11-year-old children, it has almost
doubled from 13% in 2007 to 23% in 2013. However, the analyses show that even
today, whether a family has a realistic chance of deciding freely in favor of a place
in an all-day school depends decisively on where that family lives. In Eastern
Germany, almost twice as many children report attending an all-day school in 2013
compared to children in Western Germany (39% vs. 21%).

I t Is Particularly Lower-Class Children Who Report Above-­­

Average Well-Being When They Attend an All-Day School

According to their own reports, the number of lower-class children taking advan-
tage of all-day school provisions is above average at 31%, whereas only one in
every five upper-class children spends the whole day at school. In all, we can deter-
mine an increasing number of all-day students in all social origin groups in the
World Vision Child Studies since 2007. A total of 61% of all-day students are

2
 All children attend elementary school together until the end of fourth grade. On the secondary
level (mostly from fifth grade onward), the school system follows three tracks: Hauptschule,
Realschule, and Gymnasium. The Gymnasium leads to the highest school-leaving certificate, the
Abitur. Some of the German states (or Länder) have merged the Hauptschule and Realschule
together. There are also integrated comprehensive schools.
Summary xv

satisfied with this type of school. However, this is the case for only 41% of lower-­­
class children.

Continuing Need to Extend Child Participation at School

Child participation at school differs in its degree and frequency. A total of 40% of
all 6- to 11-year-old children do not feel that they have any say in the seven areas we
asked them about and feel that they are unable to often have their say in any of these
areas. Boys have this impression far more frequently than girls (44% vs. 35%) and,
at 57%, 6- to 7-year-old children much more than 10- to 12-year-olds. We already
asked about some areas of child participation in the first child study in 2007, and
there have been hardly any changes since then.

Justice, Satisfaction, and School

A very large majority of the children surveyed judge their school to be “very fair”
(22%) or “quite fair” (56%). Negative reports of “rather unfair” (1%) and “very
unfair” (3%) are very rare. However, the sense of justice relates closely to the degree
of participation possibilities in the school.
The children’s sense of justice also reveals a close relation to general satisfaction
with school. Students who find their school to be rather or very unfair are less satis-
fied with their school in general and vice versa.
A total of 79% of the children talk about their school positively. Compared to
2010, this satisfaction score has increased by 9% and is particularly strong in ele-
mentary school children.

Leisure Time

 he Use of Computer Games and Game Consoles Remains

T
Constant

From 40% to 50% of 6- to 11-year-old computer users play games on their com-
puter or game console several times a week; about 15% report playing every day,
and 30% “not very often” spend their free time playing with computers and game
consoles. The trend over the last 6 years indicates that the frequency of use within
different age groups has remained broadly stable.
xvi Summary

Girls as “All-Rounders,” Boys as Media Consumers

As reported already in the last study, girls belong more than three times as often
(38%) to the group of all-rounders than boys (12%). Vice versa, boys spend at least
three times more of their leisure time (39%) as media consumers than girls (13%).
Whereas the latter tend more toward the creative-musical field and have a stronger
interest in theater, ballet, and dance as well as reading, their male peers continue to
engage particularly frequently in passive media-related activities such as watching
television or playing computer games.

 elevision, Computers, and Reading: Deviating Trends

T
in Different Leisure-Time Groups

Since the First World Vision Child Study, the frequency of television consumption
has declined somewhat across all 8- to 11-year-old children. Whereas in 2007, 56%
reported watching television very often, this applied to only 48% in 2010 and 49%
in 2013. Nonetheless, a more marked decline can be seen above all in the all-­­
rounders from 24% in 2007 to 12% in 2013. In the group of media consumers,
television is one of the most frequent leisure-time pursuits for 80–90% of these
children. And whereas the reported amount of viewing has declined in all-rounders,
it has increased in media consumers.
The use of computer and video games proves to be largely constant across all
three child studies (25–30%). However, it differs across various leisure types.
Among the all-rounders, the proportion of frequent players has sunk from an already
low starting level of 10% in 2007 to 2% in 2013, whereas about 60% of each group
of media consumers report playing computer games very frequently.
The proportion of children who read books frequently has declined slightly as a
whole. This finding applies to all three leisure types. Currently, 31% of children
read very often (2010, 37%; 2007, 34%). However, in the group of media consum-
ers, only 8% read very often in 2013 compared to 61% in the group of
all-rounders.

 lub Memberships: As Before, Insufficient Integration

C
of Lower-Class Children

According to parents’ reports, the proportion of children who belong to at least one
club or organized group as well as other provisions (e.g., music school or cultural
center) is very high in the upper and upper middle class where it ranges from
approximately 80% to over 90%. Middle-class memberships are also constant.
Approximately three-quarters of the children from this social class and roughly
Summary xvii

two-thirds of children from the lower middle class possess at least one membership.
In contrast, the proportion of children from the lower class who are members of a
club or organized group has remained below 50% in all three child studies and is
also subject to strong fluctuations.
The trend indicates a conspicuous decline in memberships of clubs, groups, or
musical and cultural provisions among 6- to 7-year-olds. This applies particularly to
children from the lower classes. In general, children from the lowest social class still
continue to be able to participate to a markedly lesser extent in institutionally orga-
nized leisure-time activities, and, at this stage, no change in this trend can be
ascertained.

 lder Children Are on the Internet, but Access Continues

O
to Be Determined by Social Class

In all, 4% of 6- to 7-year-olds, 11% of 8- to 9-year-olds, and then already 36% of

10- to 11-year-olds report being regularly online every week. Looking at the trend,
the proportion of both 6- to 7-year-olds and 8- to 9-year-olds has remained stable
and has not grown since 2007. What has increased, in contrast, is Internet use among
10- to 11-year-olds: from 29% in 2007 to 32% in 2010 and 36% in 2013. As a rule,
the children are online only from time to time during the week. Just a small minority
is online daily or for several hours at a time.
The earlier child studies already showed that children from lower social classes
somewhat less frequently have access to the Internet than children from higher
classes. The current study also confirms this finding. As a result, a smaller percent-
age of lower-class children report being regularly on the Internet each week (pro-
portion of Internet use in 10- to 11-year-old children: lower class, 23%; lower
middle class, 37%; middle class, 39%; upper middle class, 36%; upper class, 36%).
In contrast, however, this class effect disappears when we look only at children who
have access to the Internet.

 obile Phones: Increasingly More Widespread Among Children

M
in General, but Girls Remain in the Lead

The trend toward increasingly more children in this age range having a mobile
phone already reported in 2010 has continued in 2013. In 2007, only 17% of 8- to
9-year-olds and 56% of 10- to 11-year-olds had a mobile telephone; in 2010, this
rose to 27% and 66%, respectively, and, in the current study, to 31% of 8- to 9-year-­­
olds and 72% of 10- to 11-year-olds. However, even when the proportion of those
with a mobile telephone is increasing, boys have not caught up with girls. At 56%,
8- to 11-year-old girls continue to more frequently have their own mobile telephone
xviii Summary

than boys at 49% (across all age groups together, 42% of the girls and 37% of the
boys have a mobile telephone). Another finding that has remained constant since
2007 is that children in single-parent households more frequently have their own
mobile telephone (62%) than children in other families (50%).

Satisfaction with Own Leisure Time Continues to Increase

In 2013, only 8% of children give a negative to neutral evaluation of how satisfied

they are with the organization of their leisure time; 33% evaluate this as positive and
59% as very positive. This is a slight increase in the very high satisfaction reports in
2010. As before, judgments on satisfaction reveal a clear influence of social origins,
with children from the lower class less frequently reporting a very positive judg-
ment and more frequently giving a negative to neutral or a positive judgment than
their peers from higher classes. Nonetheless, in this group as well, there is at least a
slightly positive trend. Whereas in 2010, 28% of the children with lower-class ori-
gins still judged the organization of their leisure time to be negative to neutral, in
2013, this proportion is markedly lower at 17%.

Friends

 ess Frequent Personal Contacts During Leisure Time,

L
but the Size of the Circle of Friends Remains Constant

Compared to the two previous child studies, there has been a marked decline in the
frequency of personal meetings with friends during leisure time. In both 2010 and
2007, 68% of the children surveyed reported meeting their friends very often,
whereas in 2013, this is only 53%. However, this has no effect on the size of the
circle of friends. In all three child studies, approximately 40% of 8- to 11-year-olds
report having a large circle of friends containing 10 or more peers. Roughly one-­­
half of the children have between four and nine friends, whereas slightly more than
10% report having only a small circle of friends or none at all.

The Size of Circle of Friends Depends on the Leisure Type

Across all three child studies, we can see that media consumers have fewer friends
than normal leisure-time users or all-rounders. Only about one-third of this group
report having 10 or more friends compared to roughly 35–40% in the other two
groups. In line with this, all three child studies show that among 8- to 11-year-old
Summary xix

media consumers, the proportion that have only a small circle of friends containing
three or less children is higher (17–21%) than that among normal leisure-time users
(12–14%) or all-rounders (7–11%).

 chool and “Outside” Continue to Be by Far the Most Frequent

S
Locations in Which Children Meet Their Friends

Children aged 6–11 years most frequently meet their friends at school (78% just
about every day during the week) or outside (17% just about every day and 50%
several times a week). Online, 3% of all children meet their friends just about every
day (among the 10- to 11-year-olds, 6%), and a further 6% meet their friends online
several times a week (among the 10- to 11-year-olds, 14%). In comparison, 2% of
all children meet their friends just about every day in a club and a further 41% sev-
eral times a week there.

 ontact with Friends Over the Internet: Chat Lines Are Losing

C
Their Popularity—In Favor of Social Networks

Among the 8- to 11-year-olds in the survey, the use of chat lines has lost its popular-
ity since 2007. Probably the reason for this decline is not that children are less
interested in using the Internet for social contacts but the increasing popularity of
other social networks such as Facebook. These are already used by a total of 15% of
the oldest respondents (10- to 11-year-olds).

Being Well Regarded by One’s Circle of Friends

The majority of children see themselves as being well regarded in their circle of
friends, and this positive impression has increased since 2007. In the first child
study, 43% of the 8- to 11-year-olds reported that their opinion was quite well
regarded in their circle of friends. In 2010, this rose to 45% of 8- to 11-year-olds,
and in 2013, it is now 53%.
xx Summary

Codetermination and One’s Own Opinion

 pportunities for Self-Determination in Daily Life: Still Limited

O
for Lower-Class Children

Children have different opportunities to shape their daily lives for themselves. The
most possibilities of codetermination are given to them in the family and have to do
with their leisure time and their circle of friends. Here—depending on age—almost
90% of children themselves decide which friends they meet and what they do in
their leisure time. On the other hand, two out of every three children are told when
to do their homework by their parents, and every second child cannot decide for her
or his self how many other children she or he may bring back home.
Children from the lower class have the least possibilities of self-determination in
daily life. Only three out of every four children, and thereby far fewer than the aver-
age, can themselves decide which friends they want to meet, and also only two out
of every three children report that they themselves can decide what to do in their
leisure time. Another restriction to the possibilities of self-determination is deficits
in care. Having parents with little time for their children is accompanied, from the
child’s perspective, by stricter rules and regulations in daily life. Independent of
this, children with a migration background—regardless of gender—report being
subject to comparatively stricter regulation. The same applies, though to a markedly
lesser extent, to children from families with lots of children.
Some of these limitations relate to a lack of household resources. On the other
hand, (class-specific) differences in child-rearing styles also manifest here.

 hildren with Lower Possibilities of Self-Determination in Daily

C
Life Perceive Less Codetermination at School

Possibilities of self-determination in daily life and codetermination at school go

hand in hand. On the one hand, this naturally relates to the children’s age. However,
the class of origin also functions as a selection mechanism here. Children who
attend one of the two higher secondary schools, a Gymnasium or a Realschule, are
offered far more possibilities of codetermination both in daily family life and at
school. Here as well, the class of origin controls daily life and the children’s scope
of action.
Remarkably, the relation between class of origin and experience of codetermina-
tion can already be traced in elementary school children, though to a lesser degree.
The social class effect here has two causes: first, the social homogeneity in the resi-
dential zone within which children are assigned to a specific elementary school and,
second, the role of personality characteristics. Self-confident and “self-efficacious”
children will tend to demand more codetermination than children coming from
milieus offering them hardly any possibilities of codetermination.
Summary xxi

 ersonal Opinions Are Taken Slightly More Seriously

P
in the Family and Circle of Friends and Slightly Less Seriously
at School and in Institutions

As a trend, children’s reports indicate an increase in how far their personal opinions
are taken seriously in the family and also in the circle of friends. Currently, 60%
report that their mothers take their personal opinions rather more seriously (2010,
57%; 2007, 56%). Among fathers, 49% value the opinions of their children rather
more seriously (2010, 48%; 2007, 47). About one-quarter of the children replied
with “sometimes one, sometimes the other” and about 10% (9% for the mother and
13% for the father) with “generally less”; the rest gave no reports on this. Regarding
the circle of friends, a rise to 51% of the children reported that their opinions were
taken more seriously (2010, 42%; 2007, 43%).
In contrast, only 29% of the children still reported that their class teachers tended
to take the children’s opinion more seriously. In 2010, this was 32% and, in 2007,
26%. Findings are similar for children attending a care institution such as a daycare
center. According to the children’s reports, 33% take the children’s opinion more
seriously (2010, 36%; 2007, 24%).
Once again, effects of class of origin emerge here. A total of 16% of lower-class
children report that their mothers do not take them seriously, and even 31% give
explicitly negative reports on their fathers. It is also notable that 19% of the children
with a migration background compared to 10% of the native German children eval-
uate being taken seriously by their fathers negatively, whereas there are no signifi-
cant differences regarding reports on the mothers. Here as well, this underlines the
significance of the parental child-rearing style.

World Vision Child Study 2013

The Third World Vision Child Study surveyed a nationally representative sample of
2535 children aged 6–11 years. The children were assessed personally through oral
surveys in their homes. These surveys took an average of 35 min. At the same time,
one parent was also asked to provide supplementary information on the origins and
social situation of the family. The qualitative part of the study was based on 12
interviews with children in this age range lasting between 1.5 and 3 h. Detailed
accounts of the children interviewed in the qualitative part are presented as indi-
vidual portraits.
Contents

1 How Children See Well-Being, Poverty, and Justice: The Focus

of the Third World Vision Child Study��������������������������������������������������    1
Sabine Andresen, Susann Fegter, and Klaus Hurrelmann
2 What’s Fair and What’s Unfair: The Different Faces of Justice ��������   23
Ulrich Schneekloth and Sabine Andresen
3 Family Backgrounds: Great Variety But Also Marked Differences
In Life Conditions������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   53
Ulrich Schneekloth and Monika Pupeter
4 School: An Increasingly Important Field of Experience����������������������   83
Monika Pupeter and Klaus Hurrelmann
5 Leisure Time: Varied and Colorful, but Not For All Children������������  107
Agnes Jänsch and Ulrich Schneekloth
6 Friendships Among Peers������������������������������������������������������������������������  135
Agnes Jänsch and Monika Pupeter
7 Participation and the Children’s Own Opinion������������������������������������  149
Monika Pupeter and Ulrich Schneekloth
8 Challenges Facing a “Policy for Children”��������������������������������������������  171
Sabine Andresen, Klaus Hurrelmann, and Ulrich Schneekloth

Appendices��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  179

References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  221

Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  227

xxiii
Chapter 1
How Children See Well-Being, Poverty,
and Justice: The Focus of the Third World
Vision Child Study

Sabine Andresen, Susann Fegter, and Klaus Hurrelmann

1.1  T
 he World Vision Child Studies and International
Childhood Research

The World Vision Child Studies have just one basic philosophy: to give a voice to
children in Germany. These studies view children as the experts on the world they
live in: on their feelings, opinions, and experiences. Of course, it goes without say-
ing that mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, grandparents, childcare workers,
sports coaches, and teachers are all experts as well, and they can tell us a lot of what
they know about children and childhood. However, it is now widely accepted that
the adult perspective on childhood and adult knowledge about children should not
be taken to be all-powerful and that it is important to view the children themselves
as informants and interpreters of childhood and being a child.
The First World Vision Child Study in 2007 presented and substantiated this
theoretical and methodological approach in some detail (Andresen and Hurrelmann
2007). One of the findings emphasized in 2007 has had a notable impact both in
Germany and abroad: the notable gaps the study revealed in what we know about
middle childhood, that is, children between the ages of 6 and 11 years. The World

S. Andresen (*)
Department of Education, Institute of Social Pedagogy and Adult Education,
Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
S. Fegter
Department of Humanities, Institute of Educational Sciences,
Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
K. Hurrelmann
Hertie School of Governance, Berlin, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 1

S. Andresen et al. (eds.), Well-being, Poverty and Justice from a Child’s
Perspective, Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research 17,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57574-2_1
2 S. Andresen et al.

Vision Child Studies have contributed to closing these gaps. Together with other
studies in Germany, above all, the Kinder-Panel and the AID:A Studie (both from
the German Youth Institute), the KIGGS childhood health study (Robert Koch
Institute), and the Robert Bosch Stiftung’s (2012) study on child well-being, we
now have a range of well-designed surveys addressing this age group.
What is the state of international childhood studies in 2013 and how does the
Third World Vision Child Study relate to this research? These are the questions we
want to address in this introductory chapter. We shall start by positioning our
approach within national and international research on child well-being. Although
we have been looking at child well-being continuously ever since our First Study,
there have been further developments in this field since the Second Study in 2010.
These are presented in Sect. 1.2 and continue the theoretical discussion to be found
in the Second Study (Andresen et al. 2010).
A further important topic is the situation of children living in poverty. The First
World Vision Child Study in 2007 highlighted the effects of child poverty in
Germany. Our findings attracted a lot of public attention and led many people to ask
how the children themselves experience it. When we started to plan the Second
Study, such reactions encouraged us to focus more strongly on how children living
in Germany actually perceive poverty themselves. In the Third Study presented
here, we also deal intensively with the social differences that children experience in
Germany and take a closer look at the effects of poverty from the children’s perspec-
tive. This is another field in which there have been advances in the discussion in
research, politics, and education since 2010. In Sect. 1.3, we shall discuss recent
poverty research in detail.
It is particularly children from families with a migration background along with
those whose parents have low educational qualifications who are subject to poverty.
Therefore, in Sect. 1.4, we shall consider what has now become an established sta-
tistical concept in Germany: a migration background. This concept, which offers an
improved way of distinguishing the diverse experiences of migration to be found in
the population of Germany, is also important when surveying children. Many a child
who is assigned a migration background has been born in Germany and often has
German nationality. Nonetheless, it is assumed that, for example, the experiences of
parents or grandparents as immigrants can have specific effects on their child born
in Germany. We examine these relationships while also considering the interna-
tional discussion on these topics. This should make poverty and migration visible as
possible experiences of children and as a part of their family history.
The Third World Vision Child Study also broadens the range of the two previous
studies and examines the children’s sense of justice. What children require for a
good and thereby a just life is certainly something they frequently think about them-
selves. In our previous studies, we noticed that whenever we asked children about
their values or to tell us what a good life means for children regardless of where they
are growing up, their answers always addressed the core of the debates to be found
in justice theory. Children want to have their say here, and they have something to
say. In the Third Study, we explicitly address the topic of justice and report on the
children’s sense of justice and how they judge injustice and inequality. This opens
1  How Children See Well-Being, Poverty, and Justice: The Focus of the Third World… 3

up a new field of research in both national and international childhood studies.

Section 1.5 reports on how we position our study within interdisciplinary research
on justice and the justice discussion that is frequently philosophical in nature. In the
final Sect. 1.6, we present some comments on our methodological approach.

1.2  W
 ell-Being as a Concept in Childhood Studies and its
Application in the Third World Vision Child Study

Like the past two studies in 2007 and 2010, the present study addresses the concept
of well-being. Although it also integrates new discussions and findings in this field,
our basic understanding remains unchanged: Once again, we are interested in find-
ing out about not only the subjective appraisals of our respondents but also their
specific social framing conditions. Having now carried out three studies in a row, we
are also in a position to compare the well-being and satisfaction of children in
Germany across time. One finding we can report straight away: In 2013, just as in
the two prior studies, overall well-being continues to be mostly very high.
Nonetheless, those children who are exposed to poverty frequently belong to the
group whose well-being is limited.
The concept of well-being does not just link up to academic issues but also to
political and educational practice. In general, one can define well-being by saying
that it stands for a comprehensive understanding of the qualities of a child’s life situ-
ation, welfare, and participation in society. Hence, well-being goes far beyond the
“best interests of the child.” This latter concept focuses predominantly on protecting
children, whereas well-being also includes children’s rights and thereby their par-
ticipation in society along with their capabilities. This shifts attention to children as
subjects with their own rights. As such, children do, of course, depend on the care,
protection, and education provided by adults, but they also have their own autono-
mous status. A further trend revealed by the present study illustrates this clearly: In
2013, as in the previous studies, one major aspect that continues to contribute to the
well-being of children is a measured balance between care and freedom in everyday
life (Andresen et al. 2012).
In general, research on child well-being is embedded in a tradition of striving to
make societies more child-friendly.

1.2.1  Dimensions and Indicators: The Study Design

Generally, well-being is conceived as a multidimensional concept (Minkkinen

2013). This means that it is composed of several dimensions such as material
resources, education, health, and relationships. Whereas the dimensions define and
systematically frame the concept of well-being as a whole, the single indicators
4 S. Andresen et al.

assigned to each dimension serve to specify and measure well-being. For example,
one possible indicator for education is the proportion of 15-year-olds attending the
highest level of secondary school in a nation. Hence, this refers to the objective
framing conditions of childhood in a nation and it considers who profits in what way
from, for example, the given educational provisions.
Only recently, two well-being researchers in the United States, William O’Hare
and Florencia Gutierrez (2012), collected and examined all available studies so far
that have applied an index of well-being. Their overview reveals the growing inter-
est in constructing dimensions and indicators of child well-being. Nonetheless, the
authors also showed that the concept is used in a broad range of ways. Indeed, just
about every research team has put together its own different set of dimensions and
indicators.
One reason for this heterogeneity is the political interest in obtaining practical
facts and statements. Important actors here are not only the major international
organizations such as the United Nations and its subsidiary organization UNICEF,
the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) but also national foundations. They fre-
quently work with comprehensive instruments to measure well-being. For example,
since 2007, UNICEF has been carrying out regular studies of the well-being of
children in 29 wealthy industrialized nations. In addition, UNICEF’s annual report
on the State of the World’s Children also addresses aspects of well-being in all
regions of the world. In 2013, for instance, it focused on children with disabilities
(UNICEF 2013). Very recently, UNICEF presented new data on well-being in
wealthy societies in its Report Card 11. These findings were based on an analysis of
overall satisfaction in 11-, 13-, and 15-year-old children in studies carried out by the
“Health Behaviour in School-aged Children” (HBSC) team.
The approach taken in the UNICEF study on the well-being of children in
wealthy countries has had many imitators. These have formulated dimensions of
well-being and developed indicators to measure it. Nowadays, many researchers are
also focusing on the dimension of subjective well-being, because results have shown
the need to pay attention to not only objective social framing conditions but also the
way they are perceived subjectively—especially when studying children.

1.2.2  Subjective Well-Being: The Children’s Own Evaluations

One major advance has been the intensive work on determining the role of the
important dimension of subjective well-being and how it should be measured. This
has also drawn on established psychological research into, for example, the “quality
of life.” There are now many studies addressing the assessment of subjective well-­
being. The UNICEF studies also work with this dimension, and they have analyzed
it in depth in their latest Report Card 11. This uses an index to assess subjective
well-being as broadly as possible. The index covers overall life satisfaction, close
relationships with parents and peers, general well-being at school, and subjective
1  How Children See Well-Being, Poverty, and Justice: The Focus of the Third World… 5

health reports. In the near future, there will certainly be a need for further studies,
including international comparisons, in order to further clarify the state of subjec-
tive well-being in children (Bradshaw et al. 2013).
In this context, we should also mention the qualitative studies on the subjective
ideas of children, because we also drew on these in the Second World Vision Child
Study. One example of this is the research carried out in Australia by Tobia Fattore
and his colleagues (Fattore et al. 2012). This research team asked children to report
which areas of life they considered to be most important for well-being. They iden-
tified three areas: self, agency, and security. Self-refers essentially to the children’s
self-esteem, that is, their appraisal of themselves as good and valuable personalities.
Agency assesses how far children feel that they have control over their own lives
and the self-efficacy of their actions. Finally, security describes their feeling of
being secure and in good hands in their relationships with their parents and other
adults while nonetheless having sufficient scope when it comes to doing what they
themselves want to do.

1.2.3  D
 eveloping and Testing Comprehensive Composite
Indices

A further discussion should be mentioned here: whether it is possible to develop a

composite index that will be broadly valid for all children regardless of where they
are growing up. Likewise, efforts are being made to develop an index to assess dis-
advantage, as we shall show in the next section. Up to now, the international discus-
sion reveals that, despite the many calls for such a comprehensive composite
domain-driven index (O’Hare and Gutierrez 2012), there are still numerous hurdles
when it comes to developing and methodologically testing such an instrument.
Perhaps one will be available for the Fourth World Vision Child Study. The advan-
tage would be the possibility of integrating all indicators into a composite evalua-
tion by combining information from various areas. This would include and give
appropriate weight to all the aforementioned indicators assessing all dimensions of
well-being.
A more comprehensive instrument would make it possible to measure the quality
of life of children in a society with just one indicator. Such a composite index would
be of enormous political significance for both international comparisons and
regional comparisons within one nation. For example, South Korea has recently
published a study that uses one index to report on the situation in all the provinces
in the nation. Policymakers now have precise statements on which problems are to
be found in which regions and which intervention strategies may be applicable. The
field of social reporting also reveals a search for such an index. For example, the
14th Youth Report commissioned by the German parliament (Deutscher Bundestag
2013) has been able to work out national differences in the childhood life phase on
the basis of just a few single dimensions.
6 S. Andresen et al.

In the United States, a Child Development Index (CDI) has been derived from
the Human Development Index (HDI) used by the United Nations. The annual
results published by a foundation receive a great deal of attention. They permit a
comparison between the different levels of well-being in the various federal states.
As a comprehensive index, the CDI can also be used for longitudinal observations
of, for example, how the well-being of children in families with different social
origins has changed over the last 20 years (Hernandez and Marotz 2012).

1.2.4  T
 he Concept of Well-Being in the 2013 World Vision
Child Study

Whereas the first study in 2007 already defined well-being in terms of three dimen-
sions, namely, satisfaction with the freedom granted by parents, satisfaction with
the number of friends along with the quality of friendships, and general well-being
at school, we applied a more complex framework in 2010. We developed a broader
concept based on the idea of the “good life” and what is necessary to lead such a
good life in the sense developed by the American social philosopher Martha
Nussbaum in her Capability Approach (Andresen et al. 2010; Fegter and Richter
2013). The Capability Approach addresses the possibilities of self-realization and
the action scopes of individuals in the greatest range of different social contexts. We
have drawn on this approach for the World Vision Child Studies because it addresses
the abilities to act and possibilities of acting in a self-determined way, and because
we also know that this is a major concern for 6- to 11-year-old children. The ques-
tionnaire reveals our use of the Capability Approach in items asking children about
their self-efficacy—as a central foundation of capability. At the end of the individual
interviews, we also asked the children to name five things that every child needs in
order to have a good life—regardless of where that child is growing up. As the 2010
Study showed, this theoretical framework for well-being proved to be extremely
informative. For example, we were able to confirm a close relationship between
high self-efficacy and experiencing that one’s opinion is taken into account when
decisions are made in the parental home, at school, and among friends.
When conceptualizing child well-being in 2013, we have not only built on our
two earlier studies but also integrated the national and international discussion
sketched above. Because satisfaction can be a rather vague and everyday term in
German, we asked the children to tell us how satisfied they were with every single
different life domain in turn. The following dimensions form the concept of well-­
being in our study:
• Care from one parent/both parents measured in terms of the amount of time they
devote to their children
• Freedoms in daily life measured in terms of how satisfied children are with the
freedoms their parents grant them
1  How Children See Well-Being, Poverty, and Justice: The Focus of the Third World… 7

• Recognition and participation measured in terms of who, in their experience,

respects their opinion and how far they are involved in making everyday
decisions
• General satisfaction with institutions measured in terms of satisfaction with
school and with daycare institutions
• Leisure measured in terms of satisfaction with leisure-time opportunities
• Friendships with other children measured in terms of satisfaction with the circle
of friends
• Subjective well-being measured in terms of overall satisfaction with life
As in the previous World Vision Child Studies, the majority of children in our
survey reported being very satisfied in each of the life domains. However, this
exceptionally high level of satisfaction might possibly be due to the way we sur-
veyed the children, suggesting a need to reconsider our methods. Another possibil-
ity is that children simply accept the position of adults in the power hierarchy, and
are quick to express their satisfaction for this reason alone. In that case, we need to
take a more critical look at the theoretical approach in childhood studies.

1.3  T
 he Challenge of Child Poverty: Applying International
Discussions to the World Vision Child Study

What is well-being like for children living in poverty? Research on child well-being
is focusing increasingly on this issue. It needs to clarify how strongly poverty and
social disadvantage impact on well-being, what can be done to counter this, and
how child poverty needs to be defined and measured. As we shall show here, there
have been major new international studies in this field since 2010 along with sys-
tematic analyses of how child poverty needs to be measured and evaluated.
Nonetheless, we still know very little about what the children themselves experi-
ence. Up to now, studies on how children in poverty themselves see their world are
very rare in both national and international childhood research. However, such stud-
ies are essential if we are to understand which strategies children use to counter
precarious life conditions, how they themselves perceive their situation, and what
phenomena they have to deal with in their daily lives.
The last World Vision Study in 2010 addressed perceptions and experiences of
poverty in individual child portraits. However, none of the children we interviewed
in 2010 were themselves living in poverty; and the same applies to the children in
the Third Study. In the 2010 interviews, we gave children photographs to look at.
These depicted typical scenarios for relatively poor, relatively affluent, and very
affluent living conditions. On the basis of the children’s responses to these photo-
graphs in 2010, we were able to show that most children were quite capable of clas-
sifying “being poor.” Some referred to families they knew or children at their school
whom they perceived to be disadvantaged. We noticed that when discussing this
topic, children preferred to position themselves and their own families as being
8 S. Andresen et al.

located in the middle between poor and rich, and they generally associated wealth
with the need to be socially responsible.
For children, responsibility seems to be an important topic in the context of pov-
erty. It also plays an important role in the few studies carried out with children who
actually are poor. For example, poor children know exactly what the things they
desire cost, but they frequently do not ask their parents for them. They know the
prices and they know how much money per month their family has at its disposal.
Poor children also adopt responsibility for their parents when, for example, they
look after younger siblings and thereby try to ease the burdens on their mothers (and
fathers). Or they adopt responsibility for the emotional well-being of their parents
by worrying about them (Andresen et al. 2013; Meiland et al. 2013a, b). There is a
great need to find out about the daily lives of children living in poverty because
adults such as childcare workers or teachers need to be aware of the precarious liv-
ing conditions of these children in each and every location in which they interact
with them.

1.3.1  International Discussions and Comparative Data

Both the major international comparative studies and the studies of child poverty in
Germany have contributed to a better understanding of the topic. We draw on all
these studies in our own work and we shall examine them in more detail here. One
intensive discussion centers on the fundamental question of how to measure poverty
in adults, youths, and children and how to interpret statistical data. One established
measure of poverty—also used in childhood studies—is oriented toward median
income. In the European Union (EU), anybody earning less than 60% of the median
disposable income in a given nation is considered to be at risk of poverty. Having
less than 50% of median income at one’s disposal is viewed as severe poverty; less
than 40%, as very severe poverty.
Report Card 10, published by UNICEF (2012) under the title Measuring child
poverty, has had a major impact on research. It assesses child poverty with a depri-
vation index and contrasts this index with findings based on the relative poverty
concept using the median disposable household income. The approach is in line
with the aforementioned efforts to establish a composite index of well-being. This
assumes, on the one hand, that child poverty can be assessed in relation to child
development and children’s needs independently from the comparative wealth of a
society, but, on the other hand, that it still has to be related to a nation’s median
income.
What goes into this deprivation index? It assesses whether a child has appropri-
ate and at least partially new clothing; all-weather shoes; regular daily meals includ-
ing fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, and meat (or a vegetarian equivalent); access to
books; regular leisure activities in the sense of nonformal education; and outdoor
leisure equipment such as a bicycle or roller skates. However, the index also includes
1  How Children See Well-Being, Poverty, and Justice: The Focus of the Third World… 9

the opportunity to celebrate special occasions such as birthdays and the opportunity
to sometimes invite friends home. Because these are aspects that also characterize
children’s lives in Germany, we also include some of them in our study (see
Chap. 3).
If two or more of the above indicators that are considered to be relevant for an
average child’s life, for what we could call “normal childhood,” are lacking, then a
child’s situation is considered to be deprived. Based on these findings, the interna-
tional UNICEF research team has classified the European nations into different
groups with deprivation rates ranging from low to high.
One important finding from this international comparison, which is also con-
firmed in the World Vision Child Studies, is the particular risk of poverty facing
children in single-parent families and in families with unemployed parents or par-
ents with low education. This is also in line with the present findings. In Germany,
children in large families with more than two siblings also face a significantly higher
risk of poverty.

1.3.2  Child Poverty in Germany: Statistics and Trends

Germany currently reveals new trends in exposure to the risk of poverty. Most avail-
able statistics are based on the concept of relative income poverty, and, as pointed
out above, children whose families have less than 60% of median disposable house-
hold income at their disposal are taken to be at risk of poverty. In exact figures for
2011, this threshold stood at 880 Euro per month for a single-person household,
1848 Euro for a two-person household with two children under the age of 14 years
and 1144 Euro for a single parent with one child (Tophoven et al. 2015). Twenty
percent of children under the age of 15 live in households with less than 60% of
median disposable household income and 24.2% are considered to be at risk of
poverty and/or currently receiving welfare payments (SGB-II Bezug) (Tophoven
et al. 2015).
If we then go on to look at poverty trends over the last 20 years, poverty risk rates
reveal major fluctuations. For a long time, children and adolescents faced a higher
risk of poverty than the general population in Germany. For children up to the age
of 10 years, the rate has now dropped to the same level as the general population.
This contrasts strongly with the group of 11- to 20-year-olds who continue to face a
disproportionally high risk (Deutscher Bundestag 2013). Our latest figures in the
Third World Vision Child Study confirm this trend. However, when we look at
children up to the age of 10 years with a migration background, we can see that
they continue to reveal a comparatively high poverty risk of 15.1% (Deutscher
Bundestag 2013).
10 S. Andresen et al.

1.3.3  C
 hild Poverty from a Longitudinal Perspective:
The AWO-ISS Studies

As well as asking how child poverty rates change over the years, it is particularly
important to know how being exposed to poverty in the early years influences a
child’s later life. Thanks to national and international monitoring, we can observe
trends in poverty over a longer period of time—as in the latest Youth Report of the
German Federal Government (Deutscher Bundestag 2013). It is particularly impor-
tant to know which groups experience poverty at an early age, for how long, and
how permanently. One highly relevant piece of research for this is the AWO-ISS
study that presented its latest findings from the fourth wave of measurement in
2012. The AWO-ISS is a longitudinal study of child and youth poverty that takes a
multidimensional, child-related, and resource-oriented approach. It has now been
tracking 900 children over a period of 15 years by comparing the living conditions
of children from low-income families with children from more affluent families in
a range of different areas of life. It has identified three groups of children who are
living in poverty:
• Poor children who experience no social, cultural, health-related, or material con-
straints despite growing up in a low-income family (“poor, but with
well-being”)
• Poor children who experience constraints in a few areas and therefore have to be
considered disadvantaged (“poor, disadvantaged”)
• Poor children who experience massive deprivations or disadvantages in various
areas (“poor, multiply deprived”)
The longitudinal perspective also reveals the large proportion of children who
were exposed to poverty as young children and have continued to have repeated
experiences of poverty as they grow up (AWO-ISS 2012). In adolescence, these
children have an increased risk of multiple deprivations and disadvantages in all
areas of life as well as low well-being. In contrast, poverty experienced in early
childhood that is then permanently overcome seems to have no negative
consequences.
The trend across all three of our studies reveals, on the one hand, a slight drop in
the poverty rate, but, on the other hand, a decline in membership of clubs and asso-
ciations among children living in poverty since 2010 (see Chap. 6).

1.3.4  Poverty and Coping

One important issue, on which we can make only marginal statements in our study,
is coping with experiences of poverty. Back in 2000, Antje Richter already worked
out two different forms of coping in a study of child poverty in rural elementary
school children: problem-avoidant and problem-solving coping. These two forms
1  How Children See Well-Being, Poverty, and Justice: The Focus of the Third World… 11

revealed marked gender-specific differences: Whereas both girls and boys were
equally capable of realizing they had a problem, it was girls who more frequently
applied the strategy of seeking social support to overcome it. Moreover, interna-
tional resilience studies have shown that boys react more strongly to family poverty
in early childhood, preschool age, and the first years of school by exhibiting exter-
nalizing problem behavior and impaired academic ability (Ittel and Scheithauer
2007; Luthar 1999). In contrast, the new AWO ISS study (2012) has found no
gender-­specific effects in 10-year-olds living in poverty. Although nonpoor girls
tend to have fewer problems than nonpoor boys, this effect disappears under poverty
conditions. In other words, girls living in poverty are just as disadvantaged as boys
living in poverty. The current discussion on resilience as an ability to resist stress
and negative external influences reveals one very interesting finding in this context:
Resilient children tend to exhibit less gender-typical behavior and therefore possess
a broader repertoire of behaviors with which to counter everyday stress (see Zander
2013).

1.3.5  C
 hild Poverty as Experienced Constraint: The Approach
Taken by the World Vision Child Studies

Poverty is a major topic in all three World Vision Child Studies. Our concept of
poverty is multidimensional. In other words, we do not view poverty as being just a
question of financial want, but take various areas of a child’s life into account such
as the family or leisure. This links up with the question whether research needs a
specific child poverty concept and how such a concept may differ from that of youth
or adult poverty. The question has emerged from concerns about whether children
are particularly helpless when it comes to the causes of their poverty and whether
the negative consequences of poverty have a stronger and more long-lasting effect
on children than on adults; in other words, whether children represent a particularly
vulnerable group.
Our study takes the perspective of the actors seriously; it tries to examine the
everyday experiences of children and to relate these to social conditions. In addi-
tion, we understand child poverty as a limitation of chances to participate in society
and to engage in self-realization.
The concept of child poverty in the World Vision Child Studies is based on the
following dimensions:
• Limited financial options in the family measured by the children’s subjective
assessments of whether the family is short of money or has enough for all neces-
sities such as warm clothing or school books.
• Limited participation in social and cultural life measured by the children’s sub-
jective assessments of various experiences such as not being able to go away on
vacation, go to the movies, or learn to play a musical instrument.
12 S. Andresen et al.

• In addition, parents’ subjective assessments of how well they manage the money
at their disposal. These were entered into what we called a class index that
divided all children into five groups with different social origins. The parents’
level of education, type of accommodation (owned or rented property), and
reports on the number of books in the household are also major components of
this index.
Both our own research and other studies have emphasized the extent to which
poverty is associated with shame and shaming. Children often feel stigmatized
together with their parents. Although the German government has launched nonfor-
mal education and participation grants for poor children, not all local authorities and
institutions have developed good ways of implementing them. This sociopolitical
measure is known as the Bildungs- und Teilhabepaket [education and participation
packet] is based on the assumption that parents will spend funds allocated to chil-
dren in other ways so that they will fail to reach the children concerned. Therefore,
parents may, or may have to, apply to receive school materials, private lessons,
excursions, or 10 Euro for a club membership for their children. However, the great
bureaucratic effort involved in this means that much of the funding allocated to this
measure also fails to reach the children. Moreover, children are ashamed to be iden-
tified as “aid recipients” for free meals at schools or daycare centers. The research
itself can also contribute to generating shame: Language, for example, can have a
powerful effect. In this context, although we apply the term “lower class” in our
World Vision Child Studies, we wish to emphasize that we use it exclusively to label
low socioeconomic status. We distance ourselves emphatically from stigmatizing
uses of the term such as “lower class culture.” The primary purpose of such dis-
courses is to stigmatize the behavior of people living in precarious circumstances
and to ignore the conditions in which they live. The children are very much aware
of these public discussions and the attributions of blame that frequently accompany
them. This is something that any study of well-being in children should acknowl-
edge and reflect on critically.

1.4  Migration as a Social Phenomenon in Childhood Studies

Unconsidered use of the term “with a migration background” can also be stigmatiz-
ing. This is despite the fact that recent findings such as the latest child migration
report of the German Youth Institute from 2013 show that there are only a few cases
in which migration alone predicts, for example, enrolment in daycare facilities for
children, school-leaving qualifications, or learning potentials. Nonetheless, how to
appropriately integrate children with different experiences of migration remains one
of the challenges facing childhood studies (Hunner-Kreisel and Stephan 2013). One
starting point and concern in the 2013 World Vision Child Study is to determine in
which cases migration can or cannot serve as an explanatory factor.
1  How Children See Well-Being, Poverty, and Justice: The Focus of the Third World… 13

1.4.1  Migration as a Concept

Migration is an international phenomenon and one that is of just as much signifi-

cance for children and their families as it is for the society to which they migrate.
Looking at Germany, more than one in four of all young people living in the country
has a migration history with, for example, one parent having moved to Germany
from another country (Deutscher Bundestag, 2013). In 2005, the microcensus of
non-Germans was redesigned on the basis of a migration concept. The resulting
statistics reveal the great diversity of migration histories in Germany. Since this
reform, persons with a migration background are defined in official statistics as “all
persons who have migrated to the current territory of the Federal Republic of
Germany since 1949 as well as all foreigners born in Germany and all those born as
Germans in Germany who have at least one parent who migrated to Germany or was
born as a foreigner in Germany” (Statistisches Bundesamt 2011a, p. 6, translated).
Following this conceptual reformulation, the detailed assessment of nationality,
potential naturalization, and the migration experience of the persons surveyed and
their parents permits a more differentiated view of the structure of the population of
the Federal Republic of Germany (see Statistisches Bundesamt 2009, pp.  5–6).
According to the reported methods used in the 14th Youth Report (Deutscher
Bundestag 2013, p. 84), this distinguishes between Germans without a migration
background and persons with a migration background. This second group is differ-
entiated further, first into people who have migrated themselves (1st generation)
with German or non-German nationality, and second, into persons who have been
born in Germany (2nd and 3rd generation).

1.4.2  Children in Germany with a Migration Background

Which findings can we draw on for our Third World Vision Child Study or which
are relevant for childhood studies? Migration is frequently discussed in relation to
education and inequality. Despite a general shift toward higher participation in edu-
cation, marked differences still persist: For example, 37% of migrants complete
only basic secondary school (Hauptschulabschluss) compared to 20% of
nonmigrants.
Further differences in where people live and the risk of poverty are also certainly
relevant for the daily lives of children. First, the majority of children attributed with
a migration background live in large cities (Statistisches Bundesamt 2011b, p. 14).
Second, children with a migration background more frequently live in socially pre-
carious situations than children without a migration background. This is due to a
concentration of structural risk factors such as income poverty, unemployment, and
parents with a low level of education (Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung
2012). Children from families of Turkish origin are particularly at risk or exposed
to multiple risks here.
14 S. Andresen et al.

A final aspect that is also relevant for childhood studies is that the proportion of
people with a migration background is higher in younger age groups than in the
general population. Indeed, the younger the children, the higher the proportion with
a migration background. However, the children themselves mostly have no personal
history of migration but were born in Germany. Accordingly, children in German
cities meet other children with a wide range of different backgrounds when they
attend a Kindergarten or school, join a youth club, or go to the playground.

1.4.3  U
 sing the Migration Concept in the World Vision
Child Study

The data from the Federal Statistical Office reveal the heterogeneity of migration
contexts and experiences. As in the previous studies, we also looked into the con-
cept of migration background when planning the Third World Vision Child Study.
For the sample recruited for the quantitative part of the study, we decided to orient
our research toward the concept of migration background on the basis of the micro-
census. For the qualitative interviews, we decided to trace the children’s individual
histories; and, this time, to purposefully select 7 children with a migration back-
ground within the sample of 12 children interviewed. Only the German version of
this book contains a chapter with the results of this qualitative part of the study. This
should cast light on the histories of the children, their families, and their daily lives,
and allow us to work out not only their resources but also their possible disadvan-
tages with the help of the children’s narratives. Combining these portraits with the
analysis in the qualitative part provides us with an even more detailed approach.

1.5  J ustice: A Previously Neglected Topic in International

Childhood Studies

The concept of well-being and the analysis of poverty go hand in hand with ideas
about the “good life,” a “good childhood,” and just conditions. Children themselves
do not just relate well-being to justice but also the differences between poor and
rich. Based on what we learned in our previous studies, critical discussions on fam-
ily policy, and the available options for children to participate or make complaints,
we decided to focus particularly on justice in the Third Study. Although justice has
not been an explicit topic in recent childhood studies, we consider that it is time for
this to change. Many of the current challenges facing society relate to intergenera-
tional justice and social justice, and there is a need to clarify how the concept of
childhood on the one side and the experiences, feelings, and perceptions of children
on the other side relate to classic or contemporary ideas on justice.
1  How Children See Well-Being, Poverty, and Justice: The Focus of the Third World… 15

In the World Vision Child Study, we are particularly interested in the sense of
justice among 6- to 11-year-olds. We have developed our questionnaire and our
interview guidelines with this in mind. We started off with everyday observations
showing that children in this age group discuss fairness but also injustice in a range
of different contexts. In interviews with children, we found that, for example, prom-
ises that are given, kept, or broken play an important role; and that conflicts with
other children can also be traced back to ideas on justice. Moreover, sanctions or
punishments for breaking the rules also relate to justice. In the parental home and at
school, children additionally get to know different reward systems, and it is cer-
tainly worth examining whether they perceive these to be just or unjust.

1.5.1  P
 reparing the Topic for the Third World Vision
Child Study

Proceeding from these everyday observations and with reference to the fundamental
scientific interest and objectives of the World Vision Child Studies, we see an urgent
need for childhood studies to pay more attention to justice. However, up to now,
there has been a lack of research in this field apart from studies in developmental
psychology and the classic studies on moral development such as those carried out
by Jean Piaget. In our approach, we started by examining justice theory and explor-
ing its potential for issues in childhood studies. We then examined relevant empiri-
cal research and considered how we could apply the knowledge accumulated there
to our study. In particular, after examining empirical research starting initially with
developmental psychology and then moving on to recent experiments in economics,
we decided not to look for evidence of different concepts of justice but to ask the
children directly about their own sense of justice. This also links up with philo-
sophical discussions on the significance of the sense of injustice compared to more
abstract concepts of justice that require a great deal of cognitive reflection and a
distancing of oneself from one’s own interests.
This roughly sketches the focus of our study. Our aim is to understand what chil-
dren between the ages of 6 and 11 years consider to be just or unjust. Earlier inter-
views have already revealed that justice or fairness is of great concern to children
and that they discuss it in completely different ways—sometimes, more abstractly
and philosophically; other times, very concretely and in everyday terms. We have
tried to operationalize “justice” as closely as possible to the world of this age group.
We have done this by also focusing on selected positions in justice theory. What do
6-year-olds and what do 10-year-olds perceive as being just or unjust in the family,
in interaction with peers, and at school? What do they think about specific situations
and relationships? How do they judge the standards set by society and how do these
influence their daily lives? Finally, we are interested in what indications can be
derived from the findings for the concrete implementation of children’s rights in all
areas of their lives.
16 S. Andresen et al.

1.5.2  I mportant Philosophical Approaches for Childhood

Studies

The issue of just behavior and a just organization of society is as old as philosophy
itself. Systematic ideas on just behavior and relations entered Western thought par-
ticularly in classical philosophy through the work of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.
One major aspect here is understanding justice as a virtue and therefore as a person-
ality trait in the sense of personal integrity. The Platonic dialogues conceive justice
as the highest virtue following wisdom, courage, and moderation. What is important
here is the human striving toward a just order.
In Aristotelian philosophy, justice serves not only as a general moral concept but
also for the appraisal of specific situations in interpersonal relations. Therefore, put
very simply, Aristotle points out that justice regulates essential aspects of human
coexistence and he tells us how it does this. Basically, these topics have lost none of
their relevance today; and not least for children, because they continue to be con-
cerned with the distribution of goods or positions, how to behave, and how to solve
conflicts. Accordingly, justice theories are concerned just as much with distribution
and compensation or exchange as with procedures for setting up and regulating a
just human coexistence.
One way of introducing such procedures is, for example, for partners to enter
contracts based on reasonable and transparent rules that have to be honored as far as
possible. However, being in any way able to make a contract already calls for a lot
of preconditions, and these are mostly not possible for a child to fulfill. Adults then
act on the child’s behalf. However, the questions whether a good is distributed justly
or unjustly, whether an exchange is disadvantageous for one of the parties, and
whether reward and punishment follow a just logic arise in the everyday experi-
ences of children. It is these that correspond to their sense of justice—as our find-
ings reported in Chaps. 2 and 7 clearly show.

1.5.3  Fairness as an Orientation in Childhood Studies

The justice theory proposed by the American scholar John Rawls has had a major
impact on the recent history of philosophy. In his book A Theory of Justice (1971),
he explains how justice in the sense of fairness has to be fundamental for social
institutions. Nonetheless, it should not restrict the freedom of individuals. In an
obituary for Rawls who died in 2002, the German philosopher Winfried Hinsch
expressed this fundamental idea as follows: “Justice as fairness is the central theme
in Rawls’ theory. A society is just when the institutions on which it is based are
guided by basic principles that its citizens would personally impose on them-
selves—given fair conditions of freedom and equality” (Hinsch 2002, translated).
Rawls put his ideas into concrete terms by formulating a model of the “original
position”. This is a hypothetical or even experimental situation in which the
1  How Children See Well-Being, Poverty, and Justice: The Focus of the Third World… 17

members of a society come together behind a “veil of ignorance” with the goal of
jointly determining the highest principles of justice for their society. Because of the
veil, none of them know who they and the others are in real life and what they can
achieve in the future. In this way, the veil prevents the decisions that citizens make
in this original position from being influenced by individual interests and socially
given balances of power. Rawls was convinced that this was the way to guarantee
and ensure fairness.
In order to pursue justice, according to Rawls, it is necessary for all persons to
possess basic goods such as fundamental rights, social privileges, resources, and the
social preconditions for self-respect. Simply leafing through any daily newspaper
shows us how crucial it is to guarantee such basic goods and how important this is
particularly for children—examples in Germany being the current call for a guaran-
teed child allowance independent of parents, or the implementation of basic rights
such as being able to point to injustice through an established complaints system in
sport clubs or schools.

1.5.4  Justice and Inequality

Rawls was also interested in the social inequality that always goes hand in hand
with justice theories—a topic with a strong impact on children and therefore also on
childhood studies. Here he makes an interesting proposal: He suggests that social
inequality can be justified only after two conditions have been met: First, fair access
to positions and goods has to be ensured, that is, equality of opportunity; and sec-
ond, the greatest advantages have to be given to those least favored in a society.
Hence, he proposes a universal justice oriented toward strong principles.
In his book The Idea of Justice, the economist Amartya Sen (2010), however,
asks whether a more pragmatic theory of justice oriented toward situational ideas
might be more appropriate than one oriented toward universalistic principles, espe-
cially when making decisions on and dealing with social conflicts. He explains what
he means in an allegory over “three children and a flute:”
You have to decide which of three children—Anne, Bob, and Carla—should get a flute
about which they are quarreling. Anne claims the flute saying that she is the only one of the
three who knows how to play it (the others do not deny this), and that it would be quite
unjust to deny the flute to the only one who can actually play it. If that was all you knew,
the reason for giving the flute to the first child would be strong. (p. 13)

But that is not everything that Sen tells us about in his allegory because Bob points
out that he should be given the flute, because unlike the other two, he has nothing to
play with, no pretty things with which to occupy himself. This is because Bob is
poor and the two girls concede this. Carla, in contrast, also claims the flute because
She has been working diligently for many months to make the flute . . . and just when she
had finished her work, “just then,” she complains, “these expropriators came along to try to
grab the flute away from me.” (p. 13)
18 S. Andresen et al.

In our qualitative interviews, we read this allegory out loud to the children and
ask them to tell us how they would decide. As Sen suspected, very different criteria
and deliberations are applied and all of them have something in their favor. Sen uses
this allegory to work out how theorists in different schools of social justice can find
good reasons for reaching their decision: Economic egalitarians, who find material
inequality unjust and wish to overcome it, would favor Bob who has no possessions;
utilitarians would probably want to give the flute to Anne, the only musician in the
group; and libertarians, who emphasize productivity, would have to favor Clara
because she made the flute.
This rough sketch of ideas in justice theory should particularly emphasize what
childhood studies can borrow from it. Our attempts to express this empirically and
the results obtained from the Third Study reveal a great deal of potential in interre-
lating theories of childhood and theories of justice.

1.5.5  Justice in the Piagetian Tradition

What does empirical research have to tell us about justice in children; or, to put it
better, about the development of an orientation toward justice in children? How
important is it for children to feel that they are treated fairly, and do they develop a
sense of injustice? Here we can link up with the work and insights of moral psychol-
ogy and particularly with the studies of Jean Piaget and their continuation in the
work of Lawrence Kohlberg. Piaget was interested in children’s legal awareness and
how they deal with rules in groups. His observations of games of marbles and the
derivation of central developmental stages were a milestone in the discussion on the
development of a moral awareness in children and hence a development oriented
toward just arrangements. One of Piaget’s interests was in when and how children
switch from obeying adults to orienting themselves toward the rules of, for example,
the peer group and toward their desire for cooperation. “What is decisive is the
development of the concept of justice. Whereas for the younger child, what is just
means almost exactly the same as the will of adults, the ideas of equality and reci-
procity already assert themselves toward the end of early childhood” (Piaget 1999,
p. 158, translated from German). Piaget emphasized that the shaping of the environ-
ment and the behavior of adults play a decisive role in this developmental process.
As a result, he called for teachers to actively involve even the youngest students in
their classes.
Recent childhood studies have tended to distance themselves from assumptions
in developmental psychology in order to view children as actors in the construction
of their reality and to find out about their co-constructions. Nonetheless, it is worth
taking a new look at the work of Piaget and examining its potential for justice and
well-being. This is the reason for mentioning these works here—especially because
both the quantitative and qualitative parts of our study show clear age differences in
the appraisal of justice.
1  How Children See Well-Being, Poverty, and Justice: The Focus of the Third World… 19

1.5.6  Justice in Recent Empirical Research with Children

For many years, anthropologists, social anthropologists, and evolutionists have been
studying how human beings build up trust, why they keep or break promises, and
how cooperations can emerge between not only groups of persons who know each
other but also groups of strangers. These questions are also related to fundamental
issues in economics or social theory such as whether competition impedes the striv-
ing for justice and tends to encourage the egoistic behavior. What is interesting is
that we only tend to see a willingness to share in societies once conditions of
exchange and trade have become established. Such findings point to the significance
of economics. Recent empirical research such as the work of the Zurich economist
Ernst Fehr offers much food for thought regarding questions in justice and child-
hood theory. Fehr and his team not only draw on findings from evolutionary research
into the social behavior of primates and findings on the theory of mind but are also
interested in genetically determined characteristics that contribute to the develop-
ment of preferences for justice in human beings. Fehr poses the fundamental ques-
tion whether human beings have a more egoistic or more altruistic orientation and
how and under which conditions altruism develops.
On the basis of experimental studies in various regions of the world and with all
age groups—including very young children—Fehr has worked out that recognition
is the main motor driving just judgments and behavior. This introduces an important
element into the discussion within childhood studies: recognition as a need in inter-
actions between children and adults, but also between peers, and as an aspect of
well-being.
A further essential element in the work of Fehr, however, is research on the sense
of injustice or the rejection of injustice or inequality. This does not mean that
inequality is rejected in general. Whether inequality, according to Fehr, is rejected
because of the sense of justice depends decisively on the circumstances in which it
has emerged, that is, on the context. This reveals links to Rawls’ theory of justice.
However, what can economists tell us about children and their rejection of
injustice?
On the basis of various experimental games with children, Fehr and his col-
leagues have determined that “inequality aversion” develops between the ages of 3
and 8 years and is age-dependent: the younger children are, the stronger their selfish
orientation toward their own interests (Fehr et  al. 2008). However, they develop
preferences in the sense of parochialism, that is, a social togetherness. Fehr has also
shown that children prefer to favor their own group, be it in preschool, school, or a
club. The World Vision Child Studies do not observe the behavior and practices of
children and they do not engage in experimental research. Nonetheless, the econo-
mist’s approach reveals much knowledge potential for our research in which we are
asking the children to tell us about their evaluations, their understanding, and the
reasons they give for the decisions they favor.
20 S. Andresen et al.

1.5.7  Justice as a Topic in the Third World Vision Child Study

Until now, hardly any orientation toward justice theory has found its way into recent
childhood studies. The Third World Vision Child Study is also unable to build on a
sound basis in justice theory because it is entering new territory here. However, in a
first step, we draw on earlier findings on the good life from the perspective of chil-
dren. In the Third Study, justice also serves as a strong link between the qualitative
and quantitative assessments. For our in-depth interviews, we developed case sce-
narios that we presented to the children. Alongside the allegory of the three children
and the flute, these contain concrete cases taken from the everyday world of today’s
children that address just distribution, rewards for achievements, keeping or break-
ing promises, punishments, and finally the topics of codetermination and justice.
We have also developed new justice-theory-oriented items for the questionnaire.
Moreover, the results deliver interesting findings on the age dependence of the sense
of justice. Our initial concern is to find out how far the children consider things to
be just in the proximal environment of their family and school, then more broadly
in Germany, and finally in the world as a whole. However, when looking at the sense
and perception of injustice, it is also important to find out which persons the chil-
dren consider being particularly exposed to injustice. Therefore, we finally ask the
children to evaluate specific cases addressing the provision and distribution of
goods.
Detailed results on this can be found in the following Chap. 2. They encourage
us to carry out more systematic work on this topic.

1.6  The Design of the Third World Vision Child Study

Any comparison of the instruments used in each of the three studies will initially
reveal the same body of items. However, a closer inspection uncovers modified or
new items and scales. Both sticking to a constant set of items and setting new
accents are important to us. Comparable items are needed to document change, but
new ones are necessary to introduce focal topics and further develop our question-
naires and our interview techniques. This also brings us into line with international
advances in this field.
The Third World Vision Child Study also tackles new developments and chal-
lenges in international childhood studies. We are studying well-being, the experi-
ence of poverty, and the sense of justice among children in Germany and gaining
new knowledge about the main areas of life of children between the ages of 6 and
11 years. With the Third Study and the same body of questionnaire items in 2013,
we can perform numerous comparisons with the two prior studies. With our repre-
sentative sample, we can uncover differences between boys and girls, between
urban and rural districts, and also differences due to contexts codetermined by
migration.
1  How Children See Well-Being, Poverty, and Justice: The Focus of the Third World… 21

References

Andresen, S., & Hurrelmann, K. (2007). Was bedeutet es, heute ein Kind zu sein? Die World Vision
Kinderstudie als Beitrag zur Kinder- und Kindheitsforschung. In World Vision Deutschland.
(Hrsg.) Kinder in Deutschland 2007. 1. World Vision Kinderstudie (S. 35 – 64). Frankfurt a. M.:
Fischer.
Andresen, S., Hurrelmann, K., & Fegter, S. (2010). Wie geht es unseren Kindern? Wohlbefinden
und Lebensbedingungen der Kinder in Deutschland. In World Vision Deutschland. (Hrsg.)
Kinder in Deutschland 2010. 2. World Vision Kinderstudie (S. 35 – 59). Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer.
Andresen, S., Hurrelmann, K., & Schneekloth, U. (2012). Care and freedom. Theoretical and
empirical aspects of children’s well-being. Child Indicators Research, 5, 437–448.
Andresen, S., Mailand, S., Milanovic, D., & Blume, J. (2013). Erfahrungen und Erleben von Armut
aus der Sicht von Kindern: »Ich würde meiner Familie was schenken und dafür sorgen, dass sie
nicht so viel in Schwierigkeiten sind.« Unsere Jugend 65. Jg. (S. 123 – 129).
Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung. (2012). Bildung in Deutschland 2012. Ein indika-
torengestützter Bericht mit einer Analyse zu Perspektiven des Bildungswesens im demograf-
ischen Wandel. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag.
AWO-ISS. (2012). Lebenssituation und Zukunftschancen von (armen) Kindern und Jugendlichen.
AWO-Verlag.
Bradshaw, J., Martorano, B., Natali, L., & de Neubourg, C. (2013) Children’s subjective well-­
being in rich countries (Working Paper). UNICEF Office of Research, Florence.
Deutscher Bundestag. (2013). Der 14. Kinder- und Jugendbericht. Bericht über die Lebenssituation
junger Menschen und die Leistungen und Bestrebungen der Kinder- und Jugendhilfe Iin
Deutschland. Deutscher Bundestag, Drucksache 17 / 12200. http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/
btd/17 / 122 / 1712200.pdf (Stand: 24.06.2013).
Fattore, T., Mason, J., & Watson, E. (2012): Locating the child centrally as subject in research:
Towards a child interpretation of well-being. Child Indicators Research, 5(3), S. 423 – 435.
Fegter, S., & Richter, M. (2013). The capability approach as a framework for research on children’s
well-being. In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Casas, I. Frones, & J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child well-
being: theory, indicators, measures and policies. Dordrecht/Heidelberg/ London/New York:
Springer. Chapter No. 151.
Fehr, E., Bernhard, H., & Rockenbach, B. (2008). Egalitarianism in young children. In Nature
(Vol. 454, pp. 1079–1083).
Hernandez, D. J., & Marotz, K. G. (2012). Disparities in child well-being across income groups:
Trends in the U.S. from 1985 to 2008. Child Indicators Research, 5(1) S. 93 – 121.
Hinsch, W. (2002). Gerechtfertigte Ungleichheiten: Grundsätze sozialer Gerechtigkeit. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter.
Hunner-Kreisel, C., & Stephan, M. (Hrsg.). (2013). Neue Zeiten, neue Räume: Kindheit und
Familie im Kontext von (Trans-)Migration und sozialem Wandel. Wiesbaden: Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Ittel, A., & Scheithauer, H. (2007). Geschlecht als »Stärke« oder »Risiko«? Überlegungen zur
geschlechterspezifischen Resilienz. In Opp, G., & Fingerle, M. (Hrsg.). Was Kinder stärkt.
Erziehung zwischen Risiko und Resilienz (S. 98 – 115). München/Basel: Reinhardt.
Luthar, S. S. (1999). Poverty and children‘s adjustment. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Meiland, S., Andresen, S., Milanovic, D., & Blume, J. (2013a) Denkst du, die Kinder sind hier arm?
Sichtweisen und Erfahrungen von Kindern in prekären Lebenslagen. In Fisher, D., Gathen, J.,
Höhmann, K., Klaffke, T., Rademacker, H. (Hrsg.). Friedrich Jahresheft XXXI 2013a, Schule
und Armut (S. 16 – 18). Oldenburg: Friedrich Verlag.
Meiland, S., Andresen, S., Milanovic, D., & Blume, J.  (2013b). Erfahrungen und Erleben von
Armut aus der Sicht von Kindern: »Ich würde meiner Familie was schenken und dafür sorgen,
dass sie nicht so viel in Schwierigkeiten sind.« Unsere Jugend 65. Jg. (S. 123 – 129).
Minkkinen, J. (2013). The structural model of child well-being. Child Indicators Research, 6(3),
547–558.
22 S. Andresen et al.

O’Hare, W. P., & Gutierrez, F. (2012). The use of domains in constructing a comprehensive com-
posite index of child well-being. Child Indicators Research, 5, 609–629.
Piaget, J. (1999). Über Pädagogik. Beltz: Weinheim.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
Robert Bosch Stiftung. (2012). Starke Kinder  – starke Familie. Wohlbefinden von Kindern in
Städten und Gemeinden. Stuttgart: Robert Bosch Stiftung.
Sen, A. (2010). Die Idee der Gerechtigkeit. München: C. H. Beck Verlag.
Statistisches Bundesamt. (2009). Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit-Einbürgerung 2008 (Fachserie
1 Reihe 2.1). Wiesbaden.
Statistisches Bundesamt. (2011a). Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit. Bevölkerung mit
Migrationshintergrund-Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus 2010 (Fachserie 1 Reihe 2.2). Wiesbaden.
Statistisches Bundesamt. (2011b). Pressemitteilung Nr. 345 vom 20. September 2011b: Knapp die
Hälfte der Großstadtkinder aus Familien mit Migrationshintergrund. Wiesbaden.
Tophoven, S., Wenzig, C., & Lietzmann, T. (2015). Kinder- und Familienarmut: Lebensumstände
von Kindern in der Grundsicherung. Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung für die
Bertelsmann Stiftung.
UNICEF. (2012). Measuring child poverty. New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich
countries. Report Card 10, Innocenti Research Centre, online unter. www.unicef-irc.org/publi-
cations/pdf/rc10_eng.pdf (Stand: 14.07.2013).
UNICEF. (2013). The state of the world’s children 2013: Children with disabilities. online:
http://www.unicef.org/sowc2013/files/SWCR2013_ENG_Lo_res_24_Apr_2013.pdf (Stand:
14.07.2013).
Zander, M. (2013). Resilienz  – Gender  – Prekäre Lebenslagen. Wie kann eine gendersensible
Resilienzförderung aussehen? Betrifft Mädchen, 3 / 2013.
Chapter 2
What’s Fair and What’s Unfair: The Different
Faces of Justice

Ulrich Schneekloth and Sabine Andresen

Questions of fairness and justice are of much concern to children. In their world,
these are important and sometimes even existential challenges. This does not just
apply to everyday life in the family, in the circle of friends, at school, and during
leisure, but also to more general problems in our society that they perceive as the
“adult world.” This also confronts them with the question of what role children have
to play in this world.
Classical developmental psychology oriented toward the work of Jean Piaget and
Lawrence Kohlberg reveals a broad consensus that children overcome their early
childhood egocentrism during the transition from early to middle childhood.
Increasingly, they develop the ability to recognize and emulate social rules and
thereby to comply with them (Piaget 1932/1983, 1937/1975; Kohlberg 1964, 1974;
see Oerter and Montada 2002, for a German-language overview). When these
observations and experiments were carried out in either the 1930s or the late 1950s,
it was assumed that it is only from the age of roughly 9 years onward that children
develop the ability to grasp social rules as (potentially changeable) shared agree-
ments and to view themselves as members of a community for which they have to
adopt responsibility (the so-called conventional stage according to Kohlberg; see
Trautner 1991). Younger children between the approximate ages of 4 and 8 years, in
contrast, were assumed to see social rules as indisputable givens that they comply
with through either a fixation on authority or fear of punishment (the preconven-
tional stage; see Trautner 1991).

U. Schneekloth (*)
Kantar Public, München, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
S. Andresen
Department of Education, Institute of Social Pedagogy and Adult Education,
Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 23

S. Andresen et al. (eds.), Well-being, Poverty and Justice from a Child’s
Perspective, Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research 17,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57574-2_2
24 U. Schneekloth and S. Andresen

However, more recent studies on (early) childhood development have shown that
even at the age of 3 years, children already reveal a sense of justice oriented toward
the principle of reciprocity in their mutual play. For example, Hamann et al. (2011)
have shown that children distribute rewards relatively fairly, that is, more or less
equally, in return for acts that have been performed collaboratively. Recent experi-
mental studies have also shown that children between the ages of 3 and 8 years
increasingly reveal a willingness to also consider the well-being of others, particu-
larly when these others belong to their own proximal surroundings (neighborhood,
preschool, school). From roughly the age of 7 years onward, they reveal a clearly
recognizable altruism in the sense of a marked orientation toward the well-being of
others (Fehr et al. 2008). These studies suggest that children in this age range do not
judge justice abstractly or in principle, but always in relation to everyday situations
and to familiar individuals or groups. In this context, children develop their own
idea of justice that they then apply to different situations in their daily lives.
According to the findings from these experimental studies, the 6- to 11-year-old
children in the Third World Vision Child Study of 2013 are located exactly in that
age window during which they develop their own understanding of justice in rela-
tion to the well-being of others. What is decisive here is the child’s own environ-
ment, that is, how fair and, where applicable, how cooperative children experience
life to be in their own family, in their circle of friends, or at their school. Moreover,
in this Child Study, we are also interested in how children perceive their social envi-
ronment and how fairly they think people are treated in Germany as a whole. In the
last Child Study in 2010, we already showed that 6- to 8-year-old children are capa-
ble of describing their life situation very clearly and comprehensibly, and they are
also able to report how they evaluate certain general problems in Germany. The
more they have to experience social problems directly in their daily lives, for exam-
ple, through poverty or perceived exclusion, the clearer and more unequivocal their
answers. The fact that 6- to 7-year-olds differ somewhat in the breadth of their
experience and their understanding compared to somewhat older children does not
contradict this statement. Not all the children could answer the questions we posed
in our quantitative assessment equally well. Therefore, when we asked for general
evaluations of social problems, and we could see that particularly 6- to 7-year-old
children were unable to give their own answers, we dropped such questions from
the further course of the interviews. In addition, all children had the basic right not
to answer such evaluative questions if they chose not to.1
In this chapter, we want to present the children’s views on how fairly children are
treated and how fair our society is in general. We developed our instruments in the
quantitative and qualitative parts of the study on the basis of the theoretical ideas
presented in Chap. 1 and the unstructured questions posed during our preparatory

1
 A typical example is when children are told that there are no “right” and no “wrong” answers
here, but still reply by asking “I don’t know. Do you know?” Another example is when children do
not want to answer because they are clearly unable to relate the question to their world. In such
cases, interviewers were instructed to use the “don’t know” response category. Any related follow-
up questions were then simply skipped for 6- to 7-year-old children.
2  What’s Fair and What’s Unfair: The Different Faces of Justice 25

pretest survey. We are guided by two principle ideas: first, to classify the children’s
perception of situations, conflicts, and socially determined inequalities as being fair
or unfair; and second, to relate this to the children’s well-being and social living
conditions. Our underlying assumption is that there is a relation between well-being
and the idea of justice, and that the social context in which children are growing up
plays a very significant role in this relation. Hence, we test possible links between
the ideas of justice and social origin. In the following, we shall refer primarily to the
results of our quantitative survey. However, these are also integrated with the find-
ings from the portraits in the qualitative part of our study, because this enables us to
present and interpret 6- to 11-year-old children’s ideas of justice in depth (see
Chap. 8, on the qualitative part of the study in general). The open and unstructured
questions on justice in our pretest already gave us many very informative ideas. We
should like to illustrate the breadth of ideas children have by reporting those of a
6-year-old girl. When asked simply what she understands by justice, what comes to
her mind are the categories of freedom (being allowed to say everything), a just way
of dealing with the mistakes people make (not getting into trouble straight away),
and an open and inclusive community of all children:
That people are allowed to say what they want, that people don’t get into trouble straight
away when they sometimes do something wrong, that all children should be allowed to play
together regardless of whether they come from somewhere else or whether they are poor.
(6-year-old girl)

2.1  Well-Being and Life Satisfaction

This focus on the idea of justice and the sense of injustice links up systematically
with a central theme in all three Child Studies: our interest in child well-being.
One major issue in empirical research on justice is to ask people what they feel
to be just and unjust in a society and on which ideas of justice they base these feel-
ings. There can be no denying that these specific ideas and evaluations are closely
related to subjective well-being and the societal framing conditions that contribute
to well-being (see Liebig and Lengfeld 2002, for an overview). This also suggests
using the personal well-being of children in Germany as a starting point for asking
them what they think about justice in the nation. At the end of our representative
survey, we ask children “And, finally, how happy are you with your life in general?”
The children can answer this item on a 5-point smiley scale.2
In all, the 6- to 11-year-olds in our survey report an even slightly higher satisfac-
tion with their own lives compared to the Second World Vision Child Study in 2010
(Fig. 2.1). In this the Third Child Study, 59% of the children give very positive and

2
 The question was formulated in line with the life satisfaction surveys frequently used in German
empirical social research. However, surveys of the general population generally use an 11-point
scale (from 0 to 10).
26 U. Schneekloth and S. Andresen

“And how satisfied are you with your life as a whole?”

59 2010
Very positive
59 2013

30
Positive
32

8
Neutral
8

1
Negative
1

2
Very negative
0

Fig. 2.1  One’s own well-being

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

a further 32% give positive answers. No more than 8% give a neutral answer, and
only 1% report an explicitly negative life satisfaction.
Naturally, at this point, it is always necessary to bear in mind that children in
particular will always tend to give positive answers when asked about their overall
life satisfaction, and that neutral or negative answers will usually be the exception.3
This makes it all the more remarkable that only 72% of the children with the lowest
social origins, the so-called lower class, give positive answers, whereas 28% (com-
pared to 26% in 2010) give neutral or explicitly negative answers (on the demarca-
tion of the social classes in the Child Study, see Chap. 3 and Appendix 2). No other
social class articulates such a conspicuously different and also negative evaluation
of the personal situation (Table 2.1).
As our analyses in the Second World Vision Child Study in 2010 have already
shown, the lack of life satisfaction in children is due to a combination of household
risk factors (parental poverty and/or unemployment, growing up in a single-parent
family) and what is frequently in consequence a deficit in care and attention from
parents coupled with the children’s own feeling of having no chance in life or of

3
 This is also the case in the most recent UNICEF study “Child Well-Being in Rich Countries”
UNICEF, 2013). It cites findings from the “Health Behavior in School-Aged Children 2009/10”
(HBSC-Studie 2011) study of life satisfaction in 11-, 13-, and 15-year-olds. Here as well, 84% of
respondents gave positive answers. Among 11-year-olds, this even reached 86%, which is almost
equal to the 89% measured in the Second World Vision Child Study in 2010.
2  What’s Fair and What’s Unfair: The Different Faces of Justice 27

Table 2.1  Life satisfaction of children with different social origins

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
Proportion of children (very positive or
positive),a per column in % 2010 2013
Upper class 92 95
Upper middle class 90 95
Middle class 91 93
Lower middle class 90 91
Lower class 70b 72
a
The table reports the proportion of children who rated their own life satisfaction very positively or
positively in 2010 or 2013
b
A further 4% of lower class children gave no answer in 2010

being unable to cope with the demands they have to face (low expected self-­
efficacy). All these factors accumulate particularly in children from the lowest social
class (Schneekloth and Pupeter 2010b, pp. 210–215).
A look at the children’s ratings for important domains in their daily lives reveals
small but subtle differences in the latest Child Study as well. The highest satisfac-
tion is with the circle of friends (94% positive ratings) and leisure (91% positive). A
large majority of children also rate parental care very positively (88% positive). At
84%, a slightly higher percentage of children rate the freedoms granted to them by
their parents very positively or positively, although 16% rate this negatively or neu-
trally. A positive rating of school is found in 79% of the children; 21% give negative
to neutral ratings—making this the largest negative to neutral proportion (Fig. 2.2).
Evidently, in the latest Child Study, just as in 2010, it is the relation between
individual freedoms on the one side and regulations and duties on the other side that
concerns children in this age range. Despite the high level of overall satisfaction,
there are still differences: both in the evaluation of the various areas of daily life and
also against the backdrop of origins and social class. Some individual domains also
reveal age or gender effects: Younger children rate school slightly more positively
than older children; and girls also tend to rate school somewhat more positively than
boys. Vice versa, it is the younger children who somewhat less frequently give posi-
tive ratings on the freedoms granted to them by their parents. Girls, in contrast, give
more positive ratings than boys here. However, when it comes to overall life satis-
faction, we once again find no significant differences in terms of age and gender. We
shall address these points in later chapters in which we shall consider them in detail.
When commencing the topic of justice, it is important at this point to bear in mind
the very positive view of their own lives and see this as a backdrop to the children’s
ideas about “justice.”
28 U. Schneekloth and S. Andresen

„How happy are you with“ Very positive Positive Negative to neutral

Life in general 59 32 9

Circle of friends 62 32 6

Leisure 58 33 9

Parental care 54 34 12

Freedoms allowed by
43 41 16
parents

School 42 37 21

Fig. 2.2  Well-being by domains

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

2.2  Fears

Fears and anxieties are normal phenomena accompanying children throughout their
development. As mid-childhood progresses, the early fears of loss or also the fan-
tasy fears in what is called the “magical phase” give way increasingly to real fears.
This only becomes critical when fears not only accumulate but also exert an influ-
ence on everyday behavior and start to become chronic. However, this is generally
an exception for children in this age range.4
In the Child Study, we also check through a list of fears with the children. We
mention problems related to daily life (such as school grades or the fear of being
bullied) as well as risks related to society (such as poverty or environmental pollu-
tion) and then ask the children whether this hardly, ever, sometimes, or very often
makes them afraid. A comparison of their replies with the results of the last Child
Study in 2010 shows that the proportion of children who “sometimes” or “very
often” are afraid of one or more of the items on our list has declined. This matches
the aforementioned slight increase in overall life satisfaction. Taken as a whole, at
81%, the majority of children report sometimes being afraid in at least one of the
domains surveyed.
The most frequent fear named by 46% of the children (compared to 51% in
2010) is that of poverty (“that there are more and more people who are poor in

4
 Only roughly 10% of those anxieties in children and adolescents that meet the criteria for an anxi-
ety disorder actually become chronic (Woodward and Fergusson 2001).
2  What’s Fair and What’s Unfair: The Different Faces of Justice 29

Very often
9 48 2010
Bad school grades
6 42 2013

8 39
Being bullied or hit
8 34

8 31
Parental unemployment
6 26

Increased number of 12 51
poor people 11 46

10 44
Environmental pollution
9 40

17 43
War
13 39
3
5 17
Increased number
4 19
of foreigners

Fig. 2.3  Children sometimes have fear from

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

Germany”). This is followed by the fear of having poor school grades in 42% (48%
in 2010). Then 40% (44% in 2010) mention environmental pollution; 39% (43% in
2010) that there might be a war; 34% (39% in 2010) that they are afraid of being
bullied or hit; 26% (31% in 2010) that they are afraid of their parents becoming
unemployed; and 19% (17% in 2010) that they are afraid of “more and more for-
eigners” coming to Germany. In general, the children report that these topics “some-
times” made them afraid. The proportion of children who reply “very often” is more
or less markedly below 10%. The only exception is fear of war with 13% (17% in
2010) reporting that they are “very often” afraid of this (see Fig. 2.3).
The older children aged 11–12 most frequently report on existing fears and anxi-
eties. Conspicuously high at 52% are fears about poor school grades; at 55%, the
fear of increasing poverty; and at 50%, the fear of increasing environmental pollu-
tion. These real anxieties reflect a growing problem awareness and confirm the
increasing significance of these issues for children as they mature (see Table 2.2).
Girls tend to report more fears than boys. For example, 36% of girls report being
afraid of being bullied or beaten compared to 32% of boys. Fear of growing envi-
ronmental pollution is reported by 42% of girls compared to 38% of boys. This
inverts for the item on the migration of more foreigners to Germany. Only 17% of
the girls are afraid of this compared to 21% of the boys (see Table 2.2).
That girls report fears somewhat more frequently is not a new trend; it could
already be seen in our previous Child Studies. One common explanation for this is
that boys tend to be raised to be “protectors and heroes” whereas girls are raised to
be “those in need of protection,” and that both sexes reproduce corresponding role
30 U. Schneekloth and S. Andresen

Table 2.2  Things that children sometimes fear

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
Sometimes or very often, per cell All 6-7 8-9 10-11
in % children Girls Boys years years years
Bad school grades 42 43 40 27 42 52
Being bullied or hit 34 36 32 31 39 32
Parental unemployment 26 26 27 21 27 30
Increasing number of poor people 46 48 45 34 47 55
Environmental pollution 40 42 38 27 41 50
Outbreak of war 39 40 38 30 42 43
Increasing number of foreigners 19 17 21 15 18 23

stereotypes. However, another possible explanation is that it is still “uncool” and

inappropriate for boys to admit fears, whereas it is more acceptable for girls to
communicate their feelings. This makes it notably easier for girls to cope with fears
together instead of denying them and/or trying to hide them behind aggressiveness
(Essau 2003; Morschitzky 2009).

2.3  What Children Understand by Justice

In modern research in developmental psychology and behavioral economics, the

categories self-interest and (interpersonal) well-being have become central bench-
marks for judging moral and emotional development in early to middle childhood.
This line of research assumes that children’s ideas of justice are based on a concept
of equality that can take different forms depending on whether they are considering
equality of need or reciprocity.5 In the eyes of children, equality can mean not only
an egalitarian distribution of that which is there (“sharing”) but also a redistribution
of what is mine (“giving”). We already came across this finding in the Second World
Vision Child Study when the children also talked about the responsibility of the rich
to give to the poor.
We consider that these ideas link up with the fundamental assumptions in justice
theory presented in Chap. 1, and that they relate simultaneously to the discussions
on “social justice” to be found in social and welfare state theory. This perspective
also results in ideas and consequences regarding how to treat each other and how to
distribute the available means that differ according to the specific social relations
between individuals or groups. Based on an idea proposed by Fiske (1992, as cited
in Liebig and May 2009, pp. 6–7), Liebig and May distinguish four general models
of social relations. Each of these specific models then has its own principles of
justice.

5
 In this context, Fehr et al. (2008) talk about “inequality aversion” as the characteristic feature of
(moral) development in children of this age.
2  What’s Fair and What’s Unfair: The Different Faces of Justice 31

Model 1 is based on close and long-term social relations as in a family or other

form of shared household. The characteristic feature in this case is the need princi-
ple. A just distribution is oriented in principle toward that which each single indi-
vidual considers that she or he needs for her or himself in a situation in which all
individuals are there for each other and will share if necessary. Model 2 is shaped
by hierarchic interrelations. Here, higher ranking persons have more important roles
or take on more responsibility. What is characteristic here is the rights principle.
Those of higher rank can claim what is assigned to them and to which they have a
right due to their status and function. Model 3 is based on social relations in network
structures, community associations, or cooperatives. In principle, each member ini-
tially has equal rights and equal duties. Relations are based on exchange and the
characteristic feature is the equivalence principle. Everybody gives back roughly
what they have received. Model 4 is characteristic for relations among strangers
who interact with each other on the basis of relations of economic exchange based
on market principles in which each person strives to attain the greatest advantage for
the self. What is characteristic in this case is the achievement principle as a bench-
mark for just interaction.
From this perspective, Liebig and May (2009) propose that conflicts regarding
which of the various principles of justice should be applied to what extent and at
which time are based on different interpretations of how the relations and social
interactions of individuals are to be shaped in each subdomain of society.
If society is understood as more of a loose assembly of individuals or groups of
individuals who are competing with each other, the primary benchmark is the
achievement principle and the orientation toward individual returns based on per-
formance. If, in contrast, society is viewed (also) as a closer community of shared
responsibility, the principle of need gains central importance as a just approach,
either as a corrective and principle of compensation or also as a normative principle
for creating equal opportunity.
Whereas in the 1960s and 1970s, the debate on social justice centered primarily
on questions of (re)distribution of income or wealth, the perspective has now shifted
toward the attainment of equal opportunity and participation in society (Leisering
2004, as cited in Liebig and May 2009). This is also exactly the goal of the Capability
Approach underlying our Child Study that aims to enable individuals to do and to
be what they have reason to value (Sen 2010).

2.3.1  The Children’s Frames of Reference and Perspectives

The issue of how to achieve social justice is particularly central for modern demo-
cratic societies with their aspirations to civil freedoms, basic social rights, and
chances of participation. It is correspondingly important to look at the socialization
of children in relation to these problems or, from our perspective, how they socialize
themselves in relation to them over the course of their development.
32 U. Schneekloth and S. Andresen

One of the methodological challenges facing childhood studies is to take suffi-

cient account of how children themselves relate to these in part complex concepts
and what they associate with them. This issue naturally also emerges with regard to
how children see the concept of social justice. However, up to now, empirical sur-
veys reveal hardly any systematic approach to this that we can build on directly.6
Typical instruments used in surveys as indicators measuring justice tap, for exam-
ple, “subjective well-being/personal distributive justice” with questions asking
whether one considers that one has “either more or less than one’s fair share com-
pared to others” (ALLBUS: Datenreport 2011), or asking about economic justice in
Germany (“Are the economic conditions here in Germany—by which I mean what
people own and how much they earn—basically fair or unfair” (Allensbach 2013)?
Six- to 11-year-old children cannot answer such questions as they stand. The instru-
ments used in psychological youth research such as the Personal Belief in a Just
World Scale (Dalbert 1983; Dalbert et al. 1987) also seem to be of only limited use
with children of this age.
Therefore, the first step in our pilot study was to ask selected children directly
what they personally associate with justice. We also used the qualitative part of the
study, which we commenced in advance of the representative survey, to assess chil-
dren’s ideas on the topic of justice in more detail and to use this as a basis for appro-
priately designing and evaluating the fully standardized items in the representative
survey.7
We categorized the often extensive and detailed answers and used these results to
critically reexamine our questionnaire. It should be pointed out that we view this
categorization of children’s ideas on justice as a heuristic framework and not as a
strict classification of justice theories. Nonetheless, these “categories of ideas on
justice” allow us not only to analyze our quantitative and qualitative results in
­relation to the specific frames of reference of the children but also to gain interesting
starting points for further research. We used the following categories to systematize
and assign the data on the topic of justice generated in the pilot study (see also
Table 2.3):
• Interactional justice (equal treatment in personal relations)
• Procedural justice (equal rights and equal access for all)
• Need-related justice (compensation and well-being)
• Egalitarian justice (equal distribution)
In their answers, the children interpreted and evaluated justice within the context
of their situational ideas of equality. However, their unstructured responses could
not always be assigned exclusively to one category. Justice as fairness—in the (egal-
itarian) sense that “all are treated equally” frequently also has a self-serving aspect

6
 Here, we are referring to empirical surveys and not experimental studies in which children’s
behavior is observed in, for example, a play experiment.
7
 This approach is known as “triangulation” in social science research. It combines qualitative and
quantitative methods systematically in order to exploit their different strengths and create useful
synergies.
2  What’s Fair and What’s Unfair: The Different Faces of Justice 33

Table 2.3  Frames and categorizations of open answers

Pilot study, 95 children aged 6–11 years
Frame Numbera Examples of unstructured responsesb
“Interactional justice” – 40 “Justice is when everybody is treated equally”
equal treatment in personal “Everybody should be nice to everybody – and
relations adults should be as just to others as they are to
themselves”
“Procedural justice” – equal 28 “That you share with each other and don’t just leave
rights and equal access for all anybody out”
“That everybody is treated in the same way and
everybody has the same opportunities”
“Need-related justice” – 21 “When everybody has a job, a home, enough to eat,
equality, well-being, and still has money left over to afford something
redistribution nice”
“That all people, whether rich or poor, get the same
things, are able to travel, get toys, and have enough
to eat”
“Egalitarian justice” – equal 16 “When everybody has the same amount”
distribution “When I am eating sweets with my friend and my
friend gets more, that is unjust. It would be better to
share things exactly”
Multiple categorizations possible
a

See the list of all open answers in Appendix 3

b

(if everybody else can do it, I want to be able to do it myself), but it can simultane-
ously also express the wish and the need for all to have equal chances and participa-
tion (everybody should take part).
One interesting finding is that achievement-related justice does not seem to play
any role in the children’s unstructured responses, even though it is such a central
aspect. In the present context, this may also be because the open questioning of
what the children understand by justice was prepared and framed by the fully stan-
dardized questions in the pilot test interview. These examined how fair the children
considered things to be in their environment by asking them to appraise the way
specific groups are treated in Germany (children and adolescents, the aged, the
handicapped, foreigners, poor people). Hence, the frames of reference that the chil-
dren applied when answering the unstructured question on what they understand by
justice had been primed in advance in the sense of ensuring the well-being of others.
As the results on the qualitative part of the study show, the achievement aspect is
also taken into account, for example, when justice is linked to the children’s demands
for mutuality and reciprocity.
34 U. Schneekloth and S. Andresen

Table 2.4  I find that very fair or quite fair

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
All 6–7 8–9 10–11
Very fair or quite fair, per line in % children Girls Boys years years years
Some families have very little money; 23 21 26 20 24 25
others have a great deal of it
Rich parents should pay more money for 61 57 65 56 62 64
a daycare center trip than poor parents
Mostly it is adults who decide on, for 31 33 29 31 30 31
example, building a playground
Non-German children should speak only 41 39 42 43 36 43
German at class breaks, too

2.4  Categories and Aspects of Justice

To enable children to appraise justice with the closest possible reference to their
daily lives and experiences, we used everyday questions or little scenarios in both
the questionnaire and the qualitative interviews. The children should judge the sin-
gle scenarios according to what they consider just. The representative part of the
Child Study draws on the categorization of the unstructured answers from the pilot
study. This targeted egalitarian, need-related, procedural, and interactional justice.
Table 2.4 presents a general overview of the results. It reports the percentages of
children per age group and gender who answered very fair or quite fair.
Some families have very little money; others have a great deal of it. Do you think that is
very fair, quite fair, rather unfair, or very unfair?

The first question refers to egalitarian ideas about justice using the example of
differences in the distribution of income (and wealth). Two out of three children find
the unequal distribution to be unfair (23% very unfair, 43% rather unfair), and
accordingly, only a minority consider it to be fair. The differences between age
groups actually tend to be slight because, at 14%, younger children somewhat more
frequently give no reply.
Differentiated according to gender, girls at 67% consider it to be slightly more
unfair than boys at 65%. However, a larger difference in the appraisals is found
when replies are differentiated according to the children’s social background. At
81%, lower-class children find the financial inequality between families to be mark-
edly more unfair than the other classes. The unfairness appraisals of upper-class
children are slightly above the average at 69% (Fig. 2.4).
Our findings link up with Fehr et al.’s (2008) experimental studies by also reveal-
ing an inequality aversion. In the eyes of these children, the need for equality means
“unequal is unjust” (egalitarian justice). The feeling of injustice is frequently par-
ticularly marked when the causes of this inequality are viewed negatively, or when
the reasons for some having more and others having less are unknown. Both can
apply in this case. However, the differentiations according to the children’s social
class reveal an important aspect: The children’s evaluations are not independent
2  What’s Fair and What’s Unfair: The Different Faces of Justice 35

Rather unfair
Very unfair

44

41 46
42 44

37
25 21 23
19

Lower class Lower middle Middle class Upper middle Upper class
class class

Fig. 2.4  Unequal is unfair

„Some families have very little money; others have a great deal of it
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

from their social circumstances. Evidently, unequal is not just unfair in general;
for children from the lowest social class, it is quite practically oppressive and
discriminatory.
A group of children at the daycare center want to go on a trip together. It has been
decided that rich parents should pay more money for the trip than poor parents. Do you
think that is very fair, quite fair, rather unfair, or very unfair?

Answers to the second question on need-related justice using the example that
wealthier families should pay more of the costs take the opposite direction. This is
judged to be fair by 61% of the children (25% very fair, 36% quite fair). Only a
minority of 27% think that this is unfair. Interestingly, the appraisal that it is fair to
impose the stronger and therefore unequal burden on wealthier parents increases
with age (as expected, 21% of the 6- to 7-year-olds disproportionately frequently
give no response). At 65%, boys agree markedly more frequently than girls at 57%.
It is notable that at 69%, children from the lowest social class most frequently con-
sider that unequal payments by poor and rich parents are fair. The lowest level of
agreement at 56% is found in the middle class, whereas 64% of the children from
both the higher classes think that this is fair (Fig. 2.5).
The unequal payments by parents depending on their financial resources can also
be interpreted as a wish for equality, because children may well have experienced
that their peers from poorer families are unable to join them on, for example, school
excursions because they are too expensive. If “those who have more also contribute
more,” then this leads to more equal treatment, because it creates conditions in
which everybody can come (participatory justice). This is joined by the idea of shar-
ing, that those who have more are obliged to give something up and share their
wealth—an idea that the children already expressed in 2010.
36 U. Schneekloth and S. Andresen

rather fair
very fair

33
38
32 44
34

36
26 22 26
20

Lower Class Lower middle Middle Class Upper middle Upper class
Class class

Fig. 2.5  Justice is when those who have more also contribute more
“A group of children at the daycare center want to go on a trip together. It has been decided that
rich parents should pay more money for the trip than poor parents”
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

Mostly it is adults—and not the children themselves—who decide where and when to
build a children’s playground. This is because they say that they are the ones who know
best about such things. Do you think that is very fair, quite fair, rather unfair, or very
unfair?

The third question on procedural justice using the example of how frequently
children are unable to contribute to decisions also receives a clear answer. A total of
62% find the lack of codetermination unfair (21% very unfair, 41% rather unfair).
At 12%, younger children somewhat more frequently give no reply, so that the pro-
portion of this group who find this unfair is slightly lower at 57%. At 64%, boys
even find the lack of codetermination somewhat more frequently unfair than girls at
59%. The differences according to social origins are less clear here. Upper-class
children are more self-confident, whereas the appraisals of the other children vary
only slightly (Fig. 2.6).
Equality also means having equal rights. When decisions are made in Germany
about things that are important for children, then “fair” means that the children have
a voice here. Fairness and equal treatment also mean that children should also be
informed about what is being planned and have a voice in any decision making. At
this point, the children’s perspective addresses the procedural principle and is less
concerned with their feeling the need to or even the competence to intervene actively
in the debates. Nonetheless, the view that the majority of children of this age trust
in authority and are unable to question the rules of the adult world is no longer
appropriate. Of course, the process of individual maturation is involved here, and it
continues to be appropriate to assume that children of this age seek to adapt the
views of adults. However, this does not mean that they consider it to be fair to be
excluded from decisions that affect them.
2  What’s Fair and What’s Unfair: The Different Faces of Justice 37

Rather unfair
Very unfair

36 39 42 44
40

25 24 20 21
19

Lower class Lower middle Middle class Upper middle Upper class
class class

Fig. 2.6  Not being able to have a say is unjust

“Mostly it is adults and not the children themselves who decide on building playgrounds”
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

What would you think if non-German children had to speak only German not just in
class but also at the class breaks: Do you think that is very fair, quite fair, rather unfair,
or very unfair?

The fourth question addresses fairness as well as equal treatment in personal

relations (interactional justice). Here, we are taking up a public discourse on lan-
guage. The idea of telling children with a migration background (“non-German
children”) what language they should speak in their daily lives also possesses a
justice dimension: Justice also means that something has to be personally reason-
able and acceptable if it is to be “alright.”
We are aware that this question can be stigmatizing, particularly for children. On
the other hand, concerns about integration and how migrants should be treated are
publicly discussed topics in Germany that also frequently attract a lot of media
attention. We can assume that children are also aware of this in their daily lives.
Although opinions are more divided on this issue, at 49% compared to 41%, the
majority feel that it would be unfair to oblige foreign children to speak German with
each other during school breaks as well as in class (19% very unfair, 30% rather
unfair). Among younger children aged 6–7 years, 41% find this unfair and 43% find
this fair. Sixteen percent—and thereby also more than in the other age groups—can
or do not want to reply to this question. Among older children, in contrast, a clear
majority of more than 50% view this as unfair. The slight deviations in the response
behavior of girls compared to boys are due to the slightly higher proportion of miss-
ing reports among the former (12% compared to 9% in boys). A differentiation
according to social origins reveals a clear trend: the higher the social class of origin,
the stronger the rejection (Fig. 2.7).
In this context, justice seems to link up closely with the idea that it is wrong to
always forbid or prescribe everything in the children’s world. Fair means, in this
38 U. Schneekloth and S. Andresen

Rather unfair
Very unfair

36
33
29
27
25

22 26
12 14 17

Lower class Lower middle Middle class Upper middle Upper class
class class

Fig. 2.7  Fair also means not always wanting to forbid or prescribe everything
“What would you think if non-German children had to speak only German not just in class but also
at the class breaks”
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

case, that you can do the things you want to do. The clear class dependence in
response behavior additionally indicates that being prescribed which language one
can use with one’s peers is clearly an unjustified disciplining for children from
higher classes and therefore conceived as unequal treatment. Children from the
lower classes, particularly when they are native Germans, reveal a markedly more
distanced attitude here. This leads us to ask which children profit from multilingual-
ism at school. Children who themselves have a low socioeconomic status may feel
more threatened by other languages in the school yard, because they do not under-
stand them and may feel excluded by them during school breaks. Children from
higher classes have more positive experiences through travelling to distant countries
and more often attend schools at which social conflicts less frequently shape
daily life.

2.4.1  Qualitative Findings

As shown above, children’s ideas of justice are shaped strongly by the characteristic
need for equality in this age range. We have also adopted this finding for our qualita-
tive interviews in which we address equal treatment, equal claims, equal rights, and
equal duties.
This once again reveals that equality refers not only to participation (equal
chances) but also to reciprocity (mutuality). As a result, the children are quite capa-
ble of interpreting it multidimensionally. Depending on the situation and the back-
ground, the postulate of equality can lead to different ideas of justice. We shall
2  What’s Fair and What’s Unfair: The Different Faces of Justice 39

illustrate the different interpretations children use when judging justice by two
examples taken from the qualitative interviews. We have chosen the thoughts of an
11-year-old and those of a 7-year-old. The following case report was read out loud
to both children:
Next month, a famous circus will be coming to town. The children in a school class would
really like to go to the circus and see the show. Although the class has its own savings
account with money to pay for excursions, there is not enough money to pay for tickets for
everybody to go to the circus. The class is discussing what they can do. The children come
up with the idea of holding a garage sale. All the children should bring things they no lon-
ger need from home so that they can be put on sale.
On the day of the garage sale, all the children bring things to be sold. Only Jana and
Emil come with empty hands. Anton and Luise, in contrast, have brought a particularly
large number of things. What do you think: Should all the children be able to go to the
circus?

Example 1:  Adriana (A), 11 years; Interviewer (I)

“Everyone should be able to go”
I: Should all the children still be able to go to the circus?
A: Yes, of course.
I: Anton and Luise have brought a lot of things.
A: Yes, sure, then they have to share them with the others. Give something away
so that the others (who haven’t brought anything—ed.) then also have some-
thing to sell and can collect money to go to the circus.
I: And what if the class has reserved a block of seats for itself alone at the circus
and this means that only one-half of the children can sit in the first row and
the other half have to sit further back. How should the children decide who
should sit where?
A: Oh, draw lots perhaps? Drawing lots would be a fair way to do it.
I: So you wouldn’t say that those who didn’t bring anything should …?
A: No, no way. That would actually be completely unfair if you had had nothing
to sell but still wanted to come.
I: Um. Um … and what if they just simply forgot? I mean, they had something at
home, but simply forgot to bring it with them?
A: Yes, then they, they should first fetch the things from the others who have
brought a lot of things with them and join them in selling them. And then they
can give them that later.
Adriana simply takes it for granted that all the children should go to the circus.
For her, it goes without saying that those who have brought a lot have to share with
those who have less. That is the only way to ensure that everybody has the same
chance of also going to the circus. Spontaneously, Adriana assumes that those who
have brought nothing with them simply have nothing at home that they can do with-
out. On the other hand, from Adriana’s viewpoint, reciprocity is maintained in that
those children who have not brought anything with them have to compensate by
fetching things that the others have brought and helping them to sell them.
40 U. Schneekloth and S. Andresen

Example 2:  Theresa, 7 years (T)

“Then you also have to do something for it”
I: Should all the children still be able to go to the circus?
T: No, not the two children who didn’t brought anything with them.
I: Why not?
T: Because that would be unfair then. Because then they come as well …and then
…they have …they didn’t even help at all.
[…]
I: And tell me Theresa, what if …what I mean is could you imagine why these two
did not bring anything with them?
T: Because they didn’t have anything. Or they forgot.
I: And what if they simply didn’t have anything? (Pause) Should they still not be
able to go to the circus?
T: Yes, they could help. They could split up, for example: Jana goes to him, and
he goes to her.
I: That’s a good idea too. So, if, for example, they didn’t have any things at home
…they could help the others.
T: Exactly, one gets one half, and the other gets the other half.
I: Okay. But if they had had something at home and they forgot it?
T: Well, that’s not fair!
Theresa also thinks it is fair for everybody to have an equal chance of being able
to go to the circus. However, unlike Adriana, it is spontaneously very important for
her that everybody complies with the rule that each child has to bring something
from home. If the children do not have enough things at home, then they can help
the others to sell their things. However, if, in contrast, they have not complied with
the rule, they have no right to go.
Both Adriana and Theresa orient themselves toward very similar principles and
want everybody to be treated equally. Nonetheless, they differ in their replies to the
question on treating the children fairly. They differ spontaneously in how they eval-
uate the motives of the children who have not brought anything with them. However,
during the further course of the interview, they propose an analogue way to ensure
the participation chances of those who have contributed nothing because they have
hardly anything or nothing at home. From their viewpoint, this solution is also based
on reciprocity.

2.5  Appraisal of Justice in Their Own Lives

Following the questions on the ideas of justice, we used the fully standardized sur-
vey to see how children more generally view justice in the family, the circle of
friends, at school, in Germany, and throughout the world. They could give their
answers and ratings on a four-smiley scale (very fair, quite fair, rather unfair, or very
unfair). If the children either could not or did not want to give an answer, the inter-
viewer entered them into the “don’t know” category.
2  What’s Fair and What’s Unfair: The Different Faces of Justice 41

On the whole, just about every child gives an appraisal of justice in her or his
immediate world, that is, in the family, in the circle of friends, and at school.
However, 29% (and thereby 39% of the 6- to 7-year-olds, 29% of the 8- to 9-year-­
olds, and 21% of the 10- to 11-year-olds) are unable to or do not want to answer the
question on whether things are fair in Germany. Findings are similar for the item on
justice in the whole world. Here, 26% (and thereby 45% of the 6- to 7-year-olds,
25% of the 8- to 9-year-olds, but, in this case only 13% of the 10- to 11-year-olds)
are unable to or do not want to answer the question.8 In light of the intensity of
development occurring particularly in middle childhood between the ages of 6 and
11 years, this low level of “don’t knows” does not surprise us. Quite the opposite:
From our perspective, this also reveals the aforementioned ability of children in this
age range to give appraisals of “fairness” based on how they understand their per-
sonal environment and look out beyond this to Germany as well as the whole world.
A look at the answers (Fig. 2.8) reveals that, analogue to their reports on personal
well-being, just about all 6- to 11-year olds (92%) describe the situation in their own
family as being either very fair or quite fair. The same holds for interactions in their
own circle of friends: 90% describe these as being either very fair or quite fair. This
indicates that that the children have a very positive sense of justice particularly
because of the personal intimacy and the major significance of these relationships.
Perhaps interactional justice and procedural justice, which are linked closely to per-
sonal interactions for children and not to abstract procedures, can be experienced
primarily in personal relationships. Here as well, it can be seen that promoting child
well-being and granting children “justice” from the side of the parents is valued in
families.
However, differences emerge when it comes to judging school. Here, 78% rate
how they are treated there as being very or quite fair. At 19%, already almost every
fifth child reports that school is rather or very unfair (for more on this, see the next
Chap. 4 on school).
Only 47% consider that Germany is fair; 24% that it is unfair. In clear contrast,
however, a mere 16% of the children believe that it is a fair world compared to 57%
who consider the way the world works and the way it is to be unfair. What seems to
be decisive for this appraisal is the children’s association of the questions with the
“Third World” and all the problems and injustices to be found there (hunger, war,
and a general lack of protection of children). This information is conveyed by, for
example, the media and evidently the strong impression this makes shapes their
frame of reference.
In the view of a very large majority of the children, family offers a home that you
can rely on and in which things are done fairly. The circle of friends offers a social
environment that is independent of this. Here, you can try things out for yourself
and play with others. Here as well, it is what children feel to be fair that shapes their
interaction. At the same time, children do not view Germany as a whole as an

8
 Those 6- to 7-year-olds who were unable to answer the question on justice in Germany and were,
therefore, no longer asked about justice in the world are also assigned to the “don’t know/no
answer” group here.
42 U. Schneekloth and S. Andresen

Very fair Quite fair Rather unfair Very unfair Don't know

In the family 45 47 5 3

In the circle of friends 36 54 7 12

At school 22 56 16 3 3

In Germany 9 38 21 3 29

In the world 3 13 40 18 26

Fig. 2.8  How fair things are in general

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

“Island of the Blessed,” despite the high level of satisfaction with their lives.
Nonetheless, compared to the rest of the world, they do feel “privileged” as children
in Germany and in a much better position than those above all in the Third World.

2.6  How Fair Is Germany?

We also studied what children think about “social justice” in Germany by asking
them how fairly they consider certain groups are treated. It is easier for children to
relate their idea of justice to the question of how people are handled—equal or
unequal (unjust) treatment. This does not correspond directly to the usual distribu-
tive concept of empirical justice research with its orientation toward a (welfare)
distribution, but is easier for children to grasp.9 However, here as well, the challenge
facing children is to perform general appraisals of the situation of certain social
groups in Germany. In contrast to the (previously presented) question on general
fairness in Germany, these items focus more on single groups (children and youths,
the aged, the handicapped, foreigners,10 poor people) and are therefore easier for the
children to grasp in relation to their daily lives.

9
 The usual question in the Sozialstaatssurvey is “What do you think? How far has Germany
achieved a fair distribution of wealth?” In contrast, personal distributive justice is tapped in, for
example, ALLBUS with the question: “Compared to how other people live here in Germany, do
you consider that you receive your fair share, more than your fair share, or somewhat less or some-
what more?”
10
 Instead of the term foreigner, which is based on formal nationality, research in the social sciences
uses the category migration background. This places the focus on one’s own origin or also the
2  What’s Fair and What’s Unfair: The Different Faces of Justice 43

Very fair Quite fair Rather unfair Very unfair Don't know

Children or
11 55 21 3 10
adolescents

Old people 19 45 20 3 13

Disabled 13 38 28 7 14

Foreigners 10 38 34 6 12

Poor people 7 23 42 15 13

Includes only those 6-to 7-year-olds who were able to answer the question on justice in Germany

Fig. 2.9  How people treat specific social groups in Germany

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)|

The proportion of children who are unable to answer this question lies between
10% and 15%. We already dropped these questions in advance for those of the
youngest children (6- to 7-year-olds) who had been unable to answer the previous
question on general fairness in Germany.11 Considering these cases as well, the
proportion of children without valid reports rises up to between 21 and 25% depend-
ing on the research question.
In the following, we shall refer only to those children who were asked the ques-
tions on “social justice” in Germany (Fig. 2.9). The majority say that children and
adolescents (11% very fair, 55% quite fair) and also the aged (19% very fair, 45%
quite fair) are treated fairly. Results are comparable, though slightly lower for the
treatment of the disabled (13% consider this to be very fair in Germany and 38%
fair) and likewise for the treatment of foreigners (10% very fair, 38% quite fair). In
contrast, the majority rate the treatment of poor people in Germany negatively (30%
fair and 57% rather unfair).12

origin of one’s parents as well as the associated cultural roots and commitment. Nonetheless, “for-
eigner” [Ausländer] continues to be the usual term in everyday speech.
11
 For older children who were also unable to answer the questions, we also used the option of a
“don’t know” category.
12
 According to the Sozialstaatssurvey, approximately 80% of the adult population last reported in
2008 that Germany had either “rather not” or “completely not” attained a fair distribution of wealth
(Glatzer 2009). According to Allensbach (2013), 69% of the over-16-year-old population reported
“unfair” when answering the question: “Are the economic conditions here in Germany—by which
44 U. Schneekloth and S. Andresen

Appraisals of social justice in Germany vary according to age group, although

this is due mostly to the different proportions of children who are unable to answer
these questions. However, the main trend is a lack of any relevant differences.
Differentiated according to gender, girls rate the treatment of the named groups
slightly less often as being fair. As in the other questions on justice, it seems as if
girls in contrast to boys somewhat more frequently emphasize injustices toward oth-
ers. For example, 37% of girls compared to 32% of boys judge the treatment of the
disabled to be unfair in Germany. Here as well, at 48%, the largest group of girls
rate treatment in Germany as fair although this remains below the 53% of boys.
An interesting detail is that the appraisal of the treatment of foreigners hardly
differs between native German children (49% as fair) and children with a migration
background (46% as fair). However, this is not the case with the appraisal of the
treatment of poor people: At 65%, it is by far children from the lowest social origins
who most frequently consider that their treatment is unfair.

2.6.1  F
 orming Groups: Attitudes of Children Toward Social
Justice in Germany

As to be expected, appraisals of the treatment of different groups correlate with each

other. There is a strong probability that children who tend to negatively appraise the
treatment of one of the groups we asked them about will appraise the other groups
negatively as well.13 Therefore, we summarized the replies of all children who could
be asked about this to form a global assessment of social justice in Germany. This
enabled us to distinguish between four different groups of children (Fig. 2.10).14
Children with a very positive view of social justice in Germany: 22% of all
children.
Nearly all the children in this group consider that every social group we asked
about is treated fairly (very fair or quite fair). This also applies to the treatment of
poor people: 88% of these children consider this to be fair.
Children with a fairly positive view of social justice in Germany: 35%.

I mean what people own and how much they earn—basically fair or unfair?” According to the
German General Social Survey (ALLBUS) in 2010, approximately 45% of the adult population
considered that they received less than their fair share (ALLBUS: Datenreport 2011).
13
 This is also confirmed in a reliability and factor analysis. All five questions form the same dimen-
sion and can therefore be viewed and analyzed together.
14
 We did this by adding up the values (very fair = 1, quite fair = 2, don’t know = 3, rather unfair =
4, very unfair = 5) and then grouping the children according to the central tendency. All weightings
above the median indicate a negative judgment of social justice; we viewed those higher than the
(statistical) standard deviation as a very negative judgment. Weightings below the median, in con-
trast, represent a positive appraisal of social justice in Germany, and those lower than the standard
deviation as correspondingly very positive.
2  What’s Fair and What’s Unfair: The Different Faces of Justice 45

Very positive Very negative

22% 13%

Positive: 57% Negative:

43%

Partially negative
Fairly positve 30%
35%

Only children who were able to answer the question on justice in Germany

Fig. 2.10  “Social justice”

Global assessment of how are social groups treated in Germany
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

The majority of children in this group also consider that the social groups we
asked about are treated fairly (fair treatment of children and adolescents: 78%, fair
treatment of foreigners: 62%). However, only a minority of 27% consider that poor
people are treated fairly.
Children with a partially negative view of social justice in Germany: 30%.
About one-half of the children in this group consider the treatment of children
and adolescents as well as the aged to be fair. In contrast, only one in five consider
the treatment of the disabled or foreigners in German to be fair, and only a small
minority of 9% consider that poor people receive fair treatment.
Children with a very negative view of social justice in Germany: 13%.
The majority of children in this group consider that nearly all the social groups
surveyed are treated unfairly in Germany.
Hence, in all, children’s opinions on social justice in Germany vary greatly. At
57%, the majority take a positive position. Nonetheless, this still leaves 43% with a
more negative view of social justice in the country. Viewed in context, at 64%, lower
class children significantly more frequently have a negative perception of social
justice in Germany. At 49%, the appraisal of children growing up in a one-parent
family is also significantly more negative. Independent of social status, girls at 46%
also significantly more frequently give more negative appraisals than boys. Younger
children, in contrast, tend to view things more positively. Looked at in context, the
place of residence (Eastern or Western Germany, urban or rural), in contrast, is not
significant. A migration background is also, in itself, without effect. According to
46 U. Schneekloth and S. Andresen

our multivariate statistical analysis, the existing bivariate differences are due far
more to social origin (Table 2.5).
It can be seen that alongside age and gender (indicating that girls have a greater
sensitivity to injustice in the treatment of disadvantaged persons), the social situa-
tion of the children shapes their view of social justice.
As a result, it is also not very surprising that the majority of children with a very
positive or positive personal life satisfaction also evaluate social justice in Germany
positively, whereas the majority of children with a negative to neutral evaluation of
their personal life satisfaction also evaluate “social justice in Germany” negatively.
Here as well, it is the social class of origin and everyday social experiences that
decisively influence personal life satisfaction and the appraisal of “social justice.”

2.7  Experienced Injustice in Daily Life

An important backdrop when appraising justice is also whether the children them-
selves feel disadvantaged in their daily lives or whether this is generally not the
case. In the current 2013 World Vision Child Study, we asked about perceived dis-
advantages in relation to different domains (Fig. 2.11).
About one-third of the children report feeling disadvantaged (sometimes or
often) because of their age. Thirty-four percent of 6- to 7-year-olds and 36% of 8- to
9-year-olds say this slightly more often than 10- to 11-year-olds at 29%. Because of
their gender, 20% of girls feel disadvantaged in daily life compared to only 8% of
boys. Although younger girls report this somewhat more frequently, the difference
between boys and girls is retained in all age groups. Because of what they look like,
14% of children, 15% of girls, and 12% of boys feel disadvantaged; and 12% of the
children report feeling disadvantaged because their parents do not have much
money. We asked only children with a migration background about disadvantage
due to origin. Of these children, 21% report feeling disadvantaged in daily life
because their parents do not come from Germany.
Here as well, we decided to summarize different experiences of disadvantage
that cannot be clearly separated from each other in order to gain a global picture. We
once again formed a summary indicator and grouped children according to whether
they reported disadvantage hardly ever, sometimes, or often.15
At 56%, the majority of children report being hardly ever disadvantaged. The
second group contains 34% of the children. These report feeling sometimes disad-
vantaged. In most cases, these disadvantages are because of age (two-thirds in this
group) and sometimes because of their gender or their external appearance. The
third group contains 10% of the children. They report often being disadvantaged in

15
 We also summed the ratings here (often = 3, sometimes = 2, hardly ever/not at all = 1, don’t
know/no reply = 0), and grouped them according to their central tendency. Up to and including the
median, there are practically no experiences of disadvantage; deviations above the median and up
to the standard deviation, sometimes; and above the standard deviation, often.
2  What’s Fair and What’s Unfair: The Different Faces of Justice 47

Table 2.5  Relation between Per line in % Positive Negative

assessment of “social justice”
All children 57 43
and significant social
variablesa Age groups
Children in Germany aged 6–7 years 64 36b
6–11 years 8–9 years 57 43
10–11 years 54 46
Gender
Girls 54 46b
Boys 59 41
Social origin
Lower class 36 64b
Lower middle class 56 44
Middle class 58 42
Upper middle class 61 39
Upper class 58 42
Type of family
Single parent 51 492
a
Only 6- to 7-year-olds who were able to given an
answer to the item on justice in Germany
  The relationship was studied with a multivariate
logistic regression on the criterion variable “evalu-
ation of social justice in relation to various groups:
very/quite) positive or (very/quite) negative.”
  Variables included: age groups, gender, East/
West, urban/rural, social origin, migration back-
ground, and type of family
b
For ease of presentation, bivariate values are pre-
sented as percentages in the table. Values that were
also significant within the multivariate statistical
analysis are printed in bold (p < .05)

daily life. Most frequently, this is because of their age (four out of five in this group),
but also because of their gender or external appearance (more than two-thirds), and
finally because their parents do not have enough money (more than one-half of this
group).
What is decisive here is, once again, the social background and the family situa-
tion. Both significantly more frequently result in children feeling disadvantaged in
daily life (Fig. 2.12). At 68%, two out of three lower-class children report disadvan-
tage (sometimes and often combined). Findings are similar for children who have
an unemployed parent (68%). Notably, 51% of children in single-parent families
and 50% of children in families with three or more children tend to report being
disadvantaged in daily life compared to children living in other types of family. The
significance of this finding was also confirmed in a multivariate statistical analysis.16

 Here we carried out an ordinal regression on our newly formed and grouped variable “Perceived
16

disadvantage in daily life: often, sometimes, or never.” Gender, social class, form of family, unem-
48 U. Schneekloth and S. Andresen

„I feel that I am treated unfairly …“

Often
Because of my age 4 29
Sometimes

Because I am a girl (only girls) 3 17

Because I am a boy (only boys) 2 6

Because of what I look like 2 12

Because my parents do not have

much money 2 10

Because my parents do not come

from Germany (only those with a 3 19
migration background)

Fig. 2.11  Domains in which children feel being treated unfairly in everyday life
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

Often
All children 10 34
Sometimes

Lower class background 28 40

Unemployed parent(s) 26 42

Migration background 16 35

Large family (3 or more

17 33
children)

Single parent 14 37

Statistically significant variables in a multivariate regression analysis after controlling for age

Fig. 2.12  Children who reported feeling unfair treatment

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

The same applies for children with a migration background. When asked about felt
disadvantage, at 51%, children with a non-German background report significantly

ployed parent, migration background, eastern/western Germany, urban/rural were entered as

dependent variables; age, as covariate.
2  What’s Fair and What’s Unfair: The Different Faces of Justice 49

more disadvantage in daily life independent of social origins. In contrast, gender

and place of residence (Eastern or Western Germany, urban or rural) are not signifi-
cant in this context.
Children who rate “social justice” in Germany more negatively also more fre-
quently report having fears. These are also more often girls than boys and also more
frequently children from the lower classes. As to be expected, the greatest fear is of
increasing poverty. Only 45% of children with a more positive appraisal of “social
justice” report fears of poverty compared to 59% of children with a negative
appraisal. Only 16% of children with a more positive appraisal are afraid of more
foreigners coming to live in Germany compared to 27% of children with a negative
appraisal. When it comes to the topic of parental unemployment, in contrast, differ-
ences are much lower. A total of 26% of children with a positive appraisal are
­sometimes afraid of this compared to 31% of children with a negative appraisal of
social justice.
Here we see once more that children growing up in socially disadvantaged fami-
lies also significantly more frequently see themselves as being disadvantaged in
daily life. We already managed to demonstrate the children’s sensitivity toward their
lack of opportunities and the disadvantages that they see in our last two Child
Studies. In addition to this, and independently from poverty or unemployment in the
family, children with a migration background report disadvantages in daily life. A
proportion of these children accordingly experience their own roots as a stigmatiza-
tion that results in exclusion. Children from “untypically” large families with three
or more children also feel disadvantaged, just like children growing up in single-­
parent families. They are less satisfied with the justice in their families or their cir-
cles of friends. At the same time, they evidently experience a lack of compatibility
in many aspects of their daily lives; that is, in this case, a persisting lack of family
friendliness in our society. There are many reasons to view this sociopolitical issue
more strongly than before from the perspective of the children (see also Chap. 3).
An inspection of the children’s perspective on “social justice” in Germany and
their own experience of disadvantages somewhat qualifies the initial reports docu-
menting their high level of satisfaction with their lives. Children in this age range
perceive and evaluate the risks in society, and when they appraise “social justice” in
Germany negatively, this is accompanied by stronger fears and uncertainties. This is
strengthened by everyday experiences along with their knowledge that their fami-
lies are often also in a socially precarious situation. Nonetheless, it is the prevailing
positive outlook that is decisive for the greatest majority of children and their trust
in the family, the circle of friends, and the adult world in general. The aspects of
society that children of this age associate with justice are highlighted succinctly by
one of the children we surveyed.
That everybody has enough to eat, that all live in freedom, that there is no extreme poverty,
that there are not so many rich people who do not share anything (11-year-old boy)

As this chapter has shown, children demand fairness in the ways they interact
with each other personally along with equal opportunities so that everybody can
take part. In the modern sociopolitical discussion, this attitude is labeled “participa-
50 U. Schneekloth and S. Andresen

tory justice.” It focuses on ensuring and systematically extending the right of all
individuals in society “to live in this world” in the sense of enabling them to deter-
mine for themselves what they rationally wish to strive toward. What is remarkable
is how well the children’s perspective and their desire for equality fit in with the
debate on social equality. At the end of the day, the main concern in the “grown-up”
world is also that “you share with the others, and don’t leave anybody just standing
there” (7-year-old girl).

References

Allbus: Datenreport. (2011). Ein Sozialbericht für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Bonn:
Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.
Allensbacher Institut für Demoskopie. (2013). Was ist gerecht? Gerechtigkeitsbegriff und -wah-
rnehmung der Bürger. Allensbacher Archiv, IfD-Umfrage 11001, Allensbach.
Dalbert, C. (1983). Die Gerechte-Welt-Skala (GWS). In Preiser, S. (Hrsg.), Soziales Handeln
im Kindes- und Jugendalter (Dokumentation von Forschungs- und Diagnoseinstrumenten).
Weinheim: Beltz, S. 139.
Dalbert, C., Montada, L., & Schmitt, M. (1987). Glaube an eine gerechte Welt als Motiv:
Validierungskorrelate zweier Skalen. Psychologische Beiträge, 29, S. 596 – 615.
Essau, C. A. (2003). Angst bei Kindern und Jugendlichen. Stuttgart: UTB.
Fehr, E., Bernhard, H., & Rockenbach, B. (2008). Egalitarianism in young children. In Nature
(Vol. 454, pp. 1079–1083).
Glatzer, W. (2009). Gefühlte (Un)Gerechtigkeit. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 47 / 2009, S. 15 – 20.
Hamann, K., Warneken, F., Greenberg, J. R., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Collaboration encourages
equal sharing in children but not chimpanzees. In: Nature, doi:10.1038/nature10278. http://
wkprc.eva.mpg.de/pdf/2011/Hamann_Warnek_Greenberg_Tomasello_2011.pdf (Stand:
20.08.2013).
HBSC-Team Deutschland. (2011). Studie Health Behaviour in School-aged Children – Faktenblatt
»Lebenszufriedenheit von Kindern und Jugendlichen”. Bielefeld: WHO Collaborating Centre
for Child and Adolescent Health Promotion.
Kohlberg, L. (1964). The development of moral character and ideology. In M. L. Hoffmann (Ed.),
Review of child development research. New York: Wiley.
Kohlberg, L. (1974). Zur kognitiven Entwicklung des Kindes. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Liebig, S., & Lengfeld, H. (Hrsg.). (2002). Interdisziplinäre Gerechtigkeitsforschung. Zur
Verknüpfung empirischer und normativer Perspektiven. Hamburg: Campus.
Liebig, S., & May, M. (2009). Dimensionen sozialer Gerechtigkeit. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte,
47 / 2009, S. 3 – 8.
Morschitzky, H. (2009). Angststörungen. Diagnostik, Konzepte, Theorie, Selbsthilfe (4. Auflage).
Heidelberg: Springer.
Oerter, R., & Montada, L. (Hrsg.). (2002). Entwicklungspsychologie (5. vollständig überarbeitete
Auflage). Weinheim: Beltz.
Piaget, J. (1932/ 1983). Das moralische Urteil beim Kinde. Stuttgart: Klett.
Piaget, J. (1937 /1975). Der Aufbau der Wirklichkeit beim Kinde. Stuttgart: Klett.
Schneekloth, U., & Pupeter, M. (2010b). Wohlbefinden, Wertschätzung, Selbstwirksamkeit:
Was Kinder für ein gutes Leben brauchen. In World Vision Deutschland. (Hrsg.), Kinder in
Deutschland 2010b. 2. World Vision Kinderstudie (S. 187 – 221). Frankfurt a. M: Fischer.
Sen, A. (2010). Die Idee der Gerechtigkeit. München: C. H. Beck Verlag.
2  What’s Fair and What’s Unfair: The Different Faces of Justice 51

Trautner, H. M. (1991). Lehrbuch der Entwicklungspsychologie (Bd. 2: Theorien und Befunde).
Göttingen: Hogrefe.
UNICEF. (2013). Child well-being in rich countries. A comparative overview (Innocenti Report
Card 11 (UNICEF)).
Woodward, L. J., & Fergusson, D. M. (2001). Life course of young people with anxiety disorders
in adolescence. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40,
1086–1093.
Chapter 3
Family Backgrounds: Great Variety But Also
Marked Differences In Life Conditions

Ulrich Schneekloth and Monika Pupeter

In their everyday lives, their own family is a kind of “safe haven” for children.
Normally, it meets their everyday needs while providing quality relationships, emo-
tional security, and privacy (Schneewind 2008). The family is characterized by its
specific social capital: the strong ties forged by the close and emotionally based
relationships between its members (Coleman 1988). Accordingly, the family is
where children and adults interact with a strong emotional commitment. However,
as the two earlier Child Studies have shown, the forms the family takes can vary
greatly. First, it can contain either just one or several children. Second, parents can
be married to each other or live together in a domestic partnership; they can be
­separated but both rearing their children together or be single parents; and, finally,
they can be biological parents, adoptive parents, or a combination of the two.
In this chapter, we wish to describe the familial and social background to the
children’s lives. Because we have already reported on this in detail in the two earlier
Child Studies, this study will focus more on the relevant trends that have become
recognizable since the first Child Study in 2007. Alongside the family situation, we
shall consider a possible migration background (in the parents) as well as the chil-
dren’s social origins. Of course, one important aspect here is whether there is also a
potential risk of poverty. In this new Child Study, we have broadened the indicators
used to describe experiences of poverty from the children’s perspective. The new
findings this has generated will also be reported in this chapter. It will close by
reporting on how the children themselves rate their family care situation.

U. Schneekloth (*) • M. Pupeter

Kantar Public, München, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 53

S. Andresen et al. (eds.), Well-being, Poverty and Justice from a Child’s
Perspective, Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research 17,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57574-2_3
54 U. Schneekloth and M. Pupeter

3.1  Shaped by Diversity: Today’s Families Can Vary Greatly

As reported in the previous Child Studies, there have been marked changes to the
characteristic form of family life over the last decades. The typical family in post-­
war Germany from the 1950s onward was the nuclear family composed of father,
mother, and (at that time still) two children all living together in one household until
the children reached adulthood. The division of labor was organized generally with
the man as the sole wage earner who ensured the family livelihood and the woman
as responsible for the domestic tasks of looking after the home and children-at least
as long as the children were still small or attending school.

3.1.1  Faces of Families Today

It is not just recently that this ideal of the “conventional nuclear family” has lost its
decisive role as a lifestyle model. This change can already be seen in the forms of
family in which today’s 6- to 11-year-old children are growing up.
We classified the different types of family according to the following features:
• “Marital status” of the parents
• “Completeness” in the sense of a one- or two-parent family with either biological
or adoptive parents
• “Size,” that is, the number of children living in the household as well as the num-
ber of generations
What has not changed at all is that children (between the ages of 6 and 11 years)
still live predominately in nuclear families (Fig. 3.1).1 Three-generation families,
that is, children, parents, and grandparents all living together under one roof, are a
very rare exception (they make up less than 1%). In contrast, family structures have
become more differentiated: Only 39% of children in this age range live in a “two-­
child family” together with a sibling, and only a further 20% in a family with two or
more siblings. A total of 14% of 6- to 11-year-olds are growing up as an only child.
What has remained stable at approximately 17% over the last 6 years since our first
Child Study is the proportion of children growing up with a single parent.2 Findings
are similar for nonmarried life partnerships and also for adoptive families (married,
but at least one nonbiological parent) in which 5% and 4% of the children respec-
tively are growing up.

1
 In this context, the nuclear family means the “two-generation family” living together in one
household with (biological) parents. Children living in residential homes are generally not consid-
ered here, because they still make up less than 0.5% of children in this age range despite a slight
absolute increase over the last few years.
2
 Here, we are referring to the results of the parent survey in which we gathered some important
sociodemographic background information on the children’s family situation.
3  Family Backgrounds: Great Variety But Also Marked Differences In Life Conditions 55

Fig. 3.1  In which families 38

do children grow up Two-child nuclear family 37
Children in Germany 39
aged 6–11 years (2007:
Nuclear family with three 19
8–11 years) (%) 22
or more children
20
13 2007
One-child nuclear family 13 2010
14
2013
17
Single parent 16
17
4
Domestic partnership 5
5
6
Adoptive family 5
4
3
Three-generation family 2
1

Table 3.1  Siblings in the household

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (2007: 8–11 years) (%)
Columns in % 2007 2010 2013
Siblings in household
No siblings 24 25 27
One sibling 50 48 49
Two siblings 18 21 17
Three and more siblings 8 6 7

If we just look at the number of siblings, regardless of which type of family they
belong to, we can see a trend toward a slow but continuous growth in the proportion
of children growing up in households without siblings over the last 6 years
(Table 3.1).3 We had already observed this trend in the last Child Study. Against this
background, we also see no reason to change our conclusion that the proportion of
children growing up without their own siblings will probably increase even further
in the future. Because a major proportion of children will accordingly experience
neither older nor younger siblings in their own family, experiences with “peers” will
need to be organized in other ways. In early childhood, this can be provided either
informally through self-organized nursery groups but also, of course, through insti-
tutional care services such as day nurseries or preschools.

3
 Here, we are referring specifically to those siblings (of all age groups) who are living in the same
household. However, also including those siblings who have left the parental home and are
(already) living in their own households does not alter the trend reported here.
56 U. Schneekloth and M. Pupeter

Taken together, 73% of children are growing up in a “normal family” with their
married biological parents. A further 21% are living in a recombined family either
with a single parent or also with one adoptive parent. Finally, 5% are growing up
with unmarried (biological or also nonbiological) parents. Even though these pro-
portions have remained relatively stable over the last 6 years, as pointed out in the
last Child Study, this makes absolutely no difference to the need to respond to the
challenge to deliver child-friendly social policies that will also ensure material secu-
rity and equal opportunities for children growing up in patchwork families or with
unmarried parents.

3.2  L
 abor Participation of Parents: A Distribution of Roles
and No Longer “Just the Father’s Business”

In the last Child Study, we already pointed to the trend toward a changing distribu-
tion of roles within families. Being gainfully employed and thus securing the fami-
ly’s subsistence is no longer primarily the concern of fathers. In the current Child
Study, we also surveyed the parents alongside their children, and these findings
confirm the further decline in the traditional “one-male-breadwinner” family
(Fig. 3.2).
Only 32% of children are still growing up in nuclear families (in this case, fami-
lies with two parents without taking marriage status into account) in which only one
parent—usually the father—is gainfully employed. In our last Child Study in 2010,
this group still contained 40% of children, and in our first Child Study of 2007, it

Fig. 3.2 Labor
42
participation of Parents One parent employed 40
Children in Germany 32
aged 6–11 years (2007:
8–11 years) (%) 25
One parent full-time, one
30
part-time/both part-time
35

10
Both parents full-time 10 2007
13 2010
2013
10
Single parent, full- or part-
11
time
12

8
Parent(s) unemployed 5
4

5
Other 4
4
3  Family Backgrounds: Great Variety But Also Marked Differences In Life Conditions 57

was even 42%. These children are joined once again by 12% who are growing up
with a single parent who is simultaneously gainfully employed. The most frequent
constellation that is now found in 35% of 6- to 11-year-olds is two gainfully
employed parents—mostly the father working full-time and the mother either part-­
time or at least marginally. “Both parents working full-time” now applies to 13% of
the children in our age group, thereby showing a slight increase. Only 4% of chil-
dren are growing up in families with one (or at least one) unemployed parent, and a
further 4% in other constellations (parents or single parent in training or studying,
parents or single parent not gainfully employed for other reasons).
There is a tendency for somewhat older children to have two gainfully employed
parents. However, the real relationship is to the number of children in the house-
hold: the more children in the household, the greater the probability that only one
parent—generally the father—will pursue gainful employment. When there is only
one child (in the household), this applies to 17%; for children with one sibling in the
household, to 31%; and for children with two or more siblings, to 56%. Vice versa,
19% of single children have two full-time employed parents, 12%, of those with one
sibling, and no more than 8% of those with two or more siblings.
The increase in the gainful employment of both parents is due decisively to the
strong recovery of the labor market in Germany over the last 6 years—and above all
since the last Child Study in 2010. This allows more people in general to find gain-
ful employment. The significance of the tendency to engage in gainful employment
and, in this case, the accompanying difference in the distribution of roles within the
family becomes even more visible when we also take into account where the chil-
dren live—in this case, differentiated according to the old and new German states
(West vs. East). Typical for the former Western states (including Berlin) is now two
gainfully employed parents for 47% of the children, although generally with the
father in full-time and the mother in part-time or marginal employment (36%). Only
11% of the children live in families in which both parents are employed full-time.
In the Western states, 34% of children are growing up in families with one gainfully
employed parent. In former East Germany (excluding Berlin), in contrast, at 30%, a
large proportion of the children in this age range are growing up in families in which
both parents are gainfully employed. For 25%, it is generally the father who is full-­
time and the mother who has part-time or marginal employment. Only 19% of the
children in the East are growing up in nuclear families with only one gainfully
employed parent (Table 3.2).
58 U. Schneekloth and M. Pupeter

Table 3.2  Labor participation of parents by child’s age and region

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
All 6–7 8–9 10–11
Columns in % children years years years Westa Eastb
Type of labor participation
One parent employed 32 33 34 29 34 19
One parent full-time, one part-time/ 35 33 35 36 36 25
both part-time
Both parents full-time 13 13 12 14 11 30
Single parent, full- or part-time 12 13 11 13 12 14
Parents/Parent unemployed 4 5 4 3 3 7
Other 4 3 4 5 4 5
a
West (including Berlin)
b
East (not including Berlin)

Table 3.3  Number of hours employed mothers would like to work

Mothers of children aged 6–11 yearsa
All Marginal
Columns in % mothers Full-time Part-­time employment
Employment preferences
Work more hours 18 6 18 35
Work fewer hours 14 35 8 2
Things are fine the way they are 68 59 74 63
Only for children whose mothers completed the questionnaire
a

3.2.1  M
 others More Frequently Want Their Own (Part-Time)
Gainful Employment

In the present Child Study, we ask the mothers providing information on their chil-
dren to appraise their own employment situation.4 Results are very clear: Whereas
mothers who are already employed are generally satisfied with this, the majority of
not employed mothers would like to have their own (part-time) gainful
employment.
Among the employed mothers of children in our age range, it is those who work
part-time who are most satisfied with their working hours (Table 3.3): 74% report
that “things are fine the way they are.” Findings are similar for marginally employed
mothers with 63% reporting that they are satisfied. Nonetheless, 35% of this group

4
 Strictly speaking, the children’s mothers in our survey are not a representative random selection.
We recruited a representative sample of children and then gathered some background information
from one of the parents. In 83% of cases, this was the mother; in the remaining 17%, in contrast,
our information came from the father. In these latter cases, we have no self-reports on personal
preferences from the mothers. There are many signs that the father more frequently gave informa-
tion when the mother had no time because, for example, she was gainfully employed. However,
because we analyzed the desired working hours separately for employed and nonemployed moth-
ers, potential distortions should tend to be negligible.
3  Family Backgrounds: Great Variety But Also Marked Differences In Life Conditions 59

Table 3.4  Type of employment nonemployed mothers would like

Mothers of children aged 6–11 yearsa
All On parental Housewife/
Columns in % mothers leave Unemployed Other
Desired employment
Yes, full-time 8 2 31 3
Yes, part-time 45 43 55 43
Things are fine the way they are 47 54 14 54
No reply 0 1 0 0
Only for children whose mothers completed the questionnaire
a

would like to work more. Among mothers with full-time employment, the majority
at 59% are also satisfied with their working hours. However, 35% would prefer to
work fewer hours.5
The situation of mothers who are not gainfully employed is completely the oppo-
site (Table 3.4). Of those who describe themselves as unemployed, 31% would like
to work full-time and 55% part-time. From the otherwise not gainfully employed
mothers, that is, those who are studying, in training, or who describe themselves as
housewives, 42% say that they would like to work part-time. However, 54% say that
“things are fine the way they are.” Finally, interesting reports come from the group
of mothers who are currently on parental leave (generally because of a younger
sibling living in the household). Of the mothers on parental leave, 43% would like
to work part-time, whereas 54% report that things are fine the way they are. In this
exceptionally small group in numerical terms, we are unable to distinguish between
mothers who are purely on parental leave and those in marginal or part-time employ-
ment. Nonetheless, their reports are interesting and underline the mothers’ desire to
have their own jobs and generally to work part-time.
To enable a comparison, here are the findings on the actual labor market partici-
pation of the mothers providing the information: in full-time employment: 20%
(West: 17%, East: 40%), part-time: 43% (West: 44%, East: 35%), marginal: 11%
(West: 12%, East: 6%), unemployed: 4% (West: 3%, East: 9%), and not working for
other reasons: 22% (West: 23%, East: 10%).
Combining the findings on desired and actual participation in employment,
mothers from the old German states (including Berlin) most frequently prefer a
part-time job. A total of 43% reported that they would prefer to work part-time or
that they are satisfied with their own part-time employment; or if they work f­ ull-­time,
that they would prefer to work fewer hours. Only 19% prefer to work full-­time,
whereas 24% of this subgroup prefer marginal employment. Among mothers from
the new German states, 39% prefer part-time employment, whereas 45% desire

5
 A recent study based on the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) reveals that women working
full-time more frequently desire fewer working hours per week, whereas women working part-
time desire more working hours (Holst and Seifert 2012). However, these results are drawn on the
population of all women in gainful employment and not just those with children (aged 6–11 years).
60 U. Schneekloth and M. Pupeter

Table 3.5  Biography: Earlier attendance of a day care and a kindergarten

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
Yes, child used to attend a day care or Kindergarten
Columns in % All children Westa Eastb
Childcare
Day care (children under the age of 3) 26 20 67
Kindergarten (children over the age of 3) 93 93 97
West (including Berlin)
a

East (excluding Berlin)

b

f­ ull-time employment and 10% would most prefer marginal employment.6 Both the
desire for a gainful employment in principle and the desire for full-time employ-
ment are markedly stronger in Eastern compared to Western Germany.

3.2.2  E
 arly Childhood Care Helps to Ensure Parental Labor
Market Participation

These different traditions in labor market participation and hence in the distribution
of family roles have quite material backgrounds. When we asked parents whether
their children had at some stage in the past attended a childcare institution, we found
marked East–West differences—particularly for children under the age of 3 years.
In former West Germany, 19% of parents report that the child we are surveying had
attended a day care. In former East Germany, this is 61%. In contrast, more than
90% of parents in both East and West report that their child had attended a
Kindergarten (Table 3.5).7
The different traditions in familial gainful employment in former East and West
Germany were—and continue to be—accompanied by a different density of ser-
vices in childcare institutions. This applies particularly to the care services for

6
 Because of the differences in the questions given to employed and not employed persons, prefer-
ences do not discriminate completely between the two groups. For example, as soon as a mother
reported that she worked part-time but would prefer to work less, we assumed that she wished to
be marginally employed. The same applied in the other direction for full-time employed and also
for marginally employed persons.
7
 These retrospective reports cannot be compared directly with official statistics. We asked whether
the children had at any time attended a day nursery or a Kindergarten. If, instead, as in the official
statistics, we had asked how many children per age cohort were attending a Kindergarten at that
particular point in time, we would have gained lower proportions—above all in the West. Part of
the detailed differences between East and West are due to terminological variations as well as to
the different forms of care. For the sake of simplicity, we limited our retrospective survey to insti-
tutional forms of care (day nursery, Kindergarten, daycare center) without explicitly mentioning
family day carers or other forms of privately organized care. The available official data on institu-
tional childcare nonetheless confirm the main trend and in particular the East–West differences in
the daycare of children under the age of 3 years (Bertelsmann Ländermonitor Frühkindliche
Bildungssysteme, Kinderbetreuung).
3  Family Backgrounds: Great Variety But Also Marked Differences In Life Conditions 61

c­ hildren under the age of 3 years. This is why it was and continues to be usual for
women in Eastern Germany to take up employment comparatively soon after the
birth of a child as well as more frequently in general. There were and continue to be
better framing conditions for this in the form of a greater number of childcare
places.
Retrospective findings underline that women whose children had already
attended childcare services under the age of 3 years far more frequently take up
gainful employment again than women who looked after their under-3-year-old
children at home. In Western Germany, 25% of the mothers of children who had
attended a day nursery according to parent reports are in full-time employment
today compared to 15% of those whose children had not attended a day nursery,
whereas 44% of both groups work part-time. In Eastern Germany, the figures are
even 45% with day nursery compared to 29% without day nursery who currently
work full-time and 36% with day nursery compared to 33% without day nursery
who work part-time. Accordingly, it seems as if women who use childcare services
when their children are under the age of 3 years will more probably go to work
(again) as their children grow older.
In 2008, Germany passed a law in the support and care of children under the age
of 3 years at day facilities and in day care (KiFöG) that set an August 1, 2013, dead-
line. Since then, parents have the legal right to a childcare place for their child once
she or he attains the age of 12 months. This has created framing conditions designed
to level out regional disparities in the provision of daycare for children. However, its
practical implementation continues to be plagued by numerous difficulties, particu-
larly regarding the expansion of care provisions this requires. Currently, it does not
look as if the legal right to a daycare place for children under the age of 3 can actu-
ally be implemented throughout Germany in the foreseeable future.8

3.3  P
 ersonal Cultural Backgrounds: “German” Children,
Migrant Parents, and Religious Traditions

A total of 34%, that is, every third child in our 2013 World Vision Child Study, has
a migration background. Most of them are born in Germany with German national-
ity and have parents who migrated to the country. In formal legal terms, according
to parent reports, 94% of children are German according to German citizenship
laws, 89% have German citizenship alone, and slightly more than 5% have dual
nationality—generally German citizenship along with the nationality of a non-­
German parent.9 Accordingly, the children’s migration background refers predomi-

8
 On the current state of implementation, see the most recent interim report on the evaluation of the
Childcare Funding Act (Kinderförderungsgesetz - Kifög) for 2012 (BMFSFJ, 2013a)
9
 In general, these are children born in Germany of non-German parents who are obliged by
German law (29 StAG) to declare which nationality they have decided to take before the end of
their 23rd year of life.
62 U. Schneekloth and M. Pupeter

nantly to their background of origin, or more precisely the origin of their parents.
Therefore, in the following, we talk about native German children (66%) as well as
children with a migration background (34%) or, sometimes, German children with
a migration background (28%) and non-German children who possess exclusively
non-German citizenship (6%).10
For 21% of the children with a migration background, either one or both parents
have, according to their own reports, emigrated from Turkey. Roughly a further 7%
have an Arabic background, and almost 4% come from Africa. Approximately 16%
come from the former Soviet Union and 16% from other East European countries
(Ukraine, Poland, and Rumania), frequently as ethnic German immigrants who
have German citizenship. A further 8% come from the countries making up the
former Yugoslavia. Almost 15% of the parents of children with a migration back-
ground come from Western Europe, whereas the remaining 14% are distributed
across other countries.11
It is conspicuous that children in Germany today have a whole range of different
backgrounds. Every third child in this age range has an international and therefore
also a multicultural background. A very large majority of children are not migrants
but were born in Germany. As a result, the trend toward a growing proportion of the
population with a migration background will increase further regardless of whether
more or less people migrate directly to Germany. At the current point in time, the
proportion of migrants in different regions of Germany continues to vary greatly. In
our Child Study, 38% of children in the old federal states (including Berlin) have a
migration background compared to only 9% in the new federal states. Findings are
similar for the urban–rural distribution. In urban central areas and conurbations,
almost one-half of the children have a migration background compared to no more
than 25% in the peripheries or rural areas.

3.3.1  Different Religious Cultures

The migration background to be found in one-third of all children in Germany is

also accompanied by a wide range of denominations and religions. A majority of
slightly more than two out of three children in our age range come from parental

10
 One methodological comment at this point: Only 2.4% of the children in our actual sample were
not German citizens and, taken together, 25.4% had a migration background. Hence, in this regard,
the current sample is “better” than that in previous years. However, according to the official micro-
census, 32.7% of children had a migration background of whom 5.5% were foreigners without
German citizenship in the reference year 2011. Because of the significance that is now assigned to
a migration background, we decided to adjust our sample here by weighting it to make it more
representative. We took exactly the same approach as in the past two Child Studies and adjusted
the proportion of non-German children; however, we did not explicitly adjust the proportion of
children with a migration background.
11
 These findings also match the nationalities of origin reported in the microcensus. However,
because of the low case numbers, we cannot differentiate further here.
3  Family Backgrounds: Great Variety But Also Marked Differences In Life Conditions 63

Table 3.6  Parents’ religion Columns in % Mother Father

Children in Germany aged
Religion
6–11 yearsa
Catholic 32 30
Protestant 32 29
Other Christian 4 3
Muslim 10 13
Other non-Christian religion 2 2
No religion 20 23
a
Reported only when either father or mother was
present

Table 3.7  Religious practice in family home

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
All Migration
Columns in % children Westa Eastb Native German background
Do you regularly attend religious services at a church or mosque (or other place of
worship)?
Yes, every week 10 10 7 8 13
Yes, once or twice a 18 20 4 17 20
month
Less often 28 31 12 28 27
Never 44 39 77 47 40
Do you pray at home?
Very often 13 14 4 10 18
Sometimes 20 22 9 17 26
Hardly ever 11 12 3 11 11
No 56 52 82 62 45
No reply – – 2 0 –
a
West (including Berlin)
b
East (not including Berlin)

homes with a Christian faith (mostly either Catholic or Protestant depending on the
region). For at least 10% of the children, the mother is Muslim; for 13%, the father.12
A total of 20% of the mothers and 23% of the fathers have no formal religious
belief; other religions are almost completely nonsignificant (Table 3.6).
In our last Child Study, we talked about the “three religious cultures”: the nonre-
ligious East, the more plural West, and from a further perspective, the more strongly
religious migrants. This description of conditions remains unchanged. A total of
33% of the families of the children we surveyed “sometimes” or “very often” say
prayers (36% from the old and 13% from the new federal states). A total of 44% of
children with a migration background report that prayers are said at home (Table 3.7).

12
 In this case, we always consider only the children with parents providing information on their
partner. These reports are missing for single parents. Because the proportion of single parents in
Germany is much lower among migrants from Muslim cultures (less than 10%), slightly more
fathers than mothers are reported as being Muslim.
64 U. Schneekloth and M. Pupeter

In our last Child Study in 2010, 39% of the children reported that prayers are said at
home: 43% from the old federal states, 15% from the new federal states, and 51%
of children with a migration background.
In terms of religious affiliations, 37% of the children from a Christian parental
home report that they pray at home (23% “sometimes” and 14% “very often”). As
to be expected, only 9% of children from a parental home with no religious affilia-
tion (both parents with no religious affiliation) report saying prayers at home. In
contrast, 64% of children with either one or two Muslim parents pray at home (37%
“sometimes” and 27% “very often”).

3.3.2  T
 he Majority of Native German Children Do Not Attend
Church Services on a Regular Basis

In all, 28% of the children attend a church, a mosque, or other place of worship
“every week” or “once or twice a month.” Of these, 30% come from the old federal
states, 11% come from the new federal states, and 33% have a migration back-
ground (Table 3.7). In our 2010 Child Study, the total was 27%, with 30% coming
from the old federal states, 10% coming from the new federal states, and 28% with
a migration background. Looking at the religious affiliations in the parental home
here as well, 34% of the children from a Christian parental home attend church
services (22% “once or twice a month” and 12% “every week”). A total of 10% of
children whose parents have no religious affiliation report attending church ser-
vices, whereas 42% of children with a Muslim parent report attending services in a
mosque (25% “once or twice a month” and 17% “every week”).
Results show some slight fluctuation over time. Praying seems to be slightly in
decline (from 39% to 33%), whereas attending religious services continues to be the
usual practice for 28% of children. All in all, religion continues to have an influence
on everyday life for only a smaller proportion of the children, and this depends on
whether they are growing up in the old or the new federal states. Children with a
migration background have a stronger religious involvement. This would seem to be
due particularly to the fact that by upholding religious traditions, parents can also
uphold and communicate the cultural values of their country of origin. For migrants,
particularly those with roots in a Muslim culture, religiosity contributes to their
sense of identity and is accordingly more important in everyday life than is gener-
ally the case for native German families.
3  Family Backgrounds: Great Variety But Also Marked Differences In Life Conditions 65

65 65 67
Mostly German

Mostly the language of my

parents

35 33 33

2007 2010 2013

Deviations from100% due to“Don’t know/No answer” responses

Fig. 3.3  Migration background: Which language is spoken at home

Children with a migration background in Germany aged 6–11 years (2007: 8–11 years) (%)

3.3.3  Tradition and Native Language

We also asked the children with a migration background which language they gen-
erally speak at home in their family. Looking at the trend, 67% of the children with
a migration background, and thus slightly fewer than in our two prior Child Studies,
report generally speaking German at home. Approximately one-third speak the
native language of their parents at home (Fig. 3.3).
The question on the language that is spoken at home should not be used as a
direct indicator for the frequently criticized lack of German language competence.
Multilingualism is not a deficit. It is far more the case that children have very robust
language acquisition abilities and can easily learn more than one language.
Nonetheless, the precondition for this is the presence of both languages in everyday
life and also, when needed, their focused promotion (see Jampert et al. 2009; Tracy
2007, on growing up multilingually). On the one hand, language transports and
conveys culture and tradition: the stronger the cultural ties of the family with the
country of origin, the more important it is for parents to speak their native language
at home and, in particular, with their own children. On the other hand, it is often
completely practical considerations or habit that leads parents to speak their native
language at home.
66 U. Schneekloth and M. Pupeter

Parents‘ social class

43

31
26

Lower class/Lower middle Middle class Upper class/Upper middle

class class

Categories are combined because of low case numbers

Fig. 3.4  Migration background: Language spoken at home by social class

“At home we mostly speak the language of my parents”
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (2007: 8–11 years) (%)

3.3.4  T
 he Less Well-Educated the Class of Origin, the More
Frequently German Is Not Spoken at Home

Everyday language can also be a risk factor for children with a migration back-
ground. Language acquisition and language competence are general intervention
topics for children from less well-educated parental homes. This is just as much the
case for children whose parents were born and grew up in Germany as it is for those
whose parents migrated and speak another native language. A migration background
and the use of the native language in the family can given a corresponding context,
naturally also represent a hindrance in acquiring German.
The five-level class index used to differentiate the social backgrounds of children
in the World Vision Child Study also delivers important findings here. Its construc-
tion is based decisively on the parents’ educational background (see also Sect. 3.5
and Appendix 2, for the following).
It is conspicuous to see that, at 43%, children in the two lower social classes far
more frequently speak their parent’s native language at home. For middle-class chil-
dren, the proportion is 31%, and in the two upper classes, it is 26% (Fig.  3.4).
Disproportionally frequently, the parents’ native language tends to be used in the
homes of children with a Turkish (56%) and Arabic background (45%), but also in
the homes of children whose parents come from Russia and the former Soviet Union
(40%). Results are similar for children from Muslim parental homes at 52%. Here,
results correlate with class membership. Children with the corresponding migration
backgrounds belong markedly more frequently to the poorly educated lower classes
than is the case for children with parents who have migrated from other European
countries or from overseas (so-called OECD migrants).
However, another finding gives cause for concern: Looking at the children with
a migration background who speak more German at home, we find that parents
report that 28% of them used to attend a day nursery and 93% a Kindergarten. For
3  Family Backgrounds: Great Variety But Also Marked Differences In Life Conditions 67

children with a migration background who speak the native language of their par-
ents more at home, in contrast, only 15% used to attend a day nursery and 77% a
Kindergarten. At 23%, the proportion of children who had not attended a preschool
care institution is by far the largest here (children with a migration background in
total: 23% attending a day nursery and 88% attending a Kindergarten). For native
German children, in contrast, parents report that 27% had attended a day nursery
and 96% had at some time attended a Kindergarten.
The results underline the significance of focused language interventions for cer-
tain groups of children with a migration background. Institutional care provisions
could play an important role in this. Particularly in the last 10 years and in the con-
text of what has been called a sustainable family policy, the function of the classic
daycare facilities in Germany has changed from what was primarily a care service
designed to reduce the strain on the family to an agency of early childhood educa-
tion. In this context, the comprehensive care of preschool-age children is conceived
as an active education process that offers additional opportunities for interventions.
As reported in the Twelfth Report on Children and Youth to the German federal
government (BMFSFJ 2005):
The family can pass on to and initiate in the child only that which is available to it within
the framework of its social and cultural resources. The educational background of the par-
ents, the real life situation, and the concrete living conditions have a strongly modifying
influence on which opportunities for development and education are available to children in
their family environment. (p. 33, translated)

Therefore, the report justly points out that a major task for society is to deliver qual-
ity interventions within preschool childcare that are appropriate to a child’s state of
development.
The results of our Child Study also show that early childhood language interven-
tions will succeed only if they are applied in a “culture-sensitive” manner and link
up with the traditions and values of the family of origin.

3.4  E
 xperiencing Poverty: A Harsh Reality for Some
Children

In Germany, the poverty risk for children (under 18 years) currently varies depend-
ing on the source of the data between about 16% and 19% (EU-SILK 2010: 17.5%,
2011: 15.7%; Mikrozensus 2011: 18.9%; SOEP 2010: 16.5%). This places it 3–4
percentage points above the rate for the general population (BMAS 2013, p 110).
Measurements of poverty are based on the relative risk of poverty rate, that is, the
proportion of children and youths living in households with less than 60% of the
average net income of all households in Germany at their disposal.13 The measure

 This was weighted according to need under the assumption that the economy of size in larger
13

households decreases the need per household member. According to the new OECD scale, the
main bread earner in a household is weighted with the factor 1.0. All other household members
68 U. Schneekloth and M. Pupeter

for computing “income poverty” is relative and determined through comparisons

with the available annual income in all private households: In this case, as pointed
out above, it is set at 60% of median available net income.
Although the trend varies somewhat depending on the data source, all available
data indicate a relatively continuous increase in child poverty from 2005 to 2010
followed by what currently seems to be a slight decline. Nonetheless, it has to be
borne in mind that decline in this context means mostly that the proportion of fami-
lies with “alleviated poverty” has increased. Poverty is taken to be alleviated when
eligible income has been raised successfully above the subsistence level that quali-
fies people for the unemployment supplements known as ALG II in Germany. In
recent years, it has been possible to achieve this with, for example, supplementary
child benefits directed particularly toward families whose income is slightly below
the unemployment supplements threshold. These families and their children thereby
avoid the frequently stigmatizing dependence on welfare payments (Hartz IV).
However, their social position is only secure when they are able to generate the
income this requires “through their own effort” and thereby, in the long term,
through their own participation in the labor market.
In the Child Study, we ask the children about their own experiences of poverty.
In this case, the poverty concept is oriented toward the concept of material depriva-
tion. We assess whether children report that certain typical goods are not available
to the household because of its financial situation. These are the goods that define a
minimum standard of living with their lack being described as “material depriva-
tion.” We thoroughly revised and extended the deprivation indicators for the latest
2013 Child Study. Once again, it is important for us to assess the children’s world
of experience and their own needs. We orient ourselves toward the typical minimum
need indicators that should be available for all children without linking this to any
claim to reflect a “basket of goods that ensures a complete fulfilment of needs.”
To introduce the topic and thereby to identify the group who should be asked to
assess the deprivation indicators,14 we have followed the same approach as in the
2010 Child Study and once again asked all children to reply to the same two items:
• We have enough money for everything we need
• We are often short of money in our family
Only children who answered “no” to Statement 1 or “yes” to Statement 2 were
asked to answer the following items on the experience of poverty that we have for-
mulated as poverty indicators:
• Because there is not enough money in my family, I can hardly ever go to the
movies or to the swimming pool (more like things are or less like things are?)

over the age of 14 are weighed at 0.4 and children under 14 at 0.3. Hence, in a four-person house-
hold with two adult parents and two children under the age of 14, the net income of the household
is divided by the need factor 2.0 (1.0 + 0.4 + 0.3 + 0.3) and allocated to the individuals.
14
 In both the Second Child Study and the pretest for 2013, it proved inexpedient to present our
poverty indicators to all children. The two introductory questions served to screen for the group of
children who have probably experienced deprivation in their everyday lives.
3  Family Backgrounds: Great Variety But Also Marked Differences In Life Conditions 69

• Sometimes we cannot afford to buy things for school such as exercise books or
pens
• I can’t join a club or learn to play a musical instrument because my family cannot
afford to pay for it
• We hardly ever have children’s birthday parties because they cost too much
• From time to time, we get food for free, for example, from the “Tafel” (an orga-
nization that collects surplus food from supermarkets to distribute to the poor)
• Sometimes I am cold in winter because I do not have any warm clothes
• Within the last year, my parents have had to borrow money from my own
savings
• Every year we take at least a one-week vacation away from home
• In our home, we normally eat breakfast at home before I go to school
• I generally have at least one hot meal a day15
In this context, we no longer define poverty exclusively in relative terms by com-
paring it to the average income in society, but in material terms based on the restric-
tions to access and participation that children experience in their everyday lives
(labeled “experienced poverty” in the following).
A total of 77% of the children give positive answers to the statement “We have
enough money for everything we need,” whereas 13% give negative answers and
10% do not reply (compared to 70% “yes,” 16% “no,” and 14% “no answer” in
2010).
In contrast, as in 2010, 21% of the children in the present Child Study report that
“We are often short of money in our family,” whereas 60% reject this statement and
19% give no answer (compared to 21% “yes,” 61% “no,” and 18% “no answer” in
2010).
We then went on to ask whether the children eat breakfast before they go to
school or whether they generally eat a hot meal every day. A total of 88% say they
eat breakfast; 12% said they do not. In contrast, 98% of the children say that they
generally eat a hot meal every day compared to 2% who say they do not.
By combining the two introductory statements on the financial situation (“We
have enough money for everything we need”: yes; and “We are often short of money
in our family”: no) as shown in Fig.  3.5, we find that, as in 2010, roughly one-­
quarter of the children indicate experiencing financial constraints in their everyday
lives (2013: 24%, 2010: 25%).16
If we also include the single “poverty indicators” used to determine the popula-
tion living in poverty and look at the percentages for all children (and not just those
experiencing financial constraints who were given the questions), we can see that
11% of children report that they generally do not go on vacation for financial rea-
sons; 8% that they hardly ever go to the movies or the open-air swimming pool for

15
 This statement was presented to all children. However, in this context, we include only the
answers from those for whom the introductory questions had indicated financial constraints.
16
 Currently, in 2013, 69% report no financial constraints compared to 65% in 2010. Currently, 7%
give no reply to both statements compared to 9% in 2010.
70 U. Schneekloth and M. Pupeter

We are often short of money in our family 21 Financial

We do not have enough money for everything we constraints
need 13
24%

Poverty indicators

Fin. problems: No vacation trips 11

Fin. problems: No movies or swimming pool 8
Fin. problems: No cultural activities or club
memberships 6
Fin. problems: Hardly ever have a birthday party 6 Experienced
Parents have had to borrow from child’s own poverty
savings 5
18%
Fin. problems: Buying things needed for school 4
Free food from the food bank 2
Not enough warm clothing in winter 2
Not always a warm meal every day 2

Fig. 3.5  Material deprivation and experienced poverty from the children’s perspective
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

financial reasons; and 6% that their families cannot afford to pay for their member-
ship of a club or for them to engage in other activities such as learning to play a
musical instrument. Likewise, 6% report that they can hardly ever have a birthday
party, 5% that their parents have had to borrow from the child’s own savings during
the past year, and 4% that they sometimes cannot immediately afford the things they
need for school (exercise books, pens, etc.), 2% that they need to get free food from
the “Tafel,” 2% that they sometimes lack warm clothing in winter, and 2% that they
do not get a warm meal every day.
As mentioned above, we revised the poverty indicators for 2013. Among those
indicators that can still be compared, proportions even seem to have increased
slightly since 2010. However, statistically speaking and when taking the numbers of
cases into account, the deviations are mostly not significant.17

17
 This is subject to further methodological limitations such as the larger proportions of children
who gave no answer to the introductory questions in 2010. Therefore, we did not compare the
results on the single poverty indicators that had already been assessed in the last Child Study.
3  Family Backgrounds: Great Variety But Also Marked Differences In Life Conditions 71

3.4.1  A
 voiding Poverty Means Strengthening Parents’
Participation on the Labor Market

Taking all poverty indicators together, 18% of all children report experiencing at
least one of the indicators we surveyed when assessing experienced poverty in the
family; 12% report two or more indicators; and 8% report three or more experiences
of poverty.18
A central safeguard against poverty is for the parents to be regularly employed.
Differentiated according to participation in the labor market, children with two par-
ents holding down regular jobs have the lowest rates of experienced poverty. When
both parents are employed full-time, only 12% of the children report experiencing
poverty, and when one parent is employed full-time and the other part-time or even
both are employed part-time, then the proportion of experienced poverty even goes
down to 9%. The latter indicates that models in which both parents may be employed
part-time are evidently to be found more often in families earning a higher income.
The rate is markedly higher at 18% in families in which only one parent is employed.
A completely different dimension of exposure to poverty is found, in contrast,
among 30% of single parents even when they have a job. However, if none of the
parents living in the household work, the rate of poverty reported by the children
even reaches 55% (Fig. 3.6).
Findings are quite clear here as well. The way to avoid poverty is to strengthen
the parents’ participation on the labor market. Under the given conditions in society,
a partnership model with a joint gainful employment of both parents also seems to
be most appropriate here in order to secure the material framing conditions that will
ensure that children are not excluded from major fields of social life for financial
reasons. As pointed out in Sect. 3.2, this also corresponds to the parents’ wishes. In
cases in which this cannot be achieved, appropriate social provisions should ensure
that children exposed to poverty receive corresponding assistance without any great
access barriers, in other words, in easy ways. The results on experienced poverty as
the children see it nonetheless show the importance of guaranteeing the possibility
to go on day excursions; to be given midday meals in Kindergarten, daycare center,
and school; and to participate in music, sport, and recreation in associations and
groups.

18
 In the latest reports on the social situation in Europe, material deprivation (MD) is measured
through indicators based on data from the EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions
(EU-SILC). According to the EU concept of MD, a person is considered materially deprived if
three of the nine following items are missing from the household for financial reasons: (a) coping
with unexpected expenses; (b) one week annual holiday away from home; (c) avoiding arrears (in
mortgage or rent, utility bills- or hire purchase instalments); (d) a meal with meat, chicken, fish, or
vegetarian equivalent every second day; (e) keeping the home adequately warm; (f) a washing
machine; (g) a color television; (h) a telephone; and (i) a personal car. The more items are missing
in a person’s life, the more the person is considered materially deprived. According to the EU
concept of MD, we speak of serious MD if four out of the nine items are missing (Sikorski and
Kuchla 2011, p. 485). Current results of EU-SILC data analyses (2011) show that 5.9% of 6- to
11-year-old children in Germany experience serious MD.
72 U. Schneekloth and M. Pupeter

“Because there is not enough money in my family . . .”

55

30

18 18
12
9

All children One parent One parent full- Both parents full Single parent Unemployed/Other
employed time, one part- time employed
time, both part-
time

Fig. 3.6  Material deprivation: Experienced poverty by parents’ employment

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

3.5  S
 ocial Background: Social Origins Continue
to Determine the Difference

In the present Child Study, we once again use the 5-point class index to analyze
social origins that we already introduced for the first World Vision Child Study in
2007. We assign children to a social class of origin on two dimensions: first, the
parents’ educational background (education dimension); and, second, the material
state of the household (material participation dimension). This taps the children’s
central home-related and material starting and framing conditions. It focuses on the
family’s level of education within the context of a sufficient availability of the nec-
essary financial resources.
Empirically, we draw on parental reports on their school-leaving qualifications
supplemented by a rating of the number of books in the household gathered during
the child survey, the parental evaluation of their financial situation, and the residen-
tial status (rented accommodation or home ownership). This information is com-
paratively easy to ask for and can, therefore, be gathered almost completely within
a child study without any exceptional effort (on the formation of the index, see
Appendix 2).
Lower class and lower middle-class children accordingly come from less well-­
educated parental homes that also tend to have low incomes, whereas children from
the upper middle class and the upper class have more highly educated family back-
grounds and can also draw on a higher income (Schneekloth and Pupeter 2010a,
pp. 75–79).
3  Family Backgrounds: Great Variety But Also Marked Differences In Life Conditions 73

2007
2010
Parents‘ social origins 2013

32 30
29 29 28 29
19 18 16 15 16
12
9 9 9

Lower class Lower middle Middle class Upper middle Oberschicht

class class

Fig. 3.7  Social Origins: Educational background and family’s financial resources
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (2007: 8–11 years) (%)

Over the course of time, our index shows a slight trend toward upward social
mobility since our first Child Study in 2007 (Fig. 3.7). One particularly conspicuous
feature is the higher education that the current parent cohorts were able to obtain
during their school education phase. In 2007, a Hauptschulabschluss [basic second-
ary school] was the highest general school qualification for 27% of mothers and
31% of fathers; mittlere Reife [intermediate], the highest for 45% of mothers and
34% of fathers; Abitur [general university entrance] or Fachabitur [specific univer-
sity entrance] for 26% of mothers and 32% of fathers. In the current 2013 Child
Study, the proportion of Hauptschule graduates is 22% among mothers and 24%
among fathers; the proportion with mittlere Reife is 40% among mothers and 34%
among fathers; and the proportion with Abitur or Fachabitur is 35% among mothers
and 39% among fathers.19
As a result, the proportion of children from the lower middle class has dropped
from 19% in 2007 to 16% in 2013 and the proportion of children from the middle
class from 32% to 29%. In contrast, the proportion of the upper middle class has
risen from 28% to 30% and that of the upper class from 12% to 16%. Because we
calculated the class index itself in the same way for each survey, the social change
that has occurred is clear to see. Hence, there has been a slight increase in the “edu-
cational capital” of the families. Nonetheless, the complexity of both working and
everyday life has also increased in our society. This makes it all the more worrying
when we see that the proportion of children from the lowest social class has remained
constant at 9%. In this the most poorly educated and also the most socially deprived
class, the “educational losers” continue to accumulate—those who have not man-
aged to move upward and have remained excluded. At this point, our class index

19
 These reports also refer to parents rearing 6- to 11-year-old children (in 2007: 8- to 11-year-olds).
For single parents, in contrast, we have no information on the other parent. This means that our
reports on fathers are also incomplete here and refer only to fathers and stepfathers living in the
same household.
74 U. Schneekloth and M. Pupeter

Table 3.8  Social risk states and social origin

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
Lower Upper
All Lower middle Middle middle Upper
Affirmed, columns in % children class class class class class
Social risk state
Experienced deprivation/ 18 57 32 16 10 4
Experienced poverty
Father or mother unemployed 17 43 29 16 11 4
(during the previous 3 months)
Fear of aggressive youth or adults 18 37 23 17 15 10
in residential area

Table 3.9  Further social variables and social origin

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
Lower Upper
All Lower middle Middle middle Upper
Affirmed, columns in % children class class class class class
Social variables
Migration background 35 59 41 34 36 16
Child attended 93 78 92 96 95 97
Kindergarten
Child attended day care 26 15 22 25 31 28

also measures a “negative educational homogeneity”: Whereas some families also

manage to move up because one parent, for example, the mother, brings a better
education with her, members of the lowest class remain “among themselves” (at
times also as single parents with insufficient education), and their family situation
grants them almost no chances of upward mobility.
This is a good point at which to summarize those indicators that provide infor-
mation on potential risks (Tables 3.8 and 3.9). As to be expected, children from the
two lower classes are disproportionately frequently exposed to poverty. A total of
57% of lower class and 32% of lower middle-class children experience poverty in
their daily lives and report at least one of the experiences of poverty we surveyed.
The proportions of children from the higher classes are significantly lower (middle-­
class children: 16%, upper middle-class: 10%, upper class: 4%). Generally, these
are specific subgroups such as families with a high educational background who are
currently unemployed or passing through special status passages in the life course
such as students with children, more highly educated single parents, or other special
constellations in families with more highly educated parents. The findings empha-
size once again that our class index does not primarily assess the current income
situation in a household, but starts with the educational background and educational
milieu of the parents and links this to the evaluation of the personal financial
situation.
3  Family Backgrounds: Great Variety But Also Marked Differences In Life Conditions 75

However, the general risk of unemployment is markedly higher in both of the

lower social classes. For 43% of lower class and 29% of lower middle-class chil-
dren, at least one parent has been unemployed during the previous 3 months
(middle-­class children: 16%; upper middle-class: 11%; upper class: 4%).
A further interesting finding here is that children from the lower social classes
markedly more frequently perceive their residential environment to be threatening
and report being afraid of aggressive gangs of youths or of adults. This is the case
for 37% of lower class children and also 23% of lower middle-class children. This
compares with 17% for middle-class children, 15% for upper middle-class children,
and 10% for upper class children.
What is less surprising is that 59% of lower class children and also 41% of lower
middle-class children more frequently have a migration background (middle class:
34%, upper middle class 36%, upper class: 16%). Some migrants are highly quali-
fied people who frequently come from Western OECD countries. However, the
majority of migrants such as those from Turkey or the Muslim world, from the for-
mer Yugoslavia or Eastern Europe, and also those of German descent from the for-
mer Soviet Union, frequently have a lower level of education so that their children
born in Germany accordingly more frequently have lower and less well-educated
social origins.
What is also notable here is the aforementioned finding that it is particularly
lower class children who have less frequently attended institutional childcare facili-
ties. No more than 16% of the lower class children ever attended a day nursery
according to their parents’ reports, and only 78% attended a Kindergarten. For all
other social classes, the proportion that attended a Kindergarten is over 90%.
Attending a day nursery, in contrast, is reported for 22% of lower middle-class chil-
dren, 25% of middle-class children, 31% of upper middle-class children, and 28%
of upper class children. This shows that attending a Kindergarten has now become
standard. However, this is not yet the case for lower class children. Attending a day
nursery is more frequent for children from the higher social classes; here as well,
lower class children are in the minority. As mentioned above, this distribution can
be traced back particularly to the fact that children with a migration background
markedly less frequently attend institutional childcare facilities. If early childhood
education is viewed as a provision that is particularly for children from less well-­
educated social classes, one cannot avoid seeing that there continues to be a marked
gap between ambition and reality.
Social risks, as the findings from our latest 20,913 Child Study show once more,
are distributed unequally and clearly to the disadvantage of children from the lowest
social class. At this point, our class index points to the close relation between edu-
cational background and the children’s chances of social participation. As the fol-
lowing chapters will show, this applies not only to parental participation on the
labor market and use of institutional childcare but also to many other areas of the
children’s lives. Children from the lower class are the most socially deprived class
(a total of 9% of all children) and continue to be excluded. However, children from
the lower middle class (a total of 16% of all children) also reveal markedly less
76 U. Schneekloth and M. Pupeter

Table 3.10  Whether my parents give me enough of their time: Trends from the children’s
perspective
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (2007: 8–11 years)
Columns in % 2007 2010 2013
My mother gives me enough of her time
Yes 67 64 64
Sometimes yes, sometimes no 27 29 29
No 5 6 6
Mother not present 1 1 1
My father gives me enough of his time
Yes 34 32 34
Sometimes yes, sometimes no 43 44 42
No 16 16 16
Father not present 7 8 8

favorable starting conditions and therefore a clear need for social and societal
support.

3.6  C
 are and Attention: Reconciling Family
and Working Life

How do the children in our survey rate the care they receive at home? In the last
Child Study, we already showed that children are generally highly satisfied with
their parental care, that is, how their parents look after them. This has not changed.
No more than 11% give a negative to neutral (2010 Child Study: 18%); 34%, a posi-
tive; and 54%, even a very positive rating (2010: 38% positive and 44% very posi-
tive). We asked the children the following question: “Generally speaking, how
happy are you about the way your parents look after you?” Once again, the children
could reply to this with our 5-point smiley scale.
We gain a more differentiated picture as soon as we pose more specific questions
and ask the children whether they think that their parents give them enough of their
time (Table 3.10). We have been posing this question ever since the first Child Study
in 2007. Two out of three children (64%) consider that their mothers give them
enough of their time; 29% reply “sometimes yes, sometimes no”; and 6% say their
mothers do not give them enough of their time. The general trend in the findings is
very consistent. The slight deviation in 2007 is due to the fact that we surveyed only
8- to 11-year-old children at that time. The older the children, the greater the propor-
tion who are satisfied with the time their mothers devote to them (6- to 7-year-olds:
61%, 8- to 9-year-olds: 63%, 10- to 11-year-olds: 70%). At 63%, 6- to 7-year-old
boys are more satisfied than girls at 57%. The same applies for 8- to 9-year-olds:
64% of boys compared to 61% of girls. Among 10- to 11-year-olds, this inverts
slightly with 67% of boys being satisfied with the time their mother spends with
3  Family Backgrounds: Great Variety But Also Marked Differences In Life Conditions 77

Table 3.11  Whether my parents give me enough of their time by age and gender
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
All 6–7 8–9 10–11
Columns in % children Girls Boys years years years
My mother gives me enough of her time
Yes 64 64 65 61 63 70
Sometimes 29 29 28 29 31 25
No 6 7 6 9 5 4
Mother not present 1 0 1 1 1 1
My father gives me enough of his time
Yes 34 34 34 35 33 35
Sometimes 42 43 40 37 45 41
No 16 14 18 20 15 14
Father not present 8 9 8 8 7 10

them compared to 73% of girls. However, the general trend is for the ratings of boys
and girls to remain on a comparable level (Table 3.11).
Results are similar for rating time with fathers. Here, however, only one in three
children (34%) consider that their father gives them enough of their time, 42% reply
“sometimes yes, sometimes no,” and 16% say their fathers do not give them enough
of their time. No clear trend can be ascertained here, because although children’s
reports very slightly from study to study, statistical differences are only slight.
Differentiating according to age also reveals a similar picture: In each age group,
approximately one-third of the children are satisfied with the time their father
spends with them. However, 20% of the younger children aged 6–7 years answer
“no” when asked whether their father gives them enough of their time. Differentiating
according to gender also reveals slight differences with boys somewhat more fre-
quently saying “no” than girls.

3.6.1  F
 ourteen Percent of Children Complain About Explicit
Parental Care Deficits

Summarizing the children’s ratings on whether their parents give them enough of
their time reveals the following picture (Fig. 3.8): At 33% (2010: 31%), one-third of
children report that all parents give them enough of their time. In this case, “all”
means “all parents who live with them.” For single parents, this is only one parent;
for patchwork families, this may also be more than two parents.
The majority of children reveal a typical constellation: one parent either suffi-
cient time or sometimes yes, sometimes no. This is reported by 44% of the children
(2010: 47%). In contrast, one single parent not sufficient time (answer “no,” but
excluding single parents) is named continuously by 9% of children.
78 U. Schneekloth and M. Pupeter

33 2007
All parents sufficient 31 2010
33 2013

45
One parent sufficient; 47
one or both sometimes
44

9
One of two parents
9
insufficient
9

One parent insufficient; 11

one sometimes 11
11

2
All parents insufficient 2
3

Fig. 3.8  Deficits in parental care: Children’s reports on time parents spend with them
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (2007: 8–11 years) (%)

Insufficient care is reported by 11% of children with “one parent insufficient; the
other sometimes yes, sometimes no” (2010: 1%) and 3% (2010: 2%) with “all par-
ents insufficient” (here including single parents). We classify both these constella-
tions as a care deficit. Hence, according to their own reports, this holds for 14% of
children.

3.6.2  G
 ainful Employment of Parents Does Not Have
to Be Accompanied by Care Deficits

Our latest Child Study also confirms the finding that increased gainful employment
of parents and sufficient time for children do not have to contradict each other
(Fig. 3.9). The least care deficits are named by children whose parents have jobs. If
only one parent is gainfully employed, then 9% of children report a care deficit. If
both parents are gainfully employed (either one full-time or both part-time), it is
also no more than 8% who report a care deficit. If both parents are gainfully
employed full-time, this proportion rises to 16%.
However, the situation is markedly different for children of gainfully employed
single parents. Here, 32% complain about a care deficit. However, at 29%, a similar
3  Family Backgrounds: Great Variety But Also Marked Differences In Life Conditions 79

„Neither of my parents give me enough of their time/One of

my parents does not give me enough of their time; the other,
sometimes yes, sometimes no“
2007
2010 35
31 32 29 30 29
2013

17 17 16
13 13 14
9 9 8 8 8
6

All children One parent One parent full- Both parents full Single parent Unemployed/Other
employed time, one part-time, time employed
both part-time

Fig. 3.9  Deficits in parental care and parents’ labor market participation from the children’s
perspective
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (2007: 8–11 years) (%)

level is reported by children whose parents are unemployed or do not pursue gainful
employment for other reasons.20

3.6.3  R
 econciling Family and Working Life: How the Parents
See It

In the latest Child Study, we ask not only the children but also parents about recon-
ciling family and working life.21 A total of 14% of parents say reconcilability works
“very well” and a further 52% that it works “well.” This compares with 26% for
“just about okay,” 5% for “less well,” and 1% “not well at all” (2% gave no reply;
see Fig. 3.10).
The child’s age and gender make no difference here. As to be expected, the eco-
nomic situation of the family plays a strong role in rating reconcilability. In every
second family in which one of the children surveyed reports (at least) one of the
poverty indicators we surveyed (see Sect. 3.4), the reconcilability of family and
working life is reported to work only “just about okay” (33%) or “(less well) not
well at all” (17%).
Differentiating the answers of the parents providing the information according to
type of family, we find that every second single parents reports that reconcilability
works either “just about okay” (38%) or “(less well) not well at all” (13%). For
families with three or more children, 23% report that it works “just about okay” and

20
 Adding the children who report a lack of time with one parent to the children with a care deficit
results in a comparable trend.
21
 Questions on the family and on the parental background were reported by one information source
on behalf of the other—83% by the mother and 17% by the father.
80 U. Schneekloth and M. Pupeter

Alright Reconcilability

Rather
bad/Very bad

40 30
30
26
21 24
16
6 6 7 9
3
All parents One parent One parent full- Both parents full Single parent Unemployed/Other
employed time, one part-time, time employed
both part-time

Fig. 3.10  Labor market participation and reconciling family and working life  — the parents’
perspective
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

9% “(less well) not well at all.” Among two-child families, 23% report that reconcil-
ability works “just about okay” and 4% “(less well) not well at all”; and in one-child
families, 27% “just about okay” and 2% “(less well) not well at all.”
Finally, differentiating according to participation on the labor market, we find the
following picture: The most frequent complaints come from 49% of single parents
who are gainfully employed: 40% report that reconcilability works “just about
okay” and 9% that it works “not well at all.” This is followed by 46% of those fami-
lies in which both parents are unemployed or do not work for other reasons. Here,
30% report that reconcilability of family and working life works “just about okay”
and even 16% that it works “(less well) not well at all.”
When both parents are gainfully employed full-time, 37% complain about recon-
cilability: In this case, 30% report that reconcilability works is “just about okay”
and 7% “(less well) not well at all.” As before, these percentages are lower than
those in the other groups. When one parent works full-time and the other part-time,
or both part-time, then it is only 27% who complain with 24% “just about okay” and
3% “(less well) not well at all.” Results are similar for the constellation “one parent
gainfully employed” at 27% with 21% “just about okay” and 6% “(less well) not
well at all.”
In summary, a constellation of several factors—low level of education, unem-
ployment, and risk of poverty, and/or type of family (single-parent)—lead more
frequently to a moderate to poor reconcilability between family and working life. In
a constellation of two full-time gainfully employed parents, there are also more
frequent reports on problems with reconciling family and working life, but they are
less frequent than among parents in precarious employment situations. In contrast,
families that have organized their division of labor with a combination of full- and
part-time gainful employment do not report problems in reconciling family and
working life more frequently than families in which only one parent goes to work.
3  Family Backgrounds: Great Variety But Also Marked Differences In Life Conditions 81

From both the children’s and the parents’ perspective, both caring for and having
time for children seem to work best when the family situation is stable and predict-
able. It is highly evident that this is best resolved when parents have succeeded in
ensuring a viable participation on the labor market. In contrast, the family care situ-
ation is markedly problematic and deficient when conditions are unstable—be this
because a single parent does not have enough time through own gainful ­employment
or because both parents are unable to achieve a sufficient intensity of care because
of unemployment or other precarious situations. Hence, time is an important pre-
condition for a good and reliable care of children. However, here as well, a potential
“more” does not always mean a “better.” Alongside time, it is, above all, the quality
of the relationship that is important—hence, taken together, the “quality time.”
According to both the children and their parents, this can work better in a stable
family constellation based on shared and well-coordinated gainful employment of
both parents than in an economically and/or emotionally insecure situation that both
children and parents perceive to be unsatisfactory or stressful.
For single parents, there is no alternative here to having appropriate institutional
childcare facilities at their disposal. Otherwise they can hardly avoid being depen-
dent on transfer payments to counter poverty (e.g., Hartz IV or social welfare ben-
efits). However, it is also notable that families with more than two children also
more frequently complain about problems in reconciling family and working life.
This is certainly due to the lack of family friendliness in German society. This is
perceived by both the children (see Sect. 2.7) and their parents. Here as well, meet-
ing the demand for more time, money, and infrastructure—the most important strat-
egies for delivering a sustained family policy according to the 7th Family Report to
the German government (BMFSFJ 2006)—would also make an important contribu-
tion to ensuring the well-being of both children and their parents.

References

BMAS (Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales). (2013). Lebenslagen in Deutschland.

Der vierte Armuts- und Reichtumsbericht der Bundesregierung. (Endfassung: 06.03.2013).
Verfügbar unter. http://www.bmas.de/.
BMFSFJ. (2005). 12. Kinder- und Jugendbericht. Berlin: BT. Drs. 15 / 6014.
BMFSFJ. (2006). Familie zwischen Flexibilität und Verlässlichkeit. Perspektiven für eine leb-
enslaufbezogene Familienpolitik. 7. Familienbericht. Berlin: BT. Drs. 16 / 1360.
Coleman, J.  (1988). Social capital and the creating of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, 95–120.
Holst, E., & Seifert, H. (2012). Arbeitszeitpolitische Kontroversen im Spiegel der
Arbeitszeitwünsche. WSI-Mitteilungen, 2 / 2012, S. 141 – 149.
Jampert, K., Zehnbauer, A., Sens, A., Leuckefeld, K., & Laier, M. (Hrsg.). (2009). Kinder-Sprache
stärken. Aufwachsen mit mehreren Sprachen. Praxismaterial. Weimar/Berlin: Das Netz.
Schneekloth, U., & Pupeter, M. (2010a). Familie als Zentrum: Bunt und vielfältig, aber nicht für
alle Kinder gleich verlässlich. In World Vision Deutschland. (Hrsg.), Kinder in Deutschland
2010a. 2. World Vision Kinderstudie (S. 61 – 94). Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer.
82 U. Schneekloth and M. Pupeter

Schneewind, K. A. (2008). Sozialisation in der Familie. In Hurrelmann, K., Grundmann, M., &
Walper, S. (Hrsg.), Handbuch Sozialisationsforschung (7. vollst. überarbeitete Auflage, S.
256 – 273). Weinheim: Beltz.
Sikorski, U., & Kuchler, B. (2011). Wer muss worauf verzichten? Einschätzungen zur Wohn- und
Lebenssituation der privaten Haushalte. Wirtschaft und Statistik, 5 / 2011, S. 484 – 492.
Tracy, R. (2007). Wie Kinder Sprachen lernen. Und wie wir sie dabei unterstützen können.
Tübingen: Francke.
Chapter 4
School: An Increasingly Important Field
of Experience

Monika Pupeter and Klaus Hurrelmann

School plays a major role in the daily lives of 6- to 11-year-olds—and not just in
terms of the time spent there and the structuring of the day through school atten-
dance. It also imposes completely new social and intellectual demands on children,
because they now have a range of different things to learn, and they need to acquire
not only knowledge but also basic competencies such as reading, writing, and arith-
metic. School admission also marks the beginning of a new phase of life in a new
community in which children first have to find and claim their place. This is because
school is a social location in which children can meet their friends and forge new
friendships. Hence, alongside confronting them with the actual contents of learning,
it also places greater demands on children’s abilities to socialize and adapt to their
surroundings while simultaneously coming to terms with new spatial conditions.
Put briefly, school has many facets for children, and for each individual child, school
admission is accompanied not only by opportunities, scopes for making new dis-
coveries, and new chances but also by constraints, disappointments, and trials to be
mastered. School becomes an increasingly important life space for childhood
experience.
In most German federal states, elementary school lasts only 4 years. As a result,
one of the most pressing questions regarding the further academic career already
emerges in the third year of school: Which transition option will become available
at the end of elementary school? Will the parents’ wishes be fulfilled enabling the
child to transfer to a Gymnasium or another school offering a university entrance
track? This parental wish has become even stronger in recent years, particularly

M. Pupeter (*)
Kantar Public, München, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
K. Hurrelmann
Hertie School of Governance, Berlin, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 83

S. Andresen et al. (eds.), Well-being, Poverty and Justice from a Child’s
Perspective, Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research 17,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57574-2_4
84 M. Pupeter and K. Hurrelmann

because of the long-lasting labor market problems and the financial crisis. It is par-
ticularly apparent in the transition rates to Gymnasium and other schools offering a
university entrance track that are now far above 50% throughout Germany
(Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung 2012, p. 253). This places children under
a great pressure to maintain their position and perform well right from the start of
elementary school.
This summarizes the reasons why the topic of “school” plays such a major role
in the World Vision Child Studies. As the latest study shows once again, the children
themselves also have a lot to say about the topic. They are very aware of the impor-
tance of this life domain, and when it comes to questions about school, they express
clear opinions and attitudes. These are what we shall be addressing in the present
chapter: We shall start by reporting on the children’s perspectives and aspirations
for their further school careers and how these differ in line with their social ori-
gins—that is, the status of the parental home. Then we shall address what children
expect from an all-day school and how they would like it to be. This is followed by
an overview of children’s appraisals regarding how far and in which domains they
can codetermine daily life at school and in school lessons as well as the design of
their school. Finally, at the end of the chapter, we shall ask how fair children per-
ceive their school to be and how satisfied they are with their daily schooling.

4.1  Social Origins Shape Educational Expectations

The results of international comparative studies (above all, IGLU, PISA, and
TIMSS) have shown that social origins shape a child’s school achievement more
strongly in Germany than in most other countries (Baumert et al. 2006; Bos et al.
2010). When the parents are well off economically, possess a high social status, and
are themselves well-educated, then this transfers to the expectations and mostly also
to the actual school achievements of their children. When the parents have either
low or no school-leaving qualifications, and/or are in an economically weak posi-
tion, then their children mostly do comparatively less well at school (Hadjar and
Becker 2006; Quenzel and Hurrelmann 2010).
The reason for this close relationship is that parents in Germany are traditionally
granted particularly strong freedoms in shaping and influencing how their children
are reared and educated. Compared to other countries, day nursery and preschool
provisions and all-day schools expanded much more slowly after World War 2. It
was only new legislation to promote child development in the late 1990s (the
Kinderförderungsgesetz) that finally resulted in parents having a legal right to early
childhood care in a daycare center for children over the age of 12 months from
August 1, 2013, onward. Even before it came into force, this law triggered an
impressive increase in the proportion of under-3-year-old children attending
­preschool. All-day schools have been promoted since the German government
introduced a program to invest in future education and care (the Investitionsprogramm
Zukunft Bildung und Betreuung) in 2003. Nonetheless, even today, it is still
4  School: An Increasingly Important Field of Experience 85

Table 4.1  Children by school grade and social origin

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
Lower Lower middle Middle Upper Upper
Columns in % All children class class class middle class class
1st grade 19 26 19 19 19 17
2nd grade 18 15 18 20 19 15
3rd grade 19 19 18 18 19 20
4th grade 17 19 21 19 15 15
5th grade 19 17 18 18 19 21
6th gradea 8 4 6 6 9 12
Including 7th grade (proportion under 1%)
a

q­ uestionable whether the reforms introduced so far have been sufficient to o­ vercome
the high level of unequal starting conditions in families.

4.1.1  The Children’s Educational Paths

The World Vision Child Study can be used to analyze the relation between chil-
dren’s social origins and the educational track they are pursuing in 2013. We shall
first look at which grade the 6- to 11-year-old children are attending at the beginning
of 2013, the time point of the survey (Table 4.1). The total column shows that the
children are distributed relatively equally across Grades 1– 5 (from 17% to 19% per
grade). Roughly 8% of the children are already attending 6th grade. However, major
differences emerge when we take social origins into account: Whereas more than
one-quarter of the lower class children (26%) are attending 1st grade, this is the case
for only 17% of the upper class. In the 5th and 6th grades, the numbers reverse with
21% of the 6- to 11-year-olds coming from the lower class and 33% from the upper
class.
This unequal distribution of the children across school grades is due to children
from higher social classes already having better starting positions right at the begin-
ning of schooling. Because their parents have prepared them better for school
admission, these children are less frequently told to wait one further year before
starting school, and a larger proportion can take advantage of the “can rule” permit-
ting early school enrolment under favorable circumstances. Together with the
focused support that these children receive from their parents at home, this enables
them to adapt more quickly to the rhythm of work and the social rules of school life
than children from lower social classes. Hence, they start off with a temporal advan-
tage that they can build on increasingly over the course of elementary school.
Eventually, this leads to greater achievement and far better chances of transferring
to the academic track of the Gymnasium (Hadjar and Becker 2006; Maaz et  al.
2010; Stubbe 2009).
Table 4.2 shows how elementary school careers influence transitions to the dif-
ferent types of secondary school. The majority of the 6- to 11-year-olds surveyed
86 M. Pupeter and K. Hurrelmann

Table 4.2  Type of schools children attended (Parents’ reports) of different social origins
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
Lower Upper
All Lower middle Middle middle
Columns in % children class class class class Upper class
Elementary school 68 68 67 70 70 64
Hauptschule 5 12 10 6 1 1
Realschule 8 4 9 8 7 7
Gymnasium 11 1 4 7 15 21
School with several 4 2 3 5 5 6
tracks
Special needs school 4 13 7 4 2 1

are still attending elementary school, but the one-third who have already left are
distributed very unequally across the different types of secondary school. Whereas
the majority from the lower class are attending Hauptschule (12%), the majority
from the upper class are attending Gymnasium (21%) or schools offering a range of
tracks (6%; composed of comprehensive schools, integrated secondary schools, city
district schools, etc.) providing direct access to the academic university entrance
track.
When we compare these findings with those from 2007 and 2010, we can see
hardly any changes. In the two prior World Vision Child Studies as well, the propor-
tion of lower class children attending a Gymnasium was, according to parent reports,
about 1% compared to about 20% of upper class children. The comparison across
time also reveals hardly any changes in the attendance of other types of school.
How can we interpret these findings? Our impression is that the relation between
social origins and school careers has consolidated over the 6-year period covered by
our studies. It is evident that the aforementioned education policy reforms (expan-
sion of preschool and all-day provisions) and the intensive public discussion on the
topic of unequal educational opportunities have had no measurable impact. The
social inequalities that children bring with them from their parental homes continue
to be neither balanced out nor overcome by the educational effects of school despite
the policy reforms introduced for this purpose (Hurrelmann et al. 2011).

4.1.2  The Children’s Educational Aspirations

As in the two previous World Vision Child Studies, we also asked the 6- to 11-year-­
olds in the current study what sort of school-leaving qualification they would like to
attain. The question given to elementary school children was: “What type of school
do you want to go to later when you leave elementary school: Hauptschule
(Hauptschulabschluss), Realschule (Realschulabschluss), Gymnasium (Abitur), or
Don’t know/Don’t care?” We asked children who were already attending a
4  School: An Increasingly Important Field of Experience 87

Table 4.3  Desired school-leaving qualification by child’s age

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
All 6–7 8–9 10–11
Columns in % children Girls Boys years years years
Basic secondary school leaving certificate 5 4 6 5 4 5
(Hauptschulabschluss)
Intermediate secondary school leaving 27 25 28 13 31 33
certificate (Realschulabschluss)
University entrance qualification (Abitur) 45 49 42 37 44 52
Don’t know 23 22 24 45 21 10

secondary school: “What kind of school-leaving qualification would you like to

attain: Hauptschulabschluss, Realschulabschluss, Abitur, or Don’t know/Don’t
care.”
Table 4.3 reports the children’s answers. Not surprisingly, the proportion who
have not reached any decision is relatively high among the younger children with
45% of the 6- to 7-year-olds who do not yet know or care about which type of
­secondary school they will eventually attend. Among the 10- to 11-year-olds, this
proportion has already dropped to 10%. There is a clear trend in educational aspira-
tions: Whereas 37% of the younger children are also striving for an Abitur, this
proportion rises to 52% among the older children. The preference for a
Realschulabschluss also increases as children grow older. Only the
Hauptschulabschluss remains unattractive, ranking at only about 5% among both
younger and older children.
As these data show, children are already aware of the value of different school-­
leaving qualifications at an early age: One-third aspire to an intermediate qualifica-
tion; more than one-half, to an Abitur. Hence, in summary, an impressive majority
of 85% of the 10- and 11-year-olds set themselves demanding goals for their school
careers. There can be no doubt that this reflects both the wishes and the admonitions
of their parents who point out that a successful career is hard to achieve without a
high-quality school-leaving qualification. It is interesting to see how more ambi-
tious the educational aspirations of girls are compared to boys. This replicates the
strong growth in the motivation for education among girls found in other studies. It
continues to grow in secondary school and is now leading to an ever larger relative
disadvantaging of boys (Hurrelmann and Schultz 2012). Differences between
Eastern and Western German, in contrast, are minimal.
Figure 4.1 presents the relation between social origin and the aspirations for
school-leaving qualifications.1 This reveals major inequalities in the distributions:

1
 We used an in-depth multivariate analysis to test all factors influencing whether 6- to 11-year-old
children consider that they will complete secondary schooling with an Abitur (university entrance
qualification). The children’s social origins proved to have the greatest explanatory power. The
influence of the child’s age also persisted in the analysis. A further factor was the children’s lei-
sure-time behavior. Looking at the leisure types, compared to the “all-rounders” at 58%, the
“media consumers” had a much lower interest in attaining the Abitur at 29%. Residential structure,
which essentially reflects the structure of school provisions, contributes a further explanatory
88 M. Pupeter and K. Hurrelmann

16
27
39
56
37 71

41
32
17
19 Abitur
6
6 2 11 Realschule
1
30 26 Hauptschule
23 23
17
Don't know
Lower class Lower middle Middle class Upper middle Upper class
class class

Fig. 4.1  Aspirations for school-leaving qualification by social origins

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

Among the upper class children, 71% wish to attend the Gymnasium after leaving
elementary school; 11%, the Realschule; and only 1%, the Hauptschule. In contrast,
only 16% of lower class children aspire to the Abitur; 37% want a Realschulabschluss;
and 17%, a Hauptschulabschluss. Hence, more than four times as many children
from the upper class than the lower class aspire to the most desirable highest school-­
leaving qualification, the Abitur. Whereas 17% of the upper class children are
uncertain about which school-leaving qualification they aspire to, this proportion is
almost twice as high among lower class children at 30%. The children from the
middle of these three social classes give reports that lie between these two extremes.
These findings can be interpreted as indicating that even early in life, children in
Germany sense the effects of their social origins on their later educational careers.
They are at least intuitively aware of the social status of their parental home, how
this influences their current achievement position, and which perspectives and
developmental chances it provides. Apparently, their family, school, neighborhood,
and environment gives them so many hints and signals regarding their achievement
and developmental potential that they are able to derive an appraisal of their own
chances in further education. As they grow older, this appraisal becomes ­increasingly

effect. Rural areas have fewer schools leading to higher school-leaving certificates. Children in
rural areas who wish to attend a Gymnasium generally have to accept longer routes to school. This
aspect also plays a major role in considerations on which qualification to strive toward. Big cities,
in contrast, offer several different types of school to choose from that are also in easy travelling
distance. This is also reflected in the anticipation of being able to achieve the Abitur (49% vs.
39%).
4  School: An Increasingly Important Field of Experience 89

Table 4.4  Desire to attain university entrance qualification (Abitur) across time
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)
Lower Lower middle Middle Upper middle Upper
Columns in % All children class class class class class
6- to 11-year-olds
2010 50 19 30 45 64 76
2013 45 16 27 39 56 70
8- to 11-year-olds
2007 49 21 32 36 68 82
2010 53 16 28 50 70 82
2013 48 19 27 42 61 73

more precise: “Don’t knows” become less frequent, and the differences in future
perspectives become larger and larger.
Scientific studies have shown how important educational aspirations are for the
motivation and learning style of students. In the majority of cases, those who set
themselves high goals also cultivate the necessary energy and persistence to attain
them (Hopf 2010). This is why the school-leaving qualification aspirations gathered
here are such strong predictors of the educational goals that children actually attain.
The trends to be seen in these relations have changed hardly at all compared to
the 2007 and 2010 World Vision Child Studies. We evaluate this as indicating two
trends: First, as pointed out above, despite all the debates on reform, there has been
no actual improvement in educational chances in relation to social origins. Second,
despite all the problems that educational policy is facing in relation to this great
inequality, we can at least conclude that the pressure on children to attain the high-­
ranking Abitur school-leaving qualification has not increased any further since
2007.

4.1.3  Educational Aspirations Across Time

A closer look at the data across the years on the aspirations for an Abitur school-­
leaving qualification confirms this second conclusion. As Table 4.4 shows, the chil-
dren’s desire to attain the Abitur has not increased over the course of our studies;
indeed, it has slightly weakened. Because the 2007 survey did not yet include 6- to
7-year-olds, the upper part of the table reports only findings for 2010 and 2013.
However, the trend is clear: In all social classes, a lower percentage is striving
toward the Abitur in 2013 compared to 2010. Findings are not so clear in the lower
part of the table that compares the results on 8- to 11-year-old children across all
three World Vision Child Studies. Despite strong variations in the percentages, one
can predominantly see a decline in the aspiration toward the Abitur school-leaving
qualification. Moreover, ideas on which secondary school and which school-leaving
qualification can be attained seem to have become less clear over time, as indicated
90 M. Pupeter and K. Hurrelmann

by the increase in the proportion of “don’t know/don’t care” answers (not reported
in the table).
If such a trend persists in the next World Vision Child Study, it could be evaluated
as a sign of uncertainty regarding whether one can or should strive toward which
particular school-leaving qualification at elementary school age. Because the
­children’s reports also reflect their parents’ perspectives, the findings may also point
to a shifting trend and be one first sign of an easing of the prestige- and status-­
dominated decisions on the future career paths of children. Many parents are
uncomfortable with the pressure of having to get their children to grasp the signifi-
cance of the “elementary school Abitur” and already take this seriously in their third
year of schooling. As a result, they prefer schools offering a range of educational
pathways that also include the Abitur but make it possible to postpone this decision
until a later time when already attending secondary school.

4.2  Children Expect a Great Deal from All-Day School

The gradual introduction of all-day schools in Germany, since 2003 has been a reac-
tion to the social fact that both parents increasingly go out to work. However, it
simultaneously follows the goal of balancing out the aforementioned differences in
educational opportunities and enabling children from poorly educated parental
homes to receive additional support. School courses in the afternoon supplemented
by sports, musical and cultural “leisure-time” activities should particularly support
children with a low education background and offer them developmental opportuni-
ties going beyond the traditional framework of the half-day school with its emphasis
on teaching and imparting knowledge (Bremm 2013; Fischer et al. 2011).

4.2.1  More All-Day Schools

According to the official definition given by the Standing Conference of the

Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder (KMK), a school can be
viewed as an all-day school when children spend 7 h a day there on at least 3 days
in the week. All-day provisions at schools with an “open” concept allow children
and their families to decide for themselves whether they wish to take advantage of
the school’s afternoon care provisions. In this open form, the teaching and leisure-­
time units in the afternoon are purely optional and do not have to be attended by all
the children in a class. The KMK talks about “partially compulsory” or “completely
compulsory” all-day schools when the children are obliged to attend at least some
of the afternoon provisions in some areas for certain periods of time (KMK
Sekretariat 2012). According to official reports, more than one-half of all schools
now meet this comprehensive definition of an all-day school. The leaders in this
field are comprehensive schools, special education schools, and Hauptschule. In
4  School: An Increasingly Important Field of Experience 91

2007 13

2010 18

2013 23

Fig. 4.2  Trends in the proportion of children attending all-day schools

Children in Germany aged 8–11 years (%)

2010, a total of 44% of elementary schools were classified as all-day schools,

although only about 6% as compulsory and the remaining 38% as voluntary
(Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung 2012, p. 78).
Information from children can be used to track the actual development of all-day
schooling in recent years. The children themselves can provide more succinct and
authentic reports than the official statistics on how many of them actually take
advantage of the all-day provisions of their school regardless of whether this is
either compulsory or voluntary. Their reports give a clear picture and show a marked
increase in the number of children attending all-day provisions since 2007. Indeed,
it has almost doubled: In 2007, only 13% of the 8- to 11-year-olds reported attend-
ing an all-day school; 6 years later, this is already 23% (Fig. 4.2).
When also including the 6- to 7-year-old children in the 2013 study, the propor-
tion attending all-day schools totals 24%. According to the latest survey findings,
more than one 1st-grade child in four (26%) remains at school in the afternoon.
These figures indicate that the use of all-day provisions is on the increase. According
to the children’s own reports, the proportion of children attending all-day schools is
20% for elementary school, 27% for Hauptschule, 19% for Realschule, 60% for
special education schools, and 55% for comprehensive schools (no table).
Our study confirms the KMK’s statistics showing that the various German fed-
eral states and regions vary greatly in how far they have introduced all-day ­schooling.
Children and their parents can consider attending an all-day school only if it is avail-
able in the region where they live. According to the children’s reports, this is far
more frequently the case in Eastern Germany at 39% than Western Germany at
21%. In addition, the proportion of all-day students in big cities (30%) and
92 M. Pupeter and K. Hurrelmann

Table 4.5  Type of schools attended by region and settlement structure

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years.
All Big Big city Rural
Columns in % children West East city suburbs Conurbations areas
Half-day 76 79 61 70 81 77 81
school
All-day school 24 21 39 30 19 23 19

c­onurbations (23%) is higher than in other regions (Table  4.5). The difference
between the old and new German states is particularly large in elementary schools:
It is particularly high in the East at 41% compared to 16% in the West (no table).
An analysis of the statistical relations after holding the regional supply factors
(old/new German states and settlement structure) constant reveals no further signifi-
cant explanations of all-day school attendance based on personal and social vari-
ables (no table). Individual characteristics such as age and gender seem to play only
a secondary role. A migration background in the children’s families also reveals no
particular effect. The main explanatory power for attending an all-day school lies in
the supply structure. Accordingly, the decisive aspect is where a family lives and
whether they have a realistic opportunity to choose freely in favor of an all-day
place for their children.

4.2.2  Social Origins of Children Attending All-Day Schools

As pointed out above, the expansion of all-day schools called for by policymakers
also has to be seen as a response to the unsatisfactory performance of children from
the lower social classes in international comparisons. Broadening and deepening the
learning opportunities in all-day schools should supplement the familial support for
children’s educational careers and improve their relatively less favorable educa-
tional opportunities.
What do the results of the current Child Study tell us about this? In 2013, roughly
every third child from the lower class reported attending an all-day school; for upper
class children, this was only every fifth, and for middle-class children, slightly more
than every fifth (Fig. 4.3). At first glance, this outcome would seem to basically sup-
port the political intentions behind setting up this new type of school: Lower class
children coming from particularly poorly educated parental homes personally report
an above-average use of all-day school provisions.
When we compare these findings with those from the 2007 and 2010 World
Vision Child Studies, we can see interesting trends. In 2007, the differences in the
attendance of all-day schools between children from the lower class and other
classes were much less marked than in 2013 (Fig. 4.4). Since 2007, children from
all classes, and particularly those from the upper class as well, have increased their
4  School: An Increasingly Important Field of Experience 93

31

25
22 22
20

Lower class Lower middle Middle class Upper middle Upper class
class class

Fig. 4.3  Social origins of children attending all-day schools in 2013

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

Upper class
8
9 Upper middle
2007 16 class
12
Middle class
15

Lower middle
10 class
18
Lower class
2010 15
20
29

21
23
2013 21
24
35

Fig. 4.4  Trends in social origins of children attending all-day schools

Children in Germany aged 8–11 years (%)

participation in this type of school. At the same time, there has been a renewed
increase in the proportion of lower class children, and in 2013, a good 10% more of
them attend than all other social classes.
Our study is unable to say whether more frequently attending all-day schools has
also resulted in better school performance among lower class children. The KMK
statistics can be interpreted as indicating that the high attendance rates for all-day
94 M. Pupeter and K. Hurrelmann

schools are due particularly to the use of the partially compulsory and completely
compulsory forms of provisions. However, these provisions are found to be particu-
larly frequent in the types of school attended by an above-average proportion of
lower class children; that is, comprehensive schools, special education schools, and
Hauptschule (Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung 2012, p. 81). By applying
(mostly compulsory) all-day provisions, these schools should achieve particularly
intensive and sustained learning effects and compensate the influence of the paren-
tal homes. However, there are various reasons for attending these types of school,
and attendance is not always voluntary. Future studies will reveal whether this edu-
cational policy is really a success under these circumstances and whether it can
compensate the disadvantages in the educational careers of those from poorly edu-
cated parental homes. Our results, however, cast some doubt on this.

4.2.3  How Well Do Children Accept All-Day Schools?

Support for our doubts comes from the children’s reports on their acceptance of all-­
day schools. We first asked children whether they would prefer to attend a school in
which teaching ends at midday. This is rejected by 61% of the children attending
all-day schools; 30% would prefer a morning-only school, and 10% are undecided.
Hence, although the acceptance of this type of school is good among the students
attending it, it is not exactly overwhelmingly high.
Differentiating the answers to this question according to the children’s social
origins shows that only 41% of lower class children accept this type of school. This
is well below the average of 61%. In contrast, three-quarters of the upper class chil-
dren find all-day school good. Hence, the group of children in which a particularly
large proportion attends this type of school is simultaneously the group that is least
satisfied with all-day schooling. Our study cannot explain why this is so. Perhaps it
relates to the aforementioned fact that attending an all-day school is not always
voluntary for lower class children and that a difficult student clientele accumulates
at these schools. The more than averagely high acceptance of all-day schools among
upper class children could correspondingly be traced back to the particularly high
proportion of students that the KMK reports as voluntarily attending all-day schools
(Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung, 2012, p. 80).

4.2.4  What Children Expect from an All-Day School

The very differentiated answers that we find throughout the World Vision Child
Study when asking children to describe their own life situation leave us in no doubt
about their ability to appraise their situation at school both appropriately and accu-
rately. As a result, we consider the relatively high level of dissatisfaction and the
worryingly large lack of appreciation of all-day schooling among lower class
4  School: An Increasingly Important Field of Experience 95

children to be based on sound and well-justified reasons. The most recent German
LBS-­Kinderbarometer study confirms this. A questionnaire survey of 4th- to 7th-
grade students revealed that the less happy children feel at school, the more fre-
quently they reject afternoon school provisions (LBS-Kinderbarometer 2011,
p. 153).
This has important implications for the discussion on extending all-day school-
ing. The children’s statements show not only how inadequate it is to simply increase
the quantity of places in all-day schools without ensuring an appropriate quality and
sufficient resources but also the problems that arise when all-day school attendance
is not voluntary. As our study shows, such a strategy does result in more lower class
children attending this type of school. However, given their internal self-distancing
from these schools, it is questionable whether they profit from this. The future con-
cern is not just a quantitative expansion of all-day provisions. It will be far more
necessary to pay greater attention to the quality of the care and services provided
and to ensure that the children themselves appreciate them. At the end of the day,
children who spend almost the entire day attending such a school will benefit from
it only if they feel happy there and are able to experience the services provided as
beneficial to their development (see the research findings reported in Stecher et al.
2011).
As documented in the last two World Vision Child Studies, children have very
precise ideas about what a “good” all-day school should be like. Studies on urban
facilities for children including playgrounds show repeatedly that these are accepted
most readily and best fulfil their goals when their future users are actively involved
in their planning and design (Stange et  al. 2009). Such findings should be trans-
ferred to the school environment and particularly to that of the all-day school. The
need is to develop a program for afternoon schooling that the children accept
because they have helped design it.
Our surveys show that children attending half-day schools can also imagine tak-
ing part in school activities in the afternoon. In 2010, the majority of half-day stu-
dents (76%) expressed an interest in afternoon sports (Leven and Schneekloth 2010,
p. 171). The children were also interested in art and theater groups (65%), projects
(56%), and homework supervision (38%). In contrast, only 17% of half-day stu-
dents were in favor of normal teaching lessons in the afternoon, and only 8% were
not interested in any of the proposed afternoon activities. These findings are also
confirmed by the latest LBS-Kinderbarometer survey reporting that children are
less interested in using the afternoon to revise the morning’s lessons in more depth
or to receive extra tuition. What they are interested in is new and exciting subjects
and lessons, topic-related projects, sport and leisure-time provisions, and also quite
simply phases of creative relaxation (LBS-Kinderbarometer 2011, p. 154).
In summary, the majority of children are in favor of all-day schools, but they
have very precise expectations regarding what this new type of school in Germany
should be like. They are only unreservedly in favor of all-day school when this
brings subject-related and social benefits. The value of drawing on the children’s
subjective well-being as an indicator for the quality of their socioecological habitat
becomes clear. If the all-day school delivers additional incentives and services, the
96 M. Pupeter and K. Hurrelmann

children welcome it. If it represents only a lengthening of the traditional half-day

school, then acceptance is only moderate.

4.3  Still Much to Be Desired Regarding Codetermination

The type and extent of child codetermination of lessons and school life varies
greatly from school to school. The only standardized child participation in school is
that regulated by laws and directives: the right to elect a class speaker. Just about
anything going beyond this established participation structure is at the discretion of
the teaching staff: the integration of students in determining the rules in the class, in
shaping the daily life at school ranging from how the classroom is decorated to joint
decisions on school trips and projects, and the organization of events or activities
involving more than one class. Whether or not they are involved in such tasks and
procedures makes a great deal of difference for children. Numerous studies confirm
a close relation between greater possibilities of codetermination in a school and
both the children’s subjective well-being and their trust in their teachers (Bacher
et al. 2007).

4.3.1  Possible Fields of Codetermination in School

In the 2013 World Vision Child Study, we wanted to ascertain how children appraise
the possibilities of codetermination in their schools. We presented items referring to
seven domains in which the students and their teachers can negotiate the rules and
conditions of daily school life. We asked the children:
In your school, are you allowed to help decide:
• How your classroom is decorated?
• Whom are you allowed to sit next to?
• How the desks, chairs, and tables are arranged in your classroom?
• On working out the rules in your class; in other words, how everybody treats
each other in the class?
For children attending 2nd grade and above, we added two more questions:
• Where you will all go on school outings?
• On suggesting possible topics for future class projects?
• On organizing school events?.2

2
 The response categories available to the children were “often,” “sometimes,” and “hardly ever.” A
greater number of younger children gave no answer, which was reflected in a slightly higher num-
ber of “no reply” and “don’t know” responses—particularly for the questions given to children
only from Grade 2 onward.
4  School: An Increasingly Important Field of Experience 97

Whom do you sit next to 30 41

Working out the rules in class 26 34

How is classroom decorated 23 40

Often
Organizing school events 20 40
Sometimes

Where to go on school outings 16 30

Prospective class projects 12 38

How are desks arranged? 10 27

| Reports on school events, school outings, and class projects from children in 2nd grade and above

Fig. 4.5  Domains of codetermination at school

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

The results are presented in Fig. 4.5. The most frequent domain of codetermina-
tion is reported to be “whom you are allowed to sit next to.” A total of 30% of chil-
dren report that they can decide this “often”; 41%, “sometimes”; and 28%, “hardly
ever.” When it comes to “working out the rules in your class,” 26% report that they
can codetermine this “often”; 34%, “sometimes”; and 37%, “hardly ever.” When
“deciding how your classroom is decorated,” 23% said they can codetermine this
“often”; 40%, “sometimes”; and 34%, “hardly ever.”
From 2nd grade onward, we asked the children about codetermining school
events, where to go on outings, and topics for their projects. This produced the fol-
lowing results: For helping to decide “on organizing school events,” 20% say they
can do this “often”; 40%, “sometimes”; and 35%, “hardly ever.” For “where you
will all go on school outing,” 16% say they can do this “often” and a further 30%,
“sometimes,” whereas one-half (50%) can do this “hardly ever.” When “suggesting
possible topics for future class projects,” 12% report that they can codetermine this
“often”; and a further 38%, “sometimes.” In contrast, 45% say they can do this
“hardly ever.” From all seven of the domains surveyed, the children can least fre-
quently codetermine “how the desks, chairs, and tables are arranged in your class-
room.” Only 10% of the children say they can do this “often”; a further 27%,
“sometimes;” but 61%, “hardly ever.”
98 M. Pupeter and K. Hurrelmann

“In our school, we are often allowed to have our say in . . .”

15
Working out the rules in class 25
35

13
How is classroom decorated 20
33

30
Whom do we sit next to 30
31

11
Organizing school events 15
26

5
Where to go on school outings 11
24

5 6–7 years
Prospective class projects 9
17
8–9 years
7
How are desks arranged 9
14 10–11 years

| Reports on school events, school outings, and class projects from children in 2nd grade and above

Fig. 4.6  Codetermination at school by age

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

4.3.2  C
 odetermination in Relation to Age, Frequency,
and Gender

There are major differences between age groups with a tendency for older students
to have more codetermination than younger ones. At 30%, just about every third
10- to 11-year-old reports “often” participating in decisions on at least three of the
domains surveyed. Nonetheless, 26% of children in this age group report never
being integrated into school life in this way. Among the 6- to 7-year-olds, only 5%;
and among the 8- to 9-year-olds, 17% report that they “often” codetermine at least
three domains, but 57% of the 6- to 7-year-olds and 40% of the- to 9-year-olds say
that this is “hardly ever” the case. An inspection of the individual domains also
reveals that older children more frequently report “often” on all domains except for
“whom you are allowed to sit next to.” This is about equal in all three age groups at
circa 30% (Fig. 4.6).
The distribution of school codetermination according to age also reflects the type
of school the children attend. Children in secondary schools report far more fre-
quent codetermination than those attending elementary schools. Age effects can
also be seen within elementary schools. Children in higher grades more frequently
report that they are “often” involved in codetermination than those in lower grades
(no table).
Child codetermination in school varies in terms of its extent and frequency. We
find that 40% of all children aged 6–11 years do not feel well-integrated in the seven
4  School: An Increasingly Important Field of Experience 99

“In our school, we are often allowed to have our say”

9
10
Girls 18
28
35
7
10
Boys 16
23
44

2
3
6–7 years 14
24
57
8
9
8–9 years 14
29
40
14
16
10–11 years 21
23
26

More than 3 domains 3 domains 2 domains 1 domain No domain

Fig. 4.7  Frequency of codetermination at school by gender and age

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

domains surveyed and feel unable to codetermine any of the domains “often. “Boys
gain this impression far more frequently than girls (44% vs. 35%), and 6- to 7-year
olds at 57% far more strongly than 10- to 11-year-olds at 26% (Fig. 4.7).
These reports show the broad possibilities for further extending the degree of
participation in life at school. This is particularly the case for the youngest children,
who are basically 1st- and 2nd-grade elementary school students and, above all, it is
the case for school beginners. Here, the teaching staff should focus on thinking
about new and stronger forms of participation that will let the children know right
at the beginning of their school careers that their wishes and opinions are being
valued and taken seriously. Up to now, many schools do not seem to have taken full
advantage of these opportunities. This is poor educational policy, because impres-
sions gained right at the beginning of schooling are very decisive. When children
become aware right from the start of their school careers that they are able to partici-
pate in organizational and negotiation processes, their commitment to achievement
also increases (Olk and Roth 2007). The first years at school are particularly deci-
sive and set the pattern in every way. This is why they also form the foundation for
all later experiences in life at school.
In this respect, there is a great need to improve things for boys. As pointed out
above, their educational aspirations are lower than those of girls (Table 4.3). This
relates to their notably lower frequency of codetermination in school. In all seven
domains, girls perceive stronger codetermination at school than boys. Girls have a
clear advantage in all activities relating to the communicative situation in the class-
100 M. Pupeter and K. Hurrelmann

“In our school, we are often allowed to have our say in . . .”

28
Whom do we sit next to 33

23
Working out the rules in class 29

21
How is classroom decorated 25

19
Organizing school events 20

Boys
16
Where to go on school outings 16 Girls

11
Prospective class projects 13

10
How are desks arranged 11

| Reports on school events, school outings, and class projects from children in 2nd grade and above

Fig. 4.8  Codetermination at school by gender

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

room and during lessons. Girls more “often” report codetermination in “working
out the rules in your class” (29% vs. 23% in boys), “whom you are allowed to sit
next to” (33% vs. 28%), and deciding “how your classroom is decorated” (25% vs.
21%; see Fig. 4.8).
A look at the close relations between codetermination, commitment, and perfor-
mance shows that these findings deliver important indications regarding the urgently
needed efforts to improve the performance of boys. One strategy to encourage more
intensive integration of boys in lessons and school life could be to use increased
commitment to social rules and regulations to achieve greater commitment to per-
formance. Previous research on these topics has shown how important it is to build
up the same trust in and willingness to get involved in social activities at school in
boys as in girls. This is necessary to counteract their current reluctance to comply
with the social demands of the school that is often due to the performance-deriding
influences of the male peer group. Codetermination could be one way to encourage
their interest in learning and achieving (Hurrelmann and Schultz 2012).

4.4  Most Consider Life at School to Be Fair

Chapter 2 has already pointed out how believing that they have their say in major
decisions in their life world is fundamentally important for children’s sense of jus-
tice or fairness. The more they see themselves as being integrated into the process
4  School: An Increasingly Important Field of Experience 101

Table 4.6  Relation between perceived justice at school and frequency of codetermination
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
Number of domains that are “often” codetermined
Columns in % Total None One 2–3 4 or more
Very fair 22 20 23 22 31
Quite fair 56 51 56 62 58
Rather unfair 16 20 16 13 8
Very unfair 3 4 2 2 2
Don’t know, no reply 3 5 3 1 1

of formulating and further developing rules, the greater their subjective sense of
experiencing fairness.
In the next section, we want to transfer this finding to a life space that has become
so important for children today: the school. We particularly want to look at how the
codetermination children are able to perceive relates to their sense of justice in their
school. Then we shall also turn to the question of how satisfied children are with
their school.

4.4.1  R
 elation Between the Sense of Justice
and Codetermination

The 2013 questionnaire asks “And how fair do you think things are in general?” It
poses this question in relation to the family, to the circle of friends, and to school. In
relation to school, the question is “And in your school? Are things there very fair,
quite fair, rather unfair, or very unfair?”
The majority of children surveyed judge their school to be “very fair” or “quite
fair.” As Table 4.6 shows, 22% find their school “very fair” and 56% “quite fair.”
Negative reports are very weak at 16% “rather unfair” and 3% “very unfair.” Hence,
at 78%, the majority of children give their school quite good grades in the domain
of balancing interests and distributing opportunities. Although, as reported in Chap.
2, the family and circle of friends are evaluated even more positively, this high
­fairness rating is quite remarkable considering that it is being given to an institution
that makes decisive decisions on awarding those certificates that determine future
educational careers, and, in turn, the opportunities for social development. Hence,
the majority of children consider that the school operates and makes its judgments
according to comprehensible criteria. This positive appraisal by children can be
interpreted as indicating that they hold their teachers in high esteem.
Table 4.6 also shows how strongly the sense of justice relates to the level of
potential codetermination in the school: the greater the number of domains in which
they can participate and the greater the variety of design options, the higher their
judgments on fairness. Children who report that they are often able to codetermine
in four or more domains significantly more frequently consider that their school is
102 M. Pupeter and K. Hurrelmann

“very fair.” Children who rate justice negatively (taken together, only just 10%) are
infrequent in this group. However, in the group of children with no possibilities of
codetermination, 24% find school either “rather unfair” or “very unfair.”
How far children consider their teacher to take their opinion seriously (assessed
in Chap. 7) also relates to their sense of justice (no table). On average, almost one-­
third of the children say that they feel respected by their teacher. The proportion of
children who see their school as being “very fair” is markedly higher here at 43%.
Children who see their school as unfair, in contrast, are well below the average here.
A further finding is also interesting in this context: Children who rate school life as
“rather unfair” or “very unfair” classify themselves as performing less well than the
average student.
These findings show how closely the children’s sense of justice relates not only
to the degree of inclusion in school affairs but also to the recognition they receive
from their teachers both personally and in terms of assessing their performance. The
children’s replies suggest that inclusion in school activities and their teachers’
respect for their opinions and achievements can positively promote their sense of
justice. Children who feel involved in the daily issues at school and taken into
account when decisions are made evidently have a better understanding of how
schools are run and how they reach their decisions, have a more empathic under-
standing of how things are interrelated, and therefore perceive the school as being
more fair than those who feel excluded and remain passive. This can be seen clearly
in the three domains of codetermination that are most important for the children
(Fig. 4.9).

“In our school, we are often allowed to have our say in . . .”

28

How is classroom decorated 24

14

30

Working out the rules in class 26

24

34

Whom do we sit next to 33

21

How fair do children find

Very fair Quite fair Not at all and not very fair
their school

Fig. 4.9  Sense of justice in school by selected domains of codetermination

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)
4  School: An Increasingly Important Field of Experience 103

Table 4.7  Satisfaction with school by gender and age

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
6–7 10–11
Columns in % All children Girs Boys years 8–9 years years
Very positive 42 46 38 59 40 32
Positive 37 36 37 26 40 42
Neutral 16 14 19 11 15 22
Negative 3 2 4 2 3 3
Very negative 2 2 2 2 2 1

As the figure shows, children who rate their school as being “very fair” report
being able to codetermine how the classroom is decorated almost twice as fre-
quently (at 28%) as children who do not consider their school to be fair (14%). This
difference can also be seen in choosing whom they sit next to and codetermining the
rules in the class. The more strongly children are involved in shaping important
procedures and the more they can also exert an influence on their social surround-
ings, the most positively they rate their school on the fairness scale. This clearly
indicates starting points for reform. Not only satisfaction but also the sense of jus-
tice relate (at least indirectly) to the children’s achievement at school. Any plan to
strengthen achievement cannot just be attained through a greater encouragement of
learning in the teaching of individual subjects, but also through including children
in the sociospatial design of the workplace known as school.

4.4.2  Relation Between the Sense of Justice and Satisfaction

When asked how much they like school, the children’s answers on a 5-point smiley
scale are generally positive. A total of 42% give very positive answers and 37%
positive ones (Table 4.7). Only 16% give a neutral rating; 3%, a negative one; and
2%, a very negative one. This means that 79% of the children associate school with
positive feelings. Compared to 2010, this rating has gone up 9% (pointing to posi-
tive developments in the elementary school domain).
Girls in general are far more satisfied with school than boys with 82% giving
“very positive” and “positive” reports compared to 75% among boys. This confirms
the trends we have already reported for the domain of educational aspirations and
particularly for which school leaving qualification children aspire to (Table  4.3).
The distribution of ratings on satisfaction with school also varies according to age.
Younger children have a far more positive perception of school with 59% of 6- to
7-year-olds finding it “very positive” and a further 26% finding it “positive.” Among
older age groups, the “very positives” decline. Whereas 40% of the 8- to 9- year-­
olds consider school to be “very positive” and a further 40% to be “positive,” among
the 10- to 11- year-olds, this drops to 32% “very positive” and 40% “positive.”
104 M. Pupeter and K. Hurrelmann

Not fair at all/Not very fair 8 10 30 28 24

Very negative
Negative
Quite fair 2 16 45 37 Neutral
Positive
Very positive

Very fair 16 21 72

Fig. 4.10  Relation between satisfaction with school and sense of justice
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

The children’s sense of justice also shows a close relation to general satisfaction
with school. Students who consider school to be “rather unfair” or “very unfair” are
also less satisfied with school in general and vice versa (Fig. 4.10). More than two-­
thirds of the students who view school as “very fair” are also very satisfied with
their school (72%). This indicates once again how strongly the children sense
whether they are treated fairly or not and whether they are included in important
decision making in daily school life. Positive experiences in these domains increase
satisfaction with the school.

References

Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung. (2012). Bildung in Deutschland 2012. Ein indika-

torengestützter Bericht mit einer Analyse zu Perspektiven des Bildungswesens im demograf-
ischen Wandel. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag.
Bacher, J., Winkelhofer, U., & Teubner, M. (2007). Partizipation von Kindern in der Grundschule.
In Alt, C. (Hrsg.), Kinderleben – Start in die Grundschule (Band 3: Ergebnisse aus der zweiten
Welle, S. 137 – 163). Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Baumert, J., Stanat, P., & Watermann, R. (Hrsg.). (2006). Herkunftsbedingte Disparitäten im
Bildungswesen. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Bos, W., Klieme, E., & Köller, O. (Hrsg.). (2010). Schulische Lerngelegenheiten und
Kompetenzentwicklung. Münster: Waxmann.
Bremm, N. (2013). Schulen mit ganztägigem Angebot. Vorbereitung einer Typologie. Diskurs
Kindheits- und Jugendforschung 12, S. 23 – 38.
4  School: An Increasingly Important Field of Experience 105

Fischer, N., Holtappels, H.  G., Rauschenbach, T., Stecher, L., & Zürchner, I. (Hrsg.). (2011).
Ganztagsschule; Entwicklung, Qualität, Wirkungen. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.
Hadjar, A., & Becker, R. (Hrsg.). (2006). Die Bildungsexpansion. Wiesbaden: Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Hopf, W. (2010). Freiheit-Leistung-Ungleichheit. Bildung und soziale Herkunft in Deutschland.
Weinheim: Beltz.
Hurrelmann, K., & Schultz, T., (Hrsg.). (2012). Jungen als Bildungsverlierer. Weinheim: Beltz
Juventa.
Hurrelmann, K., Quenzel, G., & Rathmann, K. (2011). Bildungspolitik als Bestandteil moderner
Wohlfahrtspolitik. Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation, 31, S. 313 – 328.
KMK Sekretariat. (2012). Allgemein bildende Schulen in Ganztagsform in Ländern der
Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Bonn und Berlin: KMK.
LBS-Kinderbarometer. (2011). Stimmungen, Trends und Meinungen von Kindern aus Deutschland.
Recklinghausen: RDN Verlag.
Leven, I., & Schneekloth, U. (2010). Die Schule: Frühe Vergabe von Lebenschancen. In World
Vision Deutschland. (Hrsg.), Kinder in Deutschland 2010 (S. 161–185). Frankfurt a. M.:
Fischer.
Maaz, K., Baumert, J., Gresch, C., & McElvany, N. (Hrsg.). (2010) Der Übergang von der
Grundschule in die weiterführenden Schulen. Berlin und Bonn: BMBF.
Olk, T., & Roth, R. (2007). Mehr Partizipation wagen. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Quenzel, G., & Hurrelmann, K. (Hrsg.). (2010). Bildungsverlierer. Wiesbaden: Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Stange, W., Meinhold-Henschel, S., & Schack, S. (2009). Mitwirkung (er)leben. Handbuch
zur Durchführung von Beteiligungsprojekten mit Kindern und Jugendlichen. Gütersloh:
Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Stecher, L., Krüger, H. H., & Rauschenbach, T. (Hrsg.). (2011). Ganztagsschule – neue Schule?
Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Stubbe, T. (2009). Bildungsentscheidungen und sekundäre Herkunftseffekte. Münster: Waxmann.
Chapter 5
Leisure Time: Varied and Colorful, but Not
For All Children

Agnes Jänsch and Ulrich Schneekloth

Together with attending school, spending leisure time both together with and apart
from the family is a major life domain for 6- to 11-year old children. It offers oppor-
tunities to gain important experiences and acquire knowledge beyond that at school.
The 2007 and 2010 Child Studies have already shown how strongly leisure time
differs according to not only age group and social class but also personal disposi-
tions. To make the different patterns of leisure activities easier to grasp, we devel-
oped a leisure typology (Leven and Schneekloth 2007) that permits a more detailed
analysis of the specific preferences of media consumers, normal leisure users, and
all-rounders.
After giving a general report on the current leisure-time activities of 6- to
11-year-old children while paying particular attention to age effects, gender effects,
and the use of electronic media, we shall take a closer look at the three leisure types
and how they use their leisure time. We are particularly interested in how family
support structures differ in the three groups and how their leisure behavior has
changed since 2007. A further important aspect is institutional leisure activities.
How are children integrated into clubs or other service structures in the musical and
cultural domain, and have children from financially and socially disadvantaged
families managed to gain more access? Then we shall take a look at one specific
aspect of leisure activities: the use of the Internet and mobile phones as components
of contemporary communication that are becoming increasingly just as important
for children as they are for adults.
These different aspects of our analysis finally lead us to ask how far children
themselves are satisfied with their leisure time and which factors they consider to be
decisive for their level of satisfaction.

A. Jänsch (*) • U. Schneekloth

Kantar Public, München, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 107

S. Andresen et al. (eds.), Well-being, Poverty and Justice from a Child’s
Perspective, Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research 17,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57574-2_5
108 A. Jänsch and U. Schneekloth

5.1  Children’s Leisure Activities

5.1.1  W
 ide Range of Popular Activities from Making Things
to Television and Sports

As in the previous Child Studies, we also asked the children how frequently they
engage in different activities in their leisure time in 2013. They could use one of
three response categories: “hardly ever,” “sometimes,” and “very often.” Since the
first Child Study, our intention has been to develop a list that will cover the entire
spectrum of childhood leisure activities. Therefore, we have updated and extended
our list repeatedly. Compared to the first two Child Studies, we have modified our
list of possible leisure activities in line with two goals: (1) to make our survey more
gender-neutral by avoiding a one-sided bias in favor of typical activities for girls;
and (2) to adequately reflect the entire breadth of childhood leisure activities by
broadening single items or summarizing related activities. For example, “riding my
bike” has been extended to include “inline skating or “skateboarding.” “Making
things” first introduced in 2010 has been modified to “making things with tools” and
“building things with Lego©” has been supplemented by “or playing with
Playmobil©.” We have changed “doing things with animals,” to “engaging with
nature or animals” as a relevant leisure-time category, and we introduced “playing
outside on the street” as being a typical childhood leisure activity. Finally, we added
“listening to audio plays or stories” to our list.
According to their own reports, the children in our survey most frequently play
at home with their toys (54% “very often”). They also engage particularly frequently
in sports (53%), listen to music (52%), watch television (50%), or meet their friends
(51%).
Alongside these possible leisure activities, a relatively large proportion of chil-
dren (30% and more) report engaging in the following activities “very often”: “rid-
ing a bike, inline skating, or skateboarding” (38%), “reading (looking at) books or
magazines” (31 %), “handicrafts, painting, or drawing” (35%), “engaging with
nature or animals” (32%), and “playing outside on the street” (30%).
For a slightly smaller proportion of children, “playing a musical instrument,
making music” (20%), “PlayStation, Nintendo, Wii, computer games” (23%),
“building things with Lego or playing with Playmobil©” (28%), “doing things
together with my family” (27%), and “listening to audio plays or stories” (24%) are
a very frequent part of their daily lives.
In contrast, only 14% of the children report “theater group, dance, or ballet” as
an activity they engage in “very often”; and, at 8%, “making things with tools” is
one of the less popular leisure activities. Both options are relatively gender-typical
activities, although we shifted “theater” to the front of the first item in order to make
it more accessible to boys. A separate analysis reveals that 26% of the girls report
belonging to a theater, dance, or ballet group “very often” compared to only 3% of
boys. Parent reports on club memberships reveal that ballet and dance are clearly
more popular than theater among girls. Boys, in contrast, are clearly in the majority
5  Leisure Time: Varied and Colorful, but Not For All Children 109

Table 5.1  What do children do most often in their lesiure time

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
All 6–7 8–9 10–11
Columns in % children Girls Boys years years years
Playing with my toys at home 54 52 56 72 59 37
Sports 53 45 61 45 56 57
Listening to music 52 58 47 44 52 59
Meeting friends 51 52 50 45 51 55
Watching television 50 45 54 50 50 49
Bike, inline skates, or skateboard 38 35 41 33 40 40
Handicrafts, painting, or drawing 35 46 25 45 41 23
Nature or animals 32 37 28 29 34 34
Reading/Looking at books or 31 36 27 31 32 31
magazines
Playing outside on the street 30 26 34 27 32 30
Playing with Lego™/Playmobil™ 28 15 40 38 31 17
Excursions with family 27 28 26 28 29 25
Listening to audio plays/stories 24 27 21 31 26 17
Playstation, Nintendo, Wii, computer 23 17 29 16 26 26
games
Playing an instrument, making music 20 26 15 16 22 22
Theater/Dance/Ballet 14 26 3 13 17 12
Making things with tools 8 3 13 8 10 7

when it comes to making things with tools; 13% report that they engage in this
activity “very often” in their leisure time compared to only 3% of girls.
Table 5.1 presents an overview on the frequencies of the various leisure activities
itemized according to gender and age group. To make the table easier to follow,
activities are ranked according to how frequently they are named by all children and
not according to the sequence in which they were presented in the questionnaire
(see the appendix for the questionnaire).

5.1.2  A
 ge-Specific Structure of Leisure Activities: Range
of Activities Increases and Children Have a Wider Range
of Different Media Devices

Whereas some leisure activities such as looking at books or magazines and playing
on the street are engaged in equally frequently by children of all age groups, others
reveal an age-specific course. Younger children far more frequently report playing
at home “very often” than older children. A total of 72% of 6- to 7-year-olds fre-
quently play with their toys at home, compared to only 37% of 10- to 11-year-olds.
The activities “making things, painting, or drawing,” “building things with Lego or
playing with Playmobil©,” and “listening to audio plays or stories” also reveal a
110 A. Jänsch and U. Schneekloth

similar age trend. Although this may be due to different leisure preferences, it may
also be due to external factors: Whereas younger children generally receive far more
care and supervision from their parents and thereby have closer ties to their home
environments, older children are already granted more autonomy and freedom, and
they can take advantage of this to engage in other leisure pursuits that are more
frequently outside the parental home. The increased naming of activities such as
“sports,” “meeting friends,” and “riding a bike, inline skating, or skateboarding”
support this hypothesis because these all tend to take place outside the home.
Nonetheless, 10- to 11-year-olds also engage in activities predominantly at home
such as “listening to music,” “PlayStation, Nintendo, Wii, computer games,” or
“playing a musical instrument, making music.” However, all these pursuits require
children to have certain equipment at their disposal  – be this a hi-fi system, a
PlayStation, or a musical instrument – and this is far less frequently the case for
younger children. Sixty-five percent of 6- to 7-year-olds report having their own
radio compared to 75% of 10- to 11-year-olds. Whereas 12% of the youngest chil-
dren have their own laptop or computer, among the older children, this is 45%.
Eighteen percent of the 6- to 7-year-olds have their own games console (42% their
own Gameboy) compared to 41% of 10- to 11-year-olds (68% their own Gameboy).
Their own CD or MP3 player is found in 64% versus 82% of children’s rooms and
a DVD or Blu-Ray player in 13% versus 29%. This age-related increase in media
equipment is also reflected in the use of the available equipment, and thereby con-
tributes to different leisure activities in different age groups. What is conspicuous
here is that this does not apply to the frequency of watching television. Whereas
20% of the youngest age group and 43% of the 10- to 11-year-olds report having
their own television, the extent of television consumption remains surprisingly con-
stant across age groups. Approximately one-half of each age group reports watching
television “very often.” Evidently, even when younger children do not have a televi-
sion in their own room, the one in the parental household is relatively freely acces-
sible to them.

5.1.3  G
 ender-Specific Differences in Leisure Activities: Sport
and Media for Boys; Music and Creative Activities
for Girls

Leisure preferences do not just differ according to age but also according to gender.
Boys name movement-related activities more frequently: that is, they engage more
often in sports (61% vs. 45%); ride bikes, inline skates, or skateboards more (41%
vs. 35%); and play on the street more (34% vs. 26%). However, they also engage
more in passive leisure options such as watching television (54% vs. 45%) and play-
ing with PlayStation or computers (29% vs. 17%). Although girls engage less fre-
quently in sports such as swimming or soccer, they are more active, as mentioned
above, in the field of “theater group, dance, or ballet” (26% vs. 3%). Hence, they
5  Leisure Time: Varied and Colorful, but Not For All Children 111

combine sports with music and creative activities in their leisure time. They tend to
be more creative in general, as shown by the frequency reports for “handicrafts,
painting, or drawing” (46% vs. 25%), “reading (or looking at) books or magazines”
(36% vs. 27%), and “playing a musical instrument, making music” (26% vs. 15%).
In addition, girls listen to music more frequently than boys (58% vs. 47%) and
spend more time “engaging with nature or animals” (37% vs. 28%).
As already reported in the 2010 Child Study under the heading Der kulturell-­
musische Freizeitbereich  – Jungen verlieren hier den Anschluss [Boys are losing
touch with the cultural and musical domain], boys in general far less frequently
belong to cultural and musical clubs and groups than girls. According to parent
reports, 47% of all girls have at least one club membership in this domain compared
to only 19% of boys. At 27% in girls and 16% in boys, the most popular cultural and
musical leisure activity is membership of a music group or music school. Girls also
very frequently belong to a ballet group or dance club (25%), whereas this is very
much the exception among boys at only 2%. Painting and theater groups are among
the least frequently attended organized leisure activities in both genders with only
3% of girls and 1% of boys belonging to a painting group. Whereas 4% of girls
participate in a theater or movie group, boys are almost completely absent here. In
particular, multiple memberships are something for girls – 11% of them belong to
more than one organized group in the cultural and musical domain compared to
only 1% of boys.

5.1.4  C
 omputer Games: An Everyday Pastime for Many
Children

The most recent study on children’s use of the media, computers, and the Internet in
Germany, the KIM study (Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbunds Südwest
2013) confirms that adults often disapprove of “the use of digital games – on com-
puters, game consoles, or the Internet. Nonetheless, for one-quarter of all children
(particularly boys), playing such games is one of their favorite leisure activities and
is – similar to television and radio – something they take for granted in daily media
life” (p. 46, translated).
As Table 5.1 shows, for 23% of the 6- to 11-year-olds in the current Child Study,
computer games and game consoles are not just part of daily life but are even played
“very often.” Since 2007, the proportion of 8- to 11-year-olds1 who report playing
with a computer or game console “very often” has declined slightly from 29% to
26%. However, since 2010 when the breadth of use was assessed in more detail
(“What about computer games, Gameboy, PlayStation, and the like? How often do
you play with them?”), it has proved to be relatively constant. Among 6- to

1
 The group of 6- to 7-year-olds was not included in these analyses, because it was not surveyed in
2007, making a direct comparison across all children impossible.
112 A. Jänsch and U. Schneekloth

2010 42 15 10 24 6 1
6–7
2013 40 9 15 24 3 4

2010 26 13 16 30 10 4
8–9
2013 29 12 15 26 8 7

2010 20 10 15 36 10 9
10 – 11
2013 23 9 15 30 9 13

Hardly ever
Not very often
Maximum one hour a week
Several times a week but not more than one hour a day
Every day but not more than one hour at a time
Several times a day or more than one hour a day
| Failure to reach 100% due to “Don’t know/No answer” responses

Fig. 5.1  Frequency of playing computer games by age groups over time
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

1­ 1-year-­olds,2 14% in 2010 and 15% in 2013 play computer games “at the most, one
hour a week”; 31% in 2010 and 27% in 2013, “several times a week for up to one
hour a day”; 9% in 2010 and 7% in 2013, “every day, but up to one hour a day”; and
5% in 2010 and 8% in 2013, “several times a day for more than one hour a day.” In
contrast, roughly 30% of children at each assessment “hardly ever” spend their lei-
sure time playing with computers and game consoles.
Figure 5.1 presents the frequencies of computer game use in different age groups.
It reveals a clear increase with age: Whereas 40% of 6- and 7-year-olds hardly ever
play with a computer or game console, this drops to 29% in the intermediate age
group, and to 23% in the 10- to 11-year-olds.
A comparison between those girls and boys who “very often” or “sometimes”
spend their time playing computer games reveals a gender effect: When girls are
asked to give more detailed reports on the extent of their use of computers or game
consoles, 24% say that they hardly ever or only sometimes play with computers.
Only 13% of boys report such a low usage. Twenty-three percent of girls spend a
maximum of one hour a week on computer games compared to 18% of boys. In
contrast, 65% of boys report using computers several times a week or even every
day, whereas, at 50%, notably fewer girls report such intensive use (Fig. 5.2).
Both the findings on the increasing frequency of playing computer games as
children grow older and the gender differences found here are in line with the results
of the German KIM study on children and the media. This confirmed a greater affin-

2
 This question has been posed only since the 2010 Child Study that also surveyed 6- to 7-year-old
children. This permits a comparison of trends across age groups.
5  Leisure Time: Varied and Colorful, but Not For All Children 113

Several times a day or more 8

than one hour a day 14
Girls
Every day but no more than 8 Boys
one hour at a time 11

Several times a week but no 34

more than one hour a day 40

Maximum one hour a 23

week 18

18
Not very often
10

6
Hardly ever
3

Failure to reach 100% due to “Don’t know/No answer” responses

Fig. 5.2  Frequency of playing computer games by gender

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years who previously reported playing computer/Playstation
“very often” or “sometimes” (%)

ity to digital games among boys and a decline in the number of nonplayers with
increasing age (Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbunds Südwest 2013).

5.2  A
 Typology of Leisure Time: Groups Differ in Reading
and Media Consumption

The typology of leisure time developed for the World Vision Child Study is based
on the list of leisure activities reported in Table 5.1. A factor analysis of the fre-
quency reports revealed four different domains of leisure activities. These could be
labeled Culture, Sport/Exercise, Media, and Play (at home). These factors then
formed the starting point for a cluster analysis that resulted in a typology containing
three groups of children: “media consumers,” “normal leisure users,” and
“all-rounders.”
According to the present data for 2013, approximately one-quarter of the chil-
dren can be assigned to media consumers (26%) and one-quarter to the all-rounders
(25%). The remaining one-half (49%) are normal leisure users. This corresponds
roughly with the distribution across the different groups found in both the First and
Second World Vision Child Studies.
Figure 5.3 shows that whereas some leisure activities are engaged in equally
frequently by children in all three groups, others are particularly characteristic of
one of the two extreme groups: media consumers or all-rounders. Hence, these
activities can be used to differentiate between the two. For example, media consum-
114 A. Jänsch and U. Schneekloth

Versatile children Normal leisure users Media consumers

- Playing with toys 57 54 52

- Sports 55 53 51

- Listening to music 59 55 43

- Meeting friends 55 49 50

- Watching television 13 48 87

- Bike, inline skates, or skateboard 42 36 37

- Handicrafts, painting, or drawing 59 34 17

- Nature or animals 52 30 19
- Reading 61 29 8

- Playing outside on the street 28 28 34

- Lego™/Playmobil™ 25 28 29

- Excursions with family 43 26 14

- Listening to audio plays/stories 39 23 13

- PlayStation/Computer games 2 16 56

- Making music 48 15 4

36 10 2
- Theater/Dance/Ballet
- Making things with tools 8 9 6

Fig. 5.3  Typical activities from different leisure types in 2013

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

ers are characterized by a particularly frequent use of electronic media such as tele-
vision, computers, and game consoles. They very infrequently engage in creative
and cultural activities such as reading, making things, and painting or making
music. Normal leisure users can be found in all activities; however, there are no
domains in which they stand out through extreme engagement or a complete lack of
interest. Finally, as already reported in the previous Child Studies, all-rounders
engage particularly frequently in musical and cultural activities in which media
consumers show hardly any interest. The former read, make things and paint a lot,
make music, play theater, or they take ballet lessons. They are also characterized by
a particularly low television consumption and extremely infrequent use of computer
games.
As already seen in 2010, all-rounders engage in significantly more different lei-
sure activities in 2013 as well. However, as well as differing in the number of leisure
activities, the leisure types also differ in their content. Around one-third of all-­
rounders say that they very often take part in a theater group, dance, or ballet,
whereas less than 10% of the normal leisure users and media consumers engage in
such activities very often. Results are similar for playing a musical instrument:
Almost one-half of the all-rounders do this frequently, but normal leisure users and
media consumers do so markedly less often. All-rounders also predominantly view
handicrafts, painting, and drawing as an integral part of their leisure time. More than
one-half of them report engaging in such activities very often compared to only
roughly one-third of normal leisure users and one-fifth of media consumers.
This difference between all-rounders and media consumers is particularly drastic
when it comes to reading – a leisure activity that is a particularly important basic
5  Leisure Time: Varied and Colorful, but Not For All Children 115

cultural technique in the musical and cultural domain. More than 60% of all-­
rounders report that reading is one of the activities they engage in very often com-
pared to less than 10% of media consumers. Evidently, in many cases, media
consumers drop reading as a source of information and inspiration with all its
­creative potential in favor of the markedly more passive medium of television. A
total of 87% of the children in this group report watching television very often com-
pared to only 13% of all-rounders. A clear difference can even be found when look-
ing at those children in both groups who report watching television very often:
Media consumers most frequently report watching television for 1–2 hours per day;
all-­rounders, for 0.5–1 hour per day. This also shows how the children’s evaluation
standards differ: Whereas all-rounders already consider 30–60 min a day of televi-
sion as very often, this category stands for several hours a day in media-oriented
children. A correlation analysis reveals a significant negative relation between the
amount of television watching and the frequency of reading:3 Children who watch a
lot of television have less to do with books and vice versa.
Media consumers are also characterized quite clearly by a more frequent use of
further electronic media such as PlayStation, Nintendo, Wii, and other computer
games. In contrast, all-rounders hardly use these, with only 2% reporting that they
play with them often. More detailed questions on the extent of use reveal that 14%
of all-rounders play computer games several times a week or even daily compared
to 71% of media consumers. Hence, all-rounders and media consumers differ not
only in their self-reports on how far computer games belong to their preferred lei-
sure activities but also in the number of hours they report playing them. Here as
well, a rank correlation reveals a significant negative relation between the extent of
media use and the frequency of reading.

5.2.1  D
 ifferent Family Incentive Structures: Broad Range
of Media Equipment Versus Books and Doing Things
Together

It is not just the reported leisure activities in the musical and creative domain and
media use that differentiate clearly between the various leisure groups. They also
show fundamental differences in what is available to them within their family
framework.
Whereas 44% of media consumers report having their own television in their
room, this is the case for only 18% of all-rounders. Approximately one-third of
media consumers have their own DVD or Blu-ray player compared to only about
10% of all-rounders. Likewise, an own computer (32%), a game console (51%), and
a Gameboy (72%) are to be found far more frequently in the media consumers’
rooms than in those of the all-rounders (computer: 24%, game console: 14%,

 Nonparametric test: Spearman’s correlation coefficient significant on the 5% level.

3
116 A. Jänsch and U. Schneekloth

12
Three or more bookshelves
18
(more than 200 books)
38

15
About two bookshelves (101–
24
200 books)
25

40
About one bookshelf (25 –100
36
books)
28

19
About one shelf (11–24 Media consumers
14
books)
7 Normal leisure users

10 Versatile children
Only a few (up to 10 books) 4
1

Failure to reach 100% due to “Don’t know/No answer” responses

Fig. 5.4  Number of books in the family home by different leisure types
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

Gameboy: 44%). However, the two groups hardly differ when it comes to having
their own mobile phone: 42% of media consumers and 38% of all-rounders.
However, at 48%, media consumers more frequently have their own Internet access
than all-rounders (42%).
The comparatively greater range of electronic media in the children’s rooms con-
trasts with the presence of books in the home (Fig. 5.4). When we ask both media
consumers and normal leisure users how many books there are in their homes, their
most frequent answer is “about one shelf (25–100 books).” All-rounders, in con-
trast, most frequently answer “three or more shelves (more than 200 books).” Even
when this is not explicitly literature for children, that is, books with which the
respondent’s themselves can spend their leisure time, answers do indicate the status
of reading in that household. Whereas all-rounders evidently grow up particularly
frequently in families in which books are considered to be important and are
­correspondingly granted a great deal of space within the family home, media con-
sumers and normal leisure-time users live in less book-friendly environments.
Spending leisure time actively together is also particularly characteristic of fami-
lies with all-rounders. We find that 43% of these children report very frequently
going on excursions together with their families. This contrasts with only 26% of
normal leisure users and 14% of media consumers. In addition, parents of all-­
rounders grant their children more codetermination about potential leisure activi-
ties. Whereas 68% of media consumers say that they can “sometimes” codetermine
what the family does together during leisure time, this compares with 75% of nor-
mal leisure users and even 83% of all-rounders. Interestingly, all-rounders have
more codetermination over what they do in general. A total of 90% are allowed to
5  Leisure Time: Varied and Colorful, but Not For All Children 117

codetermine what they do in their leisure time compared to 84% of normal leisure
users and 83% of media consumers (see also Chap. 7 on codetermination).
Hence, all-rounders receive more family support and encouragement in general,
and this expresses itself not only in an emphasis on musical and creative activities
but also in a broader family leisure program. Their particularly caring parents do not
prescribe the planning activities together with the family or leisure time in general.
In contrast, they coordinate them more closely with their children than parents of
the other two leisure types.

5.2.2  S
 ocial and Material Constraints as Risk Factors
for Excessive Media Consumption

We computed a nominal regression to take a closer look at which factors in the fam-
ily influence the membership of one of the three leisure groups (Table 5.2).4 Results
show that girls belong more frequently to the all-rounders and less frequently to the
media consumers than boys. This is not surprising because there is a relatively
strong agreement between the leisure pursuits that girls report engaging in particu-
larly often and those preferred by all-rounders. Already in 2010, we found that three
times as many girls as boys were all-rounders. This is also confirmed in the present
study, along with the finding that this relation inverts for media consumers. The age
groups differ insofar as children in the youngest age group belong significantly less
often to the media consumers than members of the other two age groups.
Computations also show that children from the lower social classes are less likely to
belong to the all-rounder group than those from the more educated classes, and
there is a very strong probability of finding them among the media consumers. A
care deficit from one or both parents is also a risk factor for children who spend their
leisure time as media consumers. In addition, children who report having experi-
enced poverty significantly less frequently belong to the group of all-rounders com-
pared to their more affluent peers.
Hence, both material and social deficits within the family continue to impose
decisive constraints on the versatility of children’s leisure time. On the one hand, the
parents’ lack of financial resources makes it harder for them to offer their children a
comparable range of opportunities as in more affluent families. On the other hand,
deficits in social care from either one or both parents can lead a child to turn to the
media as an alternative source of stimulation. In contrast, no fundamental cultural
differences can be ascertained. A possible migration background does not, in itself,
have any effect in either one or the other direction. What is decisive here is how
class membership moderates the relation. Whereas 20% of native German children
belong to the lower class or the lower middle class, this applies to 34% of children

 Relations reported here are statistically significant on the 5% level.

4
118 A. Jänsch and U. Schneekloth

Table 5.2  Significant relations between leisure types and personal and social variablesa
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
% (per line) Versatile children Normal leisure users Media consumers
Total 25 49 26
Gender
Girls 38b 49 13
Boys 12 49 39b
Social origin
Lower class 7b 47 46b
Lower middle class 13b 53 34
Middle class 20 50 30
Upper middle class 31b 48 21b
Upper class 45b 44 11b
Experienced poverty
No experience of poverty 27 48 25
Constraints 22 51 27
Specific experience of 14b 52 34
poverty
Age
6–7 years 26 51 23b
8–9 years 26 47 27
10–11 years 23 48 29
Parental care and attention
No deficit 26 50 24
Deficit in one parent 20 45 35b
Care deficit 20 44 36b
a
The relationship was tested with a multivariate nominal regression on the variable “leisure”
Variables included: age, gender, social origin, experience of poverty, care deficit, and migration
background
b
For ease of presentation, bivariate values are presented as percentages in the table. Notable devia-
tions for variables that were also significant within the multivariate statistical analysis are printed
in bold (p < .05)

with a migration background, and this leads to a basically greater probability of

spending leisure time as a media consumer.

5.2.3  L
 eisure-Time Types and Their Activities Across Time:
Increasingly Less Time for Reading

As pointed out above, “reading,” “watching television,” and “PlayStation/computer

games” are types of leisure activity that distinguish particularly clearly between the
two extreme groups in our leisure typology: media consumers and all-rounders.
Hence, it is particularly worth taking a look at the trends in these three leisure
5  Leisure Time: Varied and Colorful, but Not For All Children 119

activities. When tracked across time in all three leisure groups, we can see a slight
decline in television consumption. Whereas in 2007, 56% of children reported
watching television very often, this dropped to 48% in 2010 before rising again
slightly to 49% in 2013.5 In all three survey years, frequent computer use varies
between 25% and 30%, and about one-third of all children read very often.
However, the two extreme groups reveal a somewhat different trend: Whereas
television viewing remains on a constantly high level of approximately 80% to 90%
in media consumers, it is declining among all-rounders. Whereas in 2007, 24% of
the latter still reported watching television very frequently; in 2013, it is only 12%.
It is not only the proportion of all-rounders who watch a lot of television that is in
decline, but also the amount of time they spend watching each day. Of the 8- to
11-year-old all-rounders who reported watching television very often in 2007, 23%
watched for 2–3 hours per day. In 2013, this has dropped to only 14%. Among
media consumers, in contrast, we observe an opposite trend. Whereas in 2007,
approximately 30% watched television for 2–3 hours or more a day, in 2013,
approximately 40% of those who say they watch television very often do so for 2–3
hours or more.
All-rounders also reveal a decline in playing computer games. Whereas approxi-
mately 60% of 8- to 11-year-old media consumers report playing on computers or
game consoles very often in all three surveys, the proportion of all-rounders here
has dropped from 10% to 2%. Moreover, when asked in more detail, the proportion
of all-rounders who report spending time on computer games several times a week
or even daily has dropped from 18% in 2010 to the aforementioned 14% in 2013.
For the media-oriented children, in contrast, the proportion reporting several times
a week or daily continues to be 71%.
Regarding reading, we can initially determine no clear trend. About 10% of
media consumers report reading “very often” in all three surveys. In 2007, 63% of
the all-rounders reported very often spending their leisure time reading; in 2010,
this even rose to 76%, and in 2013, this returned to almost the same frequency as in
2007 at 62%. Hence, the subjectively perceived frequency of spending time with
books seems to remain more or less constant or is subject to fluctuations that fail to
form any clear trend. However, when questioned more closely as to how often they
read or look at books in their homes, we can see that the frequency of spending time
with books is declining. Among media consumers, it was 9% in 2007, 5% in 2010,
and now 6% in 2013 who spend time with books every day. Among all-rounders,
this was 42% in 2007, 39% in 2010, and is now only 28% in 2013. It is precisely in
this group in which frequent reading is a fundamental part of leisure that we can see
a particularly significant decline in its actual frequency.

5
 To ensure comparability, only the trend calculations were included for 8- to 11-year-olds covering
the years 2007, 2010, and 2013.
120 A. Jänsch and U. Schneekloth

5.3  I nstitutional Leisure Activities: A Possible Compensatory

Source of Stimulation When the Family Is Unable
to Provide It?

As pointed out above, family factors exert a major influence on how children shape
their leisure. Whereas those from more affluent social classes more frequently
belong to the all-rounder group and spend their leisure in a variety of ways with a
focus on musical and creative activities, children from the lower social classes tend
toward a more one-sided media-oriented use of leisure. Government interventions
such as special social transfers to children (for extra tuition or school materials)
should help to ensure that children from lower social classes can also take advantage
of social, cultural, and educational facilities. Funds are made available for these
children to, for example, join a sports club or attend a music school. On the one
hand, this can offer them experiences that their own families are unable to provide
because of limited income, and, on the other hand, it could compensate for any
potential care deficits. In view of the finding that 10% of children from the lower
class report a lack of attention from one parent and even 28% a lack of attention
from both, it is precisely the second aspect that would seem to indicate the most
important task for extrafamilial and leisure services.
Germany has a wide range of institutional leisure and cultural provisions. These
are traditionally organized in the form of clubs and associations – particularly when
it comes to sports. There are also church-run provisions as well as what are fre-
quently private and commercial services provided by music, dance, and ballet
schools. In the Child Study, we asked parents to tell us whether their child is a
member of such a club, association or other kind of organized group.
With a few individual exceptions, trends reveal a slight decline in memberships
of clubs and groups or the use of other such provisions since the last Child Study.
Between 2007 and 2010  in contrast, we found a slight increase.6 Among 8- to
11-year-olds, who have been surveyed since the first Child Study, 74% belonged to
at least one club in 2007 and 80% in 2010, whereas in 2013, 78% of parents report
that their child is organized in at least one regular group or association. As before, it
is membership of sports clubs that is strongest among the 8- to 11-year-olds. At
57%, more than one child in two is active here. This is followed by musical and
cultural provisions (music groups/music schools: 21%, dance club/ballet: 13%).
Activities in church-run groups are reported for 7% of children. Further member-
ships and use of provisions are listed in Table 5.3.

6
 We have surveyed 6- to 7-year-olds only since 2010. However, the increase in memberships iden-
tified here could be ascertained independent of age.
5  Leisure Time: Varied and Colorful, but Not For All Children 121

Table 5.3  Membership in clubs and organized groups or use of other such provisions
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (2007: 8–11 years)
Positive answers per cell in % 2007 2010 2013
Clubs, groups, or use of other provisions (multiple responses)
Sports club 58 62 57
Music group/music school 21 23 21
Dance club/Ballet 10 10 13
Painting/drawing group 2 2 2
Theater or movie group 3 3 2
Church group 11 10 7
Girl guides/boy scouts 2 2 2
Nature or animal protection society 1 1 1
Organized group in a child or youth club 4 3 2
Traditional costumes and folklore clubs 1 1 1
Other 7 7 5
None of the above 27 22 25

5.3.1  Declining Club Memberships in the Lower Classes

Table 5.4 reports the proportions of children who are members of clubs, belong to
organized groups, or use other musical and cultural provisions across time broken
down according to social origins. Trends show a conspicuous decline particularly
among 6- to 7-year-olds. This applies above all to children from the lower classes.
There are also fluctuations among the 8- to 9-year-olds and the 10- to 11-year-­
olds, although these do not relate to social class so clearly. Looking just at the lower
class, the proportion of 8- to 9-year-olds belonging to clubs or groups in our first
Child Study in 2007 was 35%. This rose to 49% in 2010, and has now dropped back
to 37%. Among the 10- to 11-year-olds, memberships in the lowest social class have
fluctuated from 58% over 47% to a current 53%. Among the 6- to 7-year-olds who
have been included since our second Child Study, the rate is currently 18% com-
pared to 30% in 2010.

5.3.2  S
 ocial Class and Not Type of School Determines Club
Membership

When interpreting these findings, it is worth considering the influence of the type of
school children are attending. Those attending an all-day school have less free time
at their disposal for clubs and groups. Moreover, the all-day school provisions rang-
ing from sports to music and theater groups already cover several activities that are
otherwise organized in clubs. As reported in Chap. 4, the proportion of all-day stu-
dents rose from 13% in 2007 to 17% in 2010 and is now 24% in 2013. Moreover,
lower class children attend all-day schools more frequently than those from higher
122 A. Jänsch and U. Schneekloth

Table 5.4  Membership in a club or participation in an organized group

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
2007 2010 2013
Per cell in 6–7 8–9 10–11 6–7 8–9 10–11 6–7 8–9 10–11
% years years years years years years years years years
Lower – 35 58 30 49 47 18 37 53
class
Lower – 61 64 59 69 63 54 71 65
middle
class
Middle – 67 71 75 77 81 59 80 77
class
Upper – 85 87 81 90 92 82 82 86
middle
class
Upper – 91 87 94 98 94 93 86 95
class

social classes (31% all-day students in the lower class vs. 20% in the upper class).
Hence, the greater attendance of all-day schools already at elementary school age
and particularly among children from lower social classes could correspondingly
lead to a lower participation in clubs and groups.
Interestingly, however, the proportions of both all-day and half-day students who
are members of a club or an established group have converged strongly in recent
years. Whereas in 2007, 25% of the 8- to 11-year-old half-day students and 37% of
the all-day students of the same age were not in any club or using a corresponding
service, in 2010, these figures had dropped to 19% and 27% respectively. In the cur-
rent survey, 25% of the parents of half-day and 27% of the parents of all-day stu-
dents report that their child does not belong to a club or engage in any other
provisions (Table 5.5). The only relevant difference is found in sports clubs: These
are used more frequently by children in this age range attending half-day (58%)
than all-day schools (52%). Hence, attending a half-day or all-day school does not
seem to be decisive for membership of clubs or groups in this age range.
However, as Table 5.4 has shown already, class-related differences can be seen
clearly in all three Child Studies. Across all survey times and age groups, the fre-
quency of club memberships increases clearly in line with social status. The current
data from the third Child Study indicate that it is particularly children from the low-
est social class who continue to be insufficiently integrated into the great range of
club provisions available in Germany  – even though these are basically open to
every child.
5  Leisure Time: Varied and Colorful, but Not For All Children 123

Table 5.5  Membership in a club, participation in an organized group, or use of other such
provisions by type of school
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
Half-day All-day
Positive answers, Per cell in % Total school school
Clubs, groups or use of other provisions (multiple responses)
Sports club 56 58 52
Music group/Music school 21 21 22
Dance club/Ballet 13 13 13
Painting/drawing group 2 2 2
Theater or movie group 2 2 2
Church group 7 8 5
Girl guides/Boy scouts 2 2 1
Nature or animal protection society 1 1 1
Organized group in a child or youth club 2 3 2
Traditional costumes and folklore clubs 1 1 1
Other 5 5 5
None of above 25 25 27

5.3.3  M
 usic and Sport Groups Also Fail to Reach the Lower
Class

As well as asking about club memberships, the items in the parent questionnaire tap
a whole series of further group activities or other provisions. In the following, we
want to take a closer look at memberships of sports clubs and music groups or music
schools. These are both activities that the German Federal Ministry of Labor and
Social Affairs has named as being exemplary for the goals of government interven-
tions to increase the participation of socially disadvantaged children (BMAS 2013).
Due to the influence of age on the frequency of club memberships, we shall examine
the different age groups separately here as well.
Across all social classes, 58% of 8- to 9-year-olds and 58% of 10- to 11-year-­
olds belonged to a sports club in 2007. In 2010, 58% of parents reported such a
membership for their 6- to 7-year-old children; 63%, for their 8- to 9-year-olds; and
64%, for their 10- to 11-year-olds. In the current study, 52% of parents of 6- to
7-year-olds report that their child is a member of a sports club compared to 59% of
the parents of 8- to 9-year-olds and 58% of the parents of 10- to 11-year-olds.
Hence, there is a degree of fluctuation around 60% for the two older groups and
between 50% and 60% for younger children. This does not reveal any clear trend
toward more or less frequent club memberships in the sports domain.
The proportion of music group and music school memberships is also relatively
stable in all age groups. ln 2007, 20% of 8- to 9-year-olds and 21% of 10- to 11-year-­
olds belonged to a music group. In 2010, it was 20% of 6- to 7-year-olds, 26% of
8- to 9-year-olds, and 22% of 10- to 11-year-olds. In the current survey, the
124 A. Jänsch and U. Schneekloth

Table 5.6  Membership in a sports club or music group/music school

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
2007 2010 2013
Per cell in 6–7 8–9 10–11 6–7 8–9 10–11 6–7 8–9 10–11
% years years years years years years years years years
Sports club
Lower – 32 49 26 35 35 11 23 35
class
Lower – 54 49 48 51 50 43 49 47
middle
class
Middle – 49 56 58 61 65 44 62 62
class
Upper – 68 66 61 72 74 65 65 60
middle
class
Upper – 73 71 84 81 80 73 70 73
class
Music group
Lower – 0 8 1 9 4 0 3 7
class
Lower – 6 13 10 12 7 11 10 7
middle
class
Middle – 17 17 13 18 18 12 17 16
class
Upper – 26 30 25 38 36 21 29 29
middle
class
Upper – 45 36 43 44 34 47 42 43
class

p­ roportion of 6- to 7-year-olds is almost unchanged at 19%, and both the 8- to

9-year-olds and the 10- to 11-year-olds are at 22%.
Table 5.6 shows the trends in memberships of sports clubs and nonschool music
groups and music schools since the first Child Study in 2007. Here as well, we
report the proportions of different age groups and different social classes. Yet again,
we can confirm hardly any positive effect on children in the lowest social class in
the responses on these two prototypical items for sports and cultural activities.
Regarding membership in sports clubs, we can even see a decline in the lower class
among 8- to 9-year-olds from 32% in 2007, to 35% in 2010, and 23% in 2013; and
among the 10- to 11-year-olds, from 49% in 2007 to 35% in both 2010 and 2013.
In the music domain, the participation of lower class children remains compara-
bly low at less than 10% in all age groups. Outside school, these children continue
to be more or less totally excluded from musical and creative education. The general
questions on leisure activities also do not produce any essentially different outcome
here. Within the first Child Study, 4% of lower class children reported playing a
5  Leisure Time: Varied and Colorful, but Not For All Children 125

musical instrument or making music “very often.” In 2010, this rose to 5%, and in
2013, to 8%. Hence, there is a very slightly positive trend, but this is still far from
catching up with the opportunities for participation available to the children of fami-
lies in a better social position.
If we also look at children attending a half-day school separately here in order to
rule out any confounds between attendance of an all-day school and memberships
of clubs or groups, we can see, as already pointed out above, that the decline in club
memberships cannot be explained exclusively through an increase in attendance of
all-day schools and the accompanying availability of leisure provisions within the
school. The lower class 8- to 11-year-old half-day students are slightly less fre-
quently members of a sports club or a music group in 2013 compared to either 2007
or 2010.

5.4  How Children Use the Internet

5.4.1  S
 ocial Class Continues to Be Decisive for Access
to the Internet

As reported above, although the extent to which 6- to 11-year-olds use electronic

media such as television and computer games varies greatly, they are nonetheless a
part of the direct life worlds of children in general. Likewise, the Internet has also
become a self-evident feature of the environment for children in this age range,
although they vary greatly in how far and for what purposes they use this medium.
Having one’s own computer is no essential precondition for access to the Internet.
A total of 46% of all surveyed children reported having access to the Internet,
although only 27% possess their own PC or laptop in their own room. Hence, the
children have further ways of accessing the Internet such as their parents’ computer,
at school, or at friends’ homes. Nonetheless, children who possess their own com-
puter have, at 67%, an above-average frequency of access to the Internet. As already
shown in the 2010 Child Study, there is a clear age effect here. Only 24% of the
children in the youngest age group report having access to the Internet, compared to
36% in the 8- to 9-year-olds and a clear majority of 71% in the 10- to 11-year-olds.
Among those with access, 40% use it regularly each week. A clear age effect can be
recognized here as well. Whereas only 17% of the 6- to 7-year-olds who have access
to the Internet report using it regularly, this is already 31% in the 8- to 9-year-olds
and 50% in the oldest age group.
At 42%, all-rounders have somewhat less access to the Internet than normal lei-
sure users (46%) and media consumers (48%). Differences between the various
leisure groups become more apparent when we look at the regularity of Internet use.
A total of 50% of media consumers with access to the Internet use it regularly com-
pared to only 39% of normal leisure users and 30% of all-rounders.
126 A. Jänsch and U. Schneekloth

An inspection of the social, personal, and structural variables influencing the

probability of having access to the Internet reveals a significant effect of a child’s
social class: Lower class and lower middle-class children less frequently have
access than middle-class children, whereas members of the upper middle-class
more frequently have access. Likewise, 6- to 7-year-olds less frequently have access
to the Internet than 8- to 9-year-olds. In contrast, children in the oldest group in the
survey more frequently have access than 8- to 9-year-olds. As in 2010, the current
Child Study reveals that children with a migration background significantly more
frequently have access to the Internet than native German children. In the 2010
Child Study, this finding ran counter to that of 2007, but it now seems to have
become a stable trend. In contrast, gender and settlement structure have no signifi-
cant influence on the probability of a child having access to the Internet. Accordingly,
girls and boys have equal access, and the technical limitations that still seem to have
been a problem in some rural areas a few years ago have apparently been resolved.
Table 5.7 reports findings on the relations between features that have a significant
influence on access to the Internet.

5.4.2  E
 xtent of Internet Use: Use of the World Wide Web Is
Equally Widespread in All Leisure Types

Children reveal just as strong a trend toward increasing use of the Internet as that
found in adults. However, this applies only to older children from the age of 10 to
11 years onward. In both 2007 and 2010, 13% of 8- to 9-year-olds reported regu-
larly spending time on the Internet. Currently, this is 11% of this age group. Among
10- to 11-year-olds, the proportion regularly using the Internet every week has risen
from 29% in 2007, across 32% in 2010, to a current 36%. According to their own
reports, only 4% of 6- to 7-year-olds regularly use the Internet each week. We shall
have to wait and see how things develop further. However, due to the increasing
availability of mobile web-enabled end devices, we can assume that regular Internet
use will increase even further among children.
Children who use the Internet regularly do so mostly for up to 1 hour (26%) or
up to 2 hours (23%) a week. The frequencies for the other categories (“no more than
half an hour,” “up to 3/4/5 hours,” and “more than 5 hours” per week) are all roughly
10%. A breakdown according to age groups in Fig. 5.5 shows that the proportion of
10- to 11-year-olds who spend more than 2 hours on the Internet each week is
higher than that of 8- to 9-year-olds. Whereas 8- to 9-year-olds most frequently
(37%) use the Internet for up to 1 hour per week, and only 25% report using it for
more than 2 hours, 44% of the older children spend more than 2 hours a week
online.7

7
 Because of the low number of cases of regular Internet users in the group of 6- to 7-year-olds (29
cases), we report no frequencies for the youngest age group here.
5  Leisure Time: Varied and Colorful, but Not For All Children 127

Table 5.7 Significant % (per cell) Yes No

relations between access to
All children 46 54
the internet and personal and
social variablesa Age
Children in Germany aged 6–7 years 24 76b
6–11 years 8–9 years 36 64
10–11 years 71b 29
Social origin
Lower class 32 68b
Lower middle class 41 59b
Middle class 45 55
Upper middle class 51b 49
Upper class 49 51
Migration background
Native German children 45 55
Children with a migration 47b 53
background
a
The relationship was tested with a multivariate
logistic regression on the criterion variable “access
to the Internet: yes or no.”
Variables included: age, gender, migration back-
ground, type of settlement structure, and social ori-
gin
b
For ease of presentation, bivariate values are pre-
sented as percentages in the table. Notable deviations
for variables that were also significant within the
multivariate statistical analysis are printed in bold (p
< .05)

Looking at the different leisure types, it is interesting to see that when we ask
media consumers and normal leisure users who are regularly online how often they
use the Internet each week, they most frequently answer “up to 1 hour,” whereas the
most frequent answer among all-rounders is “up to 2 hours.” We find that 36% of
media consumers, 41% of normal leisure users, and 36% of all-rounders use the
Internet for more than 2 hours a week. Hence, we can see no clear differences
between the single leisure types regarding the extent of activities on the Internet.
However, when asking 6- to 11-year-olds about their Internet use, we are naturally
not just interested in how much they use it but also what they do on the Internet and
how the age groups and leisure types differ here.
128 A. Jänsch and U. Schneekloth

No more than half 12

an hour 8

37
Up to 1 hour
24

25 8-9 years
Up to 2 hours
22
10-11 years
10
Up to 3 hours
13

3
Up to 4 hours
11

6
Up to 5 hours
8

5
More than 5 hours
12

Only children who use the Internet regularly each week

Failure to reach 100% due to “Don’t know/No answer” responses

Fig. 5.5  Frequency of Internet use per week by different age groups
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years who use the Internet regularly each week (%)

5.4.3  W
 hat Children Do on the Internet: Clear Differences
Between Age Groups and Leisure Types

Table 5.8 presents an overview of children’s activities on the Internet. It reports the
frequencies of the categories receiving “very often” answers and includes only chil-
dren who are regularly online.
Gender differences in Internet use are conspicuously low. The only marked
exception is online games that are played by more than 40% of boys compared to
only one-quarter of girls. All other functions such as downloading music and videos
or making and communicating with friends over Facebook or chat lines are used
almost equally frequently by both sexes.
In contrast, there are clear age differences. Whereas younger children focus more
on online games and watching and downloading videos, older children reveal an
increasing participation in social networks and chat lines. Although only 8% of 8-
and 9-year-olds report using Facebook and the like, social networks are the most
frequent activity on the Internet reported by 10- to 11-year-olds at 33%. Chat lines
are also gaining in importance: Whereas these are a very frequent form of Internet
use in only 15% of 8- and 9-year-olds, this rises to almost one-third in the oldest
group. Older children also more frequently use e-mails as a means of communica-
tion. This is certainly not just an age-dependent change in interests, but also reflects
an increase in reading and writing competence. Although social networks have very
graphic displays and are based on pictures just as much as writing, basic reading and
writing competencies are essential to tell things to other users and understand what
5  Leisure Time: Varied and Colorful, but Not For All Children 129

Table 5.8  What do children do on the internet

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years who use the Internet regularlya
All 8–9 10–11 Versatile Normal Media
Columns in % children Girls Boys years years children leisure users consumers
Computer games 33 24 42 44 30 17 29 46
Facebook 26 27 24 8 33 24 24 29
Specific search 25 26 23 21 27 29 28 18
Chat 25 26 24 15 29 20 24 29
Look at/ 18 20 16 24 16 13 19 19
Download videos
Just surf 11 10 11 9 11 13 9 11
Send e-mails 8 8 7 2 10 14 7 6
Download music 6 4 8 3 7 1 5 10
Twitter 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
a
Because of the low number of cases in each cell, separate percentages are not reported for 6- to
7-year-olds

they say in return. This is particularly true of chat lines that are frequently not char-
acterized as being orthographically and grammatically correct, but by a high speed
of information flow. An interesting fact in relation to the use of social networks is
that Facebook, for example, has a minimum age of 13 years, so that the respondents
in the Child Study do not yet even belong to the official circle of users. Nonetheless,
children succeed in using the online service by either pretending to be older than
they actually are or by gaining the help of older persons. This is in line with the
findings of the latest KIM study reporting that Facebook is, at 17%, the most popu-
lar website among 6- to 13-year-olds (Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbunds
Südwest 2013). Twitter, in contrast, does not play a role in any of the age groups
surveyed in the present Child Study.
Whereas there are no clear differences between the various leisure types regard-
ing the amount of Internet use, they differ strongly in the ways they use it. Media
consumers particularly frequently take part in online computer games and chat lines
compared to the other two groups. They also use Facebook and other social net-
works slightly more frequently and download more frequently than all-rounders.
Normal leisure users and all-rounders, in contrast, use the Internet particularly fre-
quently for specific searches, and all-rounders use it particularly to send e-mails.
Hence, media consumers tend to use the Internet to extend the entertainment media
they already have at their disposal in order to play games online and engage in fast
and uncommitted communication through chat lines. All-rounders, in contrast, use
the Internet more for obtaining information and for specific and purposeful
communication.
130 A. Jänsch and U. Schneekloth

5.5  T
 he Mobile Phone: Simply Taken for Granted by Many
Children

The 2010 Child Study has already shown that the mobile phone is no longer just a
part of daily life for youths; it is also increasing something that is simply taken for
granted by 8- to 11-year-olds. Whereas in 2007, only 17% of 8- and 9-year-olds and
56% of 10- to 11-year-olds had a mobile phone, this already rose to 27% and 66%
in 2010. Nowadays, the proportion of children in both age groups with a mobile
phone is even slightly higher. In 2013, 31% of the middle group and 72% of the
oldest group say they have their own mobile phone. The latest KIM study
(Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbunds Südwest 2013) also reports compara-
ble findings on children with mobile phones. There continues to be a leap in the
frequency of having one’s own mobile phone between the 8- to 9-year-old and 10-
to 11-year-old children. This matches the findings of the German FIM study on the
family and the media that reports 10 years as the average age for children to have
their own mobile phones (Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbunds Südwest
2012). The sudden leap reflects the transition from elementary to secondary school.
Whereas 59% of 10- to 11-year-olds attending an elementary school report having
their own mobile phones, this rises to 78% among those attending secondary
schools. The decision not to give their child a mobile phone at elementary school
but to do so when changing to secondary school could relate, on the one hand, to
restrictive rules at elementary school (mobile phones not being allowed); but, on the
other hand, to the greater need to exchange information due to varying teaching
hours at secondary schools. The youngest age group reveals a slight decline from
9% to 6%. Perhaps because mobile phones have become so much more expensive
since the widespread introduction of smart phones, parents are unwilling to pur-
chase such valuable instruments for their children.
The gender difference found in the last two Child Studies is also found in 2013.
In 2007, 39% of girls and 34% of boys reported having a mobile phone. In 2010,
this had risen to 50% of girls and 44% of boys among the 8- to 11-year-olds. In
2013, 56% of girls and 49% of boys in this age group report having their own
mobile phone. On the one hand, this may be because parents trust their daughters to
use their mobile phones more responsibly. On the other hand, it could also reflect a
greater concern for girls’ welfare by ensuring that they are able to contact their par-
ents at any time.
The various leisure types reveal only slight differences in having their own mobile
phone: 43% of all media consumers, 39% of normal leisure users, and 38% of all-
rounders. An examination of age groups reveals that media consumers in the young-
est age group tend to have their own mobile phone more often (9%) than their peers
in the other leisure groups (6%). However, because the difference is only slight and
the number of cases is low, this finding should be interpreted with caution.
To analyze the effect of various personal, social, and structural features on the
probability of having one’s own mobile phone more precisely, we computed a logis-
tic regression (Table 5.9). This showed that children in the oldest survey group sig-
5  Leisure Time: Varied and Colorful, but Not For All Children 131

Table 5.9 Significant % (per cell) Yes No

relations between having
All children 40 60
one’s own mobile phone and
personal and social variablesa Age
Children in Germany aged 6–7 years 6 94
6–11 years 8–9 years 31 69
10–11 years 72b 28
Type of family
Single parent 46b 54
Not single parent 38 62
Type of settlement structure
Big city 43b 57
Big city suburbs 39 61
Conurbations 33 67
Rural areas 38 62
Gender
Girls 42b 58
Boys 37 63
a
The relationship was tested with a multi-
variate logistic regression on the criterion
variable “owning a mobile phone: yes or
no.”
Variables included: age, type of family, type
of settlement structure, leisure type, gender,
and social origin
b
For ease of presentation, bivariate values
are presented as percentages in the table.
Notable deviations for variables that were
also significant within the multivariate sta-
tistical analysis are printed in bold (p < .05)

nificantly more frequently have their own mobile phone than children in the younger
groups. The gender effect reported above also proves to be statistically significant.
Likewise, children living in urban areas more frequently have their own mobile
phone than those growing up in rural areas. The finding already reported in 2010
that children growing up in single-parent households more probably have their own
mobile phone than those living in other family constellations proves to be a stable
trend. In 2007, 47% of 8- to 11-year-olds living with a single parent had their own
mobile phone compared to 34% living in other types of family. In 2010, this rose to
52% versus 46%. And now, in 2013, 62% of the 8- to 11-year-olds living in single-­
parent households have their own mobile phone compared to 50% living in other
types of family. Being easy to reach and able to quickly make flexible rearrange-
ments seem to be particularly important in families with only one caregiver who
needs to coordinate different obligations such as going to work, caring for children,
and organizing leisure activities. In contrast, membership of a specific social class
has no significant effect on the probability of having one’s own mobile phone.
132 A. Jänsch and U. Schneekloth

Hence, independent of income and education, parents equally frequently give their
children a mobile phone to use. Likewise, the statistical comparison between nor-
mal leisure users and the two extreme groups of media consumers and all-rounders
reveals no significant differences in having one’s own mobile phone.

5.6  S
 atisfaction With Leisure is Also a Question of Social
Class

The two previous Child Studies showed that social variables impact decisively on
how satisfied children are with their leisure time. Social origins and experienced
poverty determine the children’s life worlds and thereby also impact directly on
their subjective satisfaction with the leisure activities available to them.
Satisfaction scores are generally high. A total of 59% of all children surveyed are
very satisfied with their leisure time, 33% are satisfied, and only 8% view it as being
negative or neutral. In the present survey, the children are even slightly more satis-
fied than they were in the 2010 Child Study. Because of the very high general level
of satisfaction, in the following, we shall compare only “very positive” responses
with the frequency of other responses.
A comparison of the various social classes reveals that very positive ratings are
significantly less frequent in lower class children compared to their middle-class
peers, and that the former tend to give negative to neutral (17%) or positive (53%)
ratings (Table  5.10). The drastic nature of these findings becomes apparent only
when we compare them directly with the reports of the other groups in which the
proportion of negative to neutral ratings lies between 6% and 11%, and positive
­ratings between 30% and 32%. Results are similar for experienced poverty. Children
who have already experienced poverty directly in their own daily lives also tend to
rate their leisure time less positively than their peers who have no prior exposure to
poverty. Seventeen percent of them rate their leisure as negative to neutral and 39%
as positive. Children who have already experienced constraints in their daily lives at
least once due to lack of money also less frequently rate their leisure as being very
positive compared to their materially more affluent peers. These reports can be com-
pared with the ratings from children who have not experienced poverty and con-
straints in daily life. Only 7% view their leisure as being negative to neutral, only
31% as being positive, whereas the majority of 62% view it as being very positive.
As before, we have to assume a clear dependence of children’s satisfaction on
external material factors. Up to now, it has not been possible to enable lower class
children to experience their leisure as positively as children from more prosperous
classes do every day.
Nonetheless, there are some signs of a positive trend. Whereas in 2010, 28% of
lower class children still rated their leisure as being negative to neutral, this has now
dropped to 17% in 2013. These changes are not to be found in the very positive rat-
5  Leisure Time: Varied and Colorful, but Not For All Children 133

Table 5.10  Significant relations between satisfaction with leisure and personal and social
variablesa
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
% (per cell) Negative to neutral Positive Very positive
All children 8 33 59
Social origin
Lower class 17b 53b 30
Lower middle class 11 32 57
Middle class 8 32 60
Upper middle class 6 31 63
Upper class 7 30 64
Experienced poverty
No experience of poverty 7 31 62
Constraints 6 45b 49
Specific experience of poverty 17b 39b 44
Leisure type
Media consumers 11 40b 49
Normal leisure users 8 34 58
Versatile children 6 26b 68
a
The relationship was tested with a multiple analysis of variance
Variables included: age, gender, leisure type, migration background, social origin, and experienced
poverty
b
For ease of presentation, bivariate values are presented as percentages in the table. Notable devia-
tions for variables that were also significant within the multivariate statistical analysis are printed
in bold (p < .05)

ings, but in the positive ones. In 2010, 38% of children from the lowest social class
viewed their leisure as positive; in the current Child Study, it has risen to 53%. Even
when we are far from having achieved a leisure time that all children perceive as
being very positive, there are at least first signs of a shift in the right direction.
Nonetheless, this slightly positive trend cannot be explained through participation
in groups and clubs, because, as reported in Sect. 5.3, this is declining in the lower
class. It also cannot be explained by the higher proportion of all-day students in this
social class. In agreement with the findings reported in Chap. 4 showing that it is
particularly children from the lowest social class who are more often dissatisfied
with their all-day school, there is even a decline in satisfaction with their own lei-
sure compared to 2010 that is linked closely to the institution they are attending.
Whereas in the 2010 Child Study, 43% of all-day students from the lower class still
rated their leisure time very positively, this has dropped to only 29% in 2013. Here
we can see a shift from very positive ratings toward the intermediate category of
positive ratings. This can also be understood as indicating that the rapidly imposed
expansion of all-day schools has yet to deliver qualitatively convincing results. The
success of this initiative will also have to be measured in terms of how the children
being cared for in these institutions appraise them. In contrast, we can see a positive
trend in half-day students from the lower class. In 2010, 29% of them rated their
leisure as negative to neutral and 42% as positive. In 2013, only 16% of these
134 A. Jänsch and U. Schneekloth

c­ hildren still give a negative to neutral rating, and 53% of them view their leisure
activities positively. The available data provide no clear explanation for this increase
in satisfaction among half-day students from the lower class, because this group
also reveals a decline in memberships of clubs and groups.
A comparison of the satisfaction ratings in all three leisure groups reveals that
media consumers less frequently give a very positive rating than normal leisure
users and significantly more frequently rate their leisure as positive. Vice versa,
­all-­rounders more frequently rate their leisure as very positive and significantly less
frequently give only a positive rating.
In contrast, we can find no statistically significant influence of age and gender or
of a possible migration background on the children’s ratings.
The perceived possibility of codetermination when shaping their own leisure
time also proves to be an important factor for children’s satisfaction. Among those
whose parents let them help decide how they spend their leisure together, 60% view
their leisure as “very positive” compared to only 54% among those who are given
little or no codetermination. The relevance of the possibility of codetermination
becomes even clearer in answers to the question: “Can you decide for yourself what
you do in your free time?” Whereas 61% of the children who answered “generally
yes” rated their leisure as “very positive,” among those who said “generally no,”
only 41% gave very positive ratings. As presented in more detail in Sect. 7.1, pos-
sibilities of codetermination in daily life are an important aspect of participatory
justice in children’s lives. If adults integrate children into the decision-making pro-
cesses that concern them and they thereby feel they are being treated fairly, then
they also report greater satisfaction.
We computed a rank correlation to see whether there is a relation between satisfac-
tion with one’s own leisure time and general satisfaction with life. This shows a highly
significant positive relation between the two variables. Children who report a greater
satisfaction with their lives in general are also more satisfied with their leisure time.8

References

BMAS (Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales). (2013). Das Bildungspaket. Das ist drin im
Bildungspaket. Verfügbar unter. www.bildungspaket.bmas.de.
Leven, I., & Schneekloth, U. (2007). Die Freizeit. Anregen lassen oder fernsehen. In World Vision
Deutschland. (Hrsg.), Kinder in Deutschland 2007. 1. World Vision Kinderstudie (S. 165 – 200).
Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer.
Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest. (Hrsg.). (2012). FIM-Studie (2011): Familie,
Interaktion & Medien. Untersuchung zur Kommunikation und Mediennutzung in Familien.
Stuttgart: Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest: LFK.
Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest. (Hrsg.). (2013). KIM-Studie (2012): Kinder
+ Medien, Computer + Internet, Basisuntersuchung zum Medienumgang 6- bis 13-Jähriger in
Deutschland. Stuttgart:Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest: LFK, LKM.

 Nonparametric test: Spearman’s correlation coefficient significant on the 5% level.

8
Chapter 6
Friendships Among Peers

Agnes Jänsch and Monika Pupeter

Alongside children’s reference persons in the family and school, it is friends who
are the most important social group in their lives. Children meet their peers in the
neighborhoods they live in, at school, perhaps when attending institutional daycare
centers in the afternoons, and also in the clubs to which they belong. And where
children interact with their peers, they can also build up friendships (Pupeter and
Schneekloth 2010). In different phases of life, friendships take different forms and
fulfil different developmental tasks. In early childhood, they particularly take the
form of joint play, and they enable children to practice solving conflicts and control-
ling their emotions. In middle childhood, the focus is on being socially accepted by
one’s peers and avoiding rejection; and an important task during this phase is to
acquire rules for expressing emotions adequately. In adolescence, friendships help
young people to explore and define themselves. In this phase, they develop an
understanding of the role feelings play in social relationships (Parker and Gottman
1989, as cited in Oerter and Montada 1998). Numerous studies have confirmed the
importance of stable friendships for not only emotional well-being but also social
competencies and problem-solving abilities in children of all ages (Salvas et  al.
2011). Friends can offer emotional support when stressed, while simultaneously
serving as a source of cognitive development and knowledge acquisition (Prazen
et al. 2011).
In the transitional phase from infancy or preschool age to adolescence, friend-
ships develop a new quality, because it is during this phase that children themselves
begin to build up confidence and trust between equal-ranking partners and thereby
also to find solutions when conflict situations arise. In the following, we want to
start by taking a closer look at the extent of the circle of friends in 6- to 11-year-old
children during this important phase of social development and analyzing which

A. Jänsch (*) • M. Pupeter

Kantar Public, München, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 135

S. Andresen et al. (eds.), Well-being, Poverty and Justice from a Child’s
Perspective, Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research 17,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57574-2_6
136 A. Jänsch and M. Pupeter

factors are relevant for the formation of peer relationships. Then, we want to ask
where children meet their friends, whereby we shall also pay particular attention to
the possibilities of virtual contacts. Finally, we shall turn to the topic of trust and
being appreciated in friendships in order to look at how children appraise their sat-
isfaction with this aspect of their lives.

6.1  Quantity and Quality of the Circle of Friends

6.1.1  P
 ersonal Freedoms as an Important Precondition
for Friendships

To gain an idea of the size of the peer groups in which children locate themselves,
we first asked them to tell us how many friends they have. At 34%, the most frequent
response to this question is “10 or more.” About one-quarter report 6–9; another
one-quarter, 4–5 friends. This leaves 13% who count only two to three peers in their
circle of friends, and 1% who report having only one friend or no friends at all. A
comparison of boys and girls reveals no significant gender differences. As Fig. 6.1
shows, the namings in the different response categories are about equal in both
groups.
In contrast, there is a marked increase in friendships as children grow older
(Table 6.1). Whereas 17% of 6- to 7-year-olds cultivate friendships with two to three
other children, only 11 to 12% of older children report having such a small circle.
Only roughly one-quarter of the members of the youngest group view 10 or more
children as their friends, whereas this grows to 33% in the 8- and 9-year-olds and
even 44% in the 10- to 11-year-olds. This increase in the size of the circle of friends
also reflects the children’s growing autonomy. Forty-five percent of the 6- and
7-year-olds report “meeting friends” as a very frequent leisure-time pursuit com-
pared to 51% of the intermediate age group and 55% of the oldest children (see
Sect. 5.1). Hence, as they grow older, children acquire more opportunities to meet

35 34
Girls 27
24 25 26
Boys
13 13

1 2

0 to 1 friend 2 to 3 4 to 5 6 to 9 10 or more

Fig. 6.1  Size of friend circles for girls and boys

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)
6  Friendships Among Peers 137

Table 6.1  Number of friends by age and leisure type

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
Columns in
%
Number of 6–7 8–9 10–11 Media Normal Versatile
friends years years years consumers leisure users children
0–1 friend 2 2 1 2 2 1
2–3 17 11 12 16 13 10
4–5 27 26 22 28 24 22
6–9 30 28 22 24 26 28
10 or more 24 33 43 30 35 39

40
38 38

2007
26 25
23 24 24
2010 22

2013 14
11 12

1 1 1

0 to 1 friend 2 to 3 4 to 5 6 to 9 10 or more

Fig. 6.2  Size of friend circles over time

Children in Germany aged 8–11 years (%)

their peers and thereby cultivate and intensify their friendships. In addition, older
children report having more rights to codetermine whom they meet and how many
friends they can invite back to their homes (see Sect. 7.1). Even 81% of the young-
est group feel that they have the right to codetermine their choice of social contacts.
By the age of 10–11 years, this proportion rises even further to 92%. Forty-six per-
cent of 6- to 7-year-olds, 43% of 8- to 9-year-olds, and 54% of 10- to 11-year-olds
can decide how many friends they can bring home with them. Whereas adults exert
a stronger control over the social contacts of younger children, the greater freedom
of decision making granted to older children enables them to purposefully build up,
cultivate, and deepen contacts with peers toward whom they feel a special empathy.
As a result, they are able to acquire an increasingly large circle of friends. As
reported in Sect. 5.3, older children are also more frequently members of clubs or
leisure-time groups that also offer opportunities to make further social contacts and
extend their circle of acquaintances and friends.
Over time, in contrast, results are highly consistent. As Fig. 6.2 shows, approxi-
mately 40% of 8- to 11-year-olds report a large circle of friends containing 10 or
more peers in all three Child Studies. Roughly one-half of children report having
between 5 and 9 friends. And slightly more than 10% of respondents have only a
small or no circle of friends. Without reporting on the type and quality of these
138 A. Jänsch and M. Pupeter

0% 50% 100%

2007 1 1 10 21 27 41

Versatile 2 1 6 14 30 49
2010
children

2013 3 1 9 22 25 43

2007 5 1 13 24 22 40

Normal
2010 6 1 11 24 25 39
leisure users

2013 7 1 11 23 25 40

2007 9 2 19 25 23 31
Media
consumers 2010 10 3 13 23 26 35

2013 11 2 15 26 24 33

12 0 to 1 friend 2 to 3 friends 4 to 5 friends 6 to 9 friends 10 or more friends

Fig. 6.3  Size of children’s friend circles by leisure type

Children in Germany aged 8–11 years (%)

social contacts at this stage, we can already see that at least the size of the social
networks of children surveyed in the three Child Studies has not been subject to any
major change up to the present.

6.1.2  F
 riends Are Not Made In Front of the Computer or
Television

Marked differences in the size of the circle of friends relate not only to age but also
to the different leisure groups (see Sect. 5.2). Whereas media consumers more fre-
quently report having a relatively small circle of friends, all-rounders generally have
a larger circle with 16% of the former group reporting that they have two to three
friends compared to only 10% of the latter. Thirty percent of media consumers
report having a circle of friends containing more than 10 children compared to 39%
of all-rounders. Table 6.1 presents an overview of responses broken down into age
groups and leisure types.
As Fig. 6.3 shows, relations between the various leisure types are stable across
time. Only about one-third of media consumers report having a circle of friends
containing more than 10 children across all three surveys compared to more than
40% of all-rounders and about 40% of normal leisure users. In contrast, small cir-
cles containing three or less children are more typical for the media consumers. In
all three Child Studies, 16 to 21% of this group reported only one to three friends
compared to 12 to 14% of normal leisure users and 7 to 11% of all-rounders.
6  Friendships Among Peers 139

An inspection of the preferred leisure pursuits of the children reveals that media
consumers meet up with their friends somewhat less often than all-rounders (50%
vs. 55% “very often”). In addition, the leisure pursuits of media consumers far more
frequently include computer games and television, as reported in Chap. 5. Fifty-six
percent of them report playing computer games very often and 87% watch televi-
sion very often, whereas only 2% of all-rounders play computer games very often
and only 13% watch television very often. Whereas the leisure behavior of all-­
rounders with its stronger focus on social contacts rather than media consumption
helps to build up a circle of friends, the passive activities of media consumers char-
acterized by a lack of direct interactions are inappropriate for making new contacts
and cultivating them. Nonetheless, we have to ask what is the cause and what is the
effect here. It would seem just as plausible to assume that children who find it hard
to make friends and do not manage to build up a stable circle of friends will tend to
withdraw and spend their leisure time with activities that they can carry out alone.

6.1.3  L
 ower Class Children Are also Disadvantaged
Among Their Peers

To analyze which social and structural factors are decisive for the size of the circle
of friends in more detail, we summarized the responses into three categories and
computed a logistic regression. Zero to three friends represented a small circle; four
to nine, a normal or middle-sized circle; and 10 or more, a large circle of friends.
Then we compared the middle group named by 40–50% of the children in each age
group with the other two groups.
As Table 6.2 shows, children from the lowest social class significantly more fre-
quently have a small or no circle of friends and less frequently a large circle of
friends than middle-class children. Members of the lower middle class also tend to
have a smaller circle of friends, whereas upper class children cultivate markedly
more friendships. Whether the child is a native German or has a migration back-
ground proves to have no significant effect on the size of the circle of friends.
However, the way that leisure time is organized plays a decisive role. Children who
belong to no clubs or leisure-time groups name significantly fewer friends than
children who are organized into at least one group. Regularly meeting up in clubs
and leisure-time groups gives children an opportunity to build up stable contacts
outside of school as well. Moreover, the shared interests in the group activities
already provide a basis for possible friendships. Hence, members of the lower social
classes simultaneously have a less varied leisure time and a particularly small circle
of friends. Instead of being able to compensate for the constraints on leisure activi-
ties through numerous positive social contacts, these children also have to come to
terms with constraints on their friendships. In contrast, however, the type of school
has no influence on the size of the circle of friends. Children attending all-day
schools do not have more contacts with friends through the longer daily interactions
140 A. Jänsch and M. Pupeter

Table 6.2  Significant relations between size of friend circles and personal and social variablesa
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
No/Small circle of Medium-sized circle of Large circle of
% (per cell) friends friends friends
All children 15 51 35
Age
6–7 years 19 57 24b
8–9 years 15 51 34
10–11 years 12 45 44b
Social origin
Lower class 30b 53 17b
Lower middle class 20b 51 29
Middle class 14 54 32
Upper middle class 11 51 38
Upper class 8 45 47b
Club membership
Yes 10 51 39
No 28b 52 20b
Parental care and attention
No deficit 13 50 37
Deficit in one parent 21 54 25b
Care deficit 19 55 26b
a
The relationship was tested with a multivariate nominal regression on the variable “size of circle
of friends
  Variables included: age, social origin, club membership, migration background, type of school
(half-day/all-day), and care and attention deficit
b
For ease of presentation, bivariate values are presented as percentages in the table. Notable devia-
tions for variables that were also significant within the multivariate statistical analysis are printed
in bold (p < .05)

at school than children attending half-day schools who possibly spend more time
alone at home. Time spent together at school or in afternoon daycare is accordingly
not enough to form friendships. Hence, further bonding elements such as shared
hobbies are just as relevant. For children who receive insufficient care and attention
from one or both parents, friendships seem to be a particularly important social
anchor and to some extent a possible way of compensating for the lack of parental
attention and appreciation.1 However, it is particularly in this group that a large
circle of friends is most unusual. Children who complain about not receiving enough
attention from either one or two parents significantly less frequently report having
10 friends or more than children who do not lack attention from their parents.

1
 “Having friends is more important for children whose family relationships are less satisfying,
supportive, and positive than it is for children in higher-functioning families, and families contrib-
ute more heavily to children’s adjustment when they do not have close friends” (Gauze et al. 1996,
cited in Gifford-Smith and Brownell 2002).
6  Friendships Among Peers 141

Children who report meeting their friends very often during their leisure time
have a larger circle of friends than children who only sometimes or hardly ever meet
their peers. Whereas 41% of the former report having a large circle of friends with
10 or more peers, this is only the case for 28% (several times a week) or 19%
(hardly ever) of the remaining children. We assume that a bidirectional effect is to
be found here, because those who have a larger number of friends will generally
also meet up with these more often in their free time, whereas, at the same time,
regular contacts are necessary to maintain and strengthen social relationships.

6.1.4  Really Good Friends And How to Make Them

We took those children who reported having at least one friend when questioned
about the size of their circle of friends, and we asked them how many really close
friends they have in order to determine the size of the core peer group. Roughly one-­
quarter report having two and a further one-quarter having three really close friends,
and 10–15% report having either only one or four to five very close friends. This
leaves 8% who report having six to nine very close friends and 4% who have 10 or
more. As to be expected, a correlation analysis2 reveals a significantly positive rela-
tion between the size of the circle of friends in total and the number of very close
friends. This correlation is slightly lower for children in the youngest group than for
the 8-to 9-year-olds and the 10- to 11- year-olds. This indicates that younger chil-
dren still do not have such a differentiated concept of social relations at their dis-
posal and are less able to distinguish between friends and acquaintances.
When we ask the children whether they find it easy or difficult to make new
friends, the majority (66%) report having no difficulty; 27% find it more difficult;
and 7% are not certain—with the largest proportion of “uncertains” in the group of
6- to 7-year-olds (9%). This may be because social contacts are still organized and
determined more strongly by their parents as pointed out at the beginning of this
chapter, and they may still have little experience in making friends by themselves.
On the whole, children find it increasingly easy to make friends the older they
become. At 6–7 years, 63% report that they find it easy to forge new contacts; in the
group of 8-to 9-year-olds, this already rises to 66%; and in the 10- to 11-year-olds,
it is 69%.
Not very surprisingly, children who find it easy to forge social contacts generally
also have a larger circle of friends than children who find it hard to make friends.
Forty percent of those who report no difficulties have 10 or more friends, whereas
only 26% of those who find it more difficult to make friends have a comparably
large circle.
However, social competencies do not just influence the forging of all friendships,
however superficial these may be. We can also see an effect on the number of very
close ones. Whereas approximately one-half of the children who report that they

 Nonparametric test: Spearman’s correlation coefficient significant on the 5% level.

2
142 A. Jänsch and M. Pupeter

find it more difficult to forge friendships, have one to two very close friends, only
one-third of those who find it easy to make friends have so few close friends. Vice
versa, only 8% of children who find it more difficult to make friends have six or
more very close friends compared to 15% of those who find it easy. Nonetheless,
when interpreting such findings, it has to be noted that extraverted children, who
approach others more easily, may have a different understanding of what really
good friends are than introverted children: The former may more quickly consider
another child to be a good friend, whereas the latter may be more restrained in their
appraisals.

6.2  Where Children Meet Their Friends

6.2.1  T
 he Traditional Meeting Places: School, the Home
Neighborhood, and Clubs

A further question that links up closely with how children forge their relations to
peers and how they cultivate them is naturally where they meet their friends. Fig. 6.4
provides an overview of the locations involved.
The absolute frontrunner among regular opportunities for contact is the school.
A total of 78% of children see their friends here just about every day and 17% at
least several times a week. This holds for nearly all types of school. The proportion
is only slightly lower at 69% among children attending a special needs school.
Because schools for children with special needs are frequently not located where
children live and they have to travel some distance, this may result in a separation
between the school and the rest of daily life— including existing friendships.
Students attending basic secondary school (Hauptschule) in contrast particularly
frequently (86%) report meeting their friends every day at school. Hence, schools
are not just important locations of learning and development in the sense of aca-
demic education; they make a fundamental contribution to making and keeping
friends. The relevance of the school as a meeting place also continues into second-
ary school. This indicates that when children are confronted with new situations—
following the transfer to secondary school—they react flexibly and make new
friends, as is also revealed in the larger circles of friends they report.
A further important meeting place for many children is their own home and the
homes of their friends. About 60% meet their friends at home either almost daily or
several times a week, and an equally high proportion report being guests at friends’
homes almost daily or several times a week.
Closely linked to the own home is the immediate neighborhood with its sur-
rounding streets, parks, and playgrounds. Seventeen percent of the children meet
their peer group here almost every day and a further 50% see their friends here
several times a week. We can find no mentionable trends indicating a shift in meet-
ing friends from the parental home to public spaces with increasing age. In all three
6  Friendships Among Peers 143

School 78 17 4

Midday or after-
school care
62 25 12

Outside 17 50 32

Your home 6 55 38

Friend’s home 4 56 39

At a club
2 41 54

Online 6 14 79

Just about every day Several times a week Hardly ever/Never

| Failure to reach 100% due to “Don’t know/No answer” responses

Fig. 6.4  Where do children meet their friends

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

age groups, children almost equally frequently use the own home, that of their
friends, or the neighborhood streets and playgrounds for their meetings.
The neighborhood in which children live can facilitate or impede contacts with
friends, and this can influence the frequency of meeting them. In 2007 and 2013, we
asked the children whether there are enough friends to play with living in their
neighborhood. In 2013, the neighborhood seems to be somewhat less suitable for
meeting friends in leisure time than it was in the first Child Study. Whereas in the
current Child Study, 63% of 8- to 11-year-olds report having enough friends to play
with in their immediate neighborhood, in 2007, this was 66%. Hence, the children
see less opportunity to meet other children in their neighborhood than they did 6
years ago. Nonetheless, the difference is too slight to be able to assume that it indi-
cates any real trend.
As reported above, clubs assume an important function in the social life of 6- to
11-year-olds. This can also be seen in the meeting places they name. Forty-three
percent of the children report meeting their friends in clubs just about every day or
several times a week.
For children attending some kind of daycare center after school in the afternoon,
these institutions offer an almost equally important opportunity to see their friends
as the school itself. Nearly two-thirds of these children meet their friends just about
every day here; and one-quarter, at least several times a week.
144 A. Jänsch and M. Pupeter

6.2.2  The Internet: New Meeting Place for Digital Natives?

Approximately one-quarter of the children with access to the Internet report being
very frequent users of Facebook or other social networks (see Sect. 5.4). As shown
in Fig. 6.4, every fifth child who has access to the Internet and is regularly online
reports interacting with friends there just about every day or several times a week.
Based on all children, the proportion who meet their friends online is 3% just about
every day and 6% at least several times a week. Answers to the question where
meetings with friends occur also reveal the age effect reported in Sect. 5.4 indicat-
ing that younger children hardly ever use social networks and chat lines, whereas
10- to 11-year-olds use them particularly widely. Children in the youngest group
hardly ever report the Internet as a possible place to meet, 10% of 8- to 9- year-old
Internet users meet their friends there, and almost 30% of 10- to 11-year-olds use
this option.
It remains to be seen how the use of social networks by children in this age range
develops, because this is measured for the first time in the 2013 Child Study.
However, we can already see a trend toward children meeting up personally with
their friends less often. Looking at the group of 8- to 11-year-olds surveyed since
2007, we can observe an almost drastic decline in the frequency of personal contacts
to friends during leisure time. In both the first and second Child Studies, 68%
reported meeting their friends very often. In 2013, there has been a clear drop to
53%.
This raises the question how far this trend should be viewed in relation to the
Internet and the shifting of social contacts to virtual space. Are today’s children
already interacting with their peers in chat lines and forums rather than meeting
them in reality? Is the digital exchange replacing direct contact with friends?
For the age group surveyed in the Child Study, the answer is “generally no.”
When we compare this with the reports of 8- to 11-year-olds since 2007 on how
frequently they use the Internet for chat lines, we can even see that these have
become less popular. In 2007, 47% of regular Internet users reported using chat
lines very often; in 2010, this was 30%; whereas in 2013, this is only 26%. This
decline certainly also has to be seen in the light of the growing importance of social
networks that are taking over from the classic chat line. Nonetheless, these data can-
not be used to conclude that children today prefer to cultivate their social contacts
on the Internet rather than in reality. Those who use Facebook very often also meet
their friends more often during their free time. A total of 59% of the frequent users
of social networks report meeting their friends very often. This contrasts with 55%
of those who hardly ever cultivate contacts over the Internet. The same applies to
those who use chat lines very often. They more frequently report meeting children
they are friends with (60%) compared to children with little experience of chat lines
(53%). Hence, the Internet seems to be more of a supplement that offers the children
further possibilities of keeping in touch with others in addition to personal contacts
rather than being something that competes with meeting friends in the real world.
6  Friendships Among Peers 145

Although we are unable to determine an unequivocal reason for this develop-

ment, we can still see that spending leisure time together with friends is currently
less popular than in the years before. It remains to be seen how this will develop
further. Nonetheless, we can already see that the reduced frequency of direct social
contacts in leisure time has not yet led to any social deprivation. The numbers of
friends prove to be stable since 2007 (Fig. 6.2).

6.3  F
 airness, Being Appreciated, and Satisfaction
with the Circle of Friends

When children have friends, they want to feel good in their company, to be treated
fairly, and to be appreciated. Therefore, to gain a closer look at children’s friend-
ships, we also asked how fair they consider their circle of friends to be (see Chap. 2)
and whether their friends value their opinion, that is, the opinion of the child being
surveyed (Chap. 7).
A total of 36% of the children consider that the way they are treated in their clos-
est peer group is very fair and 54% that it is quite fair. Hence, the children have a
thoroughly positive outlook here. The circle of friends is an area of childhood expe-
rience that is generally perceived to be fair. This part of the social environment
offers the great advantage of being variable within certain limits so that each child
can contribute to shaping it alone. Children do not need to make friends with peers
whom they perceive to be unfair or dominant, and they can distance themselves
from friends when they do not like the way that they behave. The perception of fair-
ness also grows with increasing age and autonomy. Among 6- to 7-year-olds, 34%
see the interaction among their friends as being very fair and 51% as quite fair. In
the middle age group, this rises to 36% and 55%, whereas among the 10- to 11-year-­
olds, 37% consider behavior to be very fair and 56% as quite fair.
When asked how far friends value their opinions, 51% are convinced that they
place “generally more” value on them. A further 35% consider that they are appreci-
ated at least to some extent here (“sometimes one, sometimes the other”). This
shows that the children’s perceptions continue to grow in a positive direction.
Whereas 43% reported “generally more” value in 2007, this was 42% in 2010 (45%
of 8- to 11-year-olds), whereas in 2013 it is now 51% who feel so appreciated (53%
of 8- to 11-year-olds). Here as well, we see an age effect in that older children more
frequently have the impression that their friends value their opinions. Whereas 47%
of 6- to 7-year-olds believe that their opinion is of generally more value, the figure
rises to 49% in the 8- to 9-year-olds and 57% in the oldest group.
Being appreciated and treating each other fairly are important preconditions for
satisfaction with social relations. According to the children’s reports, both are to be
found among the majority of the circles of friends in 6- to 11-year-olds. Are they
accordingly also satisfied with their closest, intimate peer group?
146 A. Jänsch and M. Pupeter

Table 6.3  Significant relations between satisfaction with circle of friends and personal and
social variablesa
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
% (per cell) Negative to neutral Positive Very positive
All children 6 32 62
Social origin
Lower class 11b 44b 45
Lower middle class 11 28 61
Middle class 7 28 65
Upper middle class 4 36b 60
Upper class 5 70
Gender
Girls 5b 33 62
Boys 8 30 62
Circle of friends
Small 11b 35 54
Medium 7 33 60
Large 4b 27b 69
Migration background
Yes 11b 30 59
No 8 32 60

This seems to be the case for most children with 62% rating their own satisfac-
tion very positively on the 5-point scale. Hence, as with the other appraisals of sat-
isfaction, the level here is very high in general. In the following, we shall take a look
at the factors influencing this satisfaction (Table 6.3).
The social class of origin impacts significantly on this aspect of childhood satis-
faction as well. Compared to middle-class children, lower class children signifi-
cantly more frequently rate their circle of friends as being negative to neutral (11%)
or positive (44%). At only 45% very positive ratings, they are well below the cor-
responding average of 62% in all the children surveyed. Hence, having a low social
status and the general constraints accompanying this status also influences the qual-
ity of social contacts with peers. Instead of peers serving a compensatory function
in which the support of other children offsets deficits in one’s own sphere, what we
can see here is the emergence of another area in which socially disadvantaged chil-
dren are worse off than their peers. This also has to be viewed together with the
aforementioned finding that children from the lower social classes have fewer
friends than their better situated peers. As Table 6.3 shows, the size of the circle of
friends also impacts on satisfaction. It is interesting to see that a particularly large
proportion of upper class children also rate their circle of friends only as “positive”
and not as “very positive.” It is not possible to derive any unequivocal reason for this
from the data. Gender also proves to have a significant effect on satisfaction with the
closest peer group. Girls less frequently rate this as being negative to neutral than
their male peers. In contrast, children with a migration background significantly
more frequently rate their circle of friends as being negative to neutral compared to
6  Friendships Among Peers 147

their native German peers. However, age and leisure type have no impact on the
children’s ratings.

References

Gauze, C., Bukowski, W. M., Aquan Assee, J., & Sippola, L. K. (1996). Interactions between fam-
ily environment and friendship and associations with self perceived well-being during adoles-
cence. Child Development, 67, 2201–2216.
Gifford-Smith, M. E., & Brownell, C. A. (2002). Childhood peer relationships: Social acceptance,
friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 235–284.
Parker, J. G., & Gottman, J. M. (1989). Social and emotional development in a relational context;
Friendship interaction from early childhood to adolescence. In Berndt, T. J. & Ladd, G. W.
(Hrsg.), Peer relationships in child development. Zitiert nach: Oerter, R., & Montada, L. (1998)
Entwicklungspsychologie. Ein Lehrbuch. Weinheim: Beltz.
Prazen, A., Wolfinger, N. H., Cahill, C., & Kowaleski-Jones, L. (2011). Joint physical custody and
neighborhood friendships in middle childhood. Sociological Inquiry, 81(2), 247–259.
Pupeter, M., & Schneekloth, U. (2010). Die Gleichaltrigen: Gemeinsame – getrennte Welten?. In
World Vision Deutschland. (Hrsg.), Kinder in Deutschland 2010. 2. World Vision Kinderstudie
(S. 141 – 160). Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer.
Salvas, M.-C., Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., Lacourse, E., Boivin, M., & Tremblay, R.  E. (2011).
Interplay between friends’ aggression and friendship quality in the development of child
aggression during the early school years. Social Development, 20(4), 645–663.
Chapter 7
Participation and the Children’s Own
Opinion

Monika Pupeter and Ulrich Schneekloth

This chapter looks at how children think they are perceived in their own frame of
reference; that is, in their own society. In which parts of their lives can children
shape things themselves, how far do they consider themselves and their opinions to
be valued, and which limits to their freedom do they perceive?
Theoretically, we draw once again on the Capability Approach presented in
detail in the Second World Vision Child Study (Andresen et al. 2010). Basically, this
approach aims to describe the conditions for living a good life and to present these
coherently. An important benchmark is the question of justice. One key demand is
that individuals should be enabled to make their own decisions about how they wish
to shape their lives. This requires not only the necessary resources but also the indi-
vidual competencies that enable individuals to act in a self-determined way and to
do what they consider to be appropriate. As we also showed in the last Child Study,
the foundations for this are already laid in childhood. One central aspect is “having
one’s own opinion valued and taken seriously” in the way that children perceive this
in the areas of life that are relevant to them, that is, in their family, at school, in their
circle of friends, and during leisure time (Schneekloth and Pupeter 2010). In which
areas do children experience being taken seriously? When are they asked for their
opinion? Where are they allowed to participate in decision making? How do they
perceive freedoms? These are the questions that we asked the children directly. We
shall take a closer look at their answers here.
In the first section, we want to report on the children’s possibilities of participa-
tion in everyday life. Although we shall focus on how far they can exert an influence
in the home, we shall supplement this by referring to the findings on participation at
school presented in detail in Chap. 4. In the second section, we shall deal with how
children perceive the value placed on their own opinions; in other words, how far

M. Pupeter (*) • U. Schneekloth

Kantar Public, München, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 149

S. Andresen et al. (eds.), Well-being, Poverty and Justice from a Child’s
Perspective, Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research 17,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57574-2_7
150 M. Pupeter and U. Schneekloth

they think that their opinion counts in everyday life. Finally, in the third section, we
shall look at how the children themselves judge the freedoms granted to them in
their everyday lives.

7.1  W
 hich Aspects of Their Everyday Lives Can Children
Determine Themselves?

For all people, and therefore for children as well, it is important not only to have but
also to perceive that one has action scopes and possibilities of shaping one’s world.
Participating in decision making as an independent individual promotes expecta-
tions of self-efficacy in children and helps them to practice negotiation processes
and learn how to deal with differences in opinion. Being able to make one’s own
contribution to decision-making processes and to say what one thinks, that is, to be
involved in what is happening, is something we described in Chap. 2 when consid-
ering the desire for “procedural justice” or “interaction justice.” Children want to be
treated as equals and thereby to be treated fairly—and not just by adults but also in
comparison to adults. This is particularly the case when this concerns matters that
relate to them personally and on which they then demand recognition of their own
rights.
When aged 6–11 years, children are in middle childhood and continually expand-
ing their range of action as they mature. They are beginning to separate themselves
from the intimate family circle. Six-year-olds are still looked after closely by their
parents, but they already go to school, even when many of them are still accompa-
nied by adults on their way there. Older children, in contrast, travel to school by
themselves, sometimes even by bus and by train, and they not only may but also
increasingly have to deal with many things by themselves. The image of the way to
school provides a fitting illustration of the process of separation from the parental
home. Ideally, the growth in the demands placed on children is accompanied by an
increasing trust in their own abilities to cope with what is new in their world.

7.1.1  P
 articipation and Making Their Own Decisions
in Everyday Life: In the First Instance, a Question
of Age

We shall start by looking at the possibilities of participation in decision making at

home, that is, in the primary domain of children. Which things can children decide
for themselves in their everyday lives? When are they asked what they think, or how
can they assert themselves in everyday life at home? Do the children’s reports reveal
an age effect? We wanted the children to name the areas in their everyday lives in
which they have more possibilities of deciding for themselves or codetermining
7  Participation and the Children’s Own Opinion 151

what they do. It was important for us to address things in everyday lives that should
affect as far as possible all children regardless of their individual dispositions, pref-
erences, or interests. Therefore, we selected the following eight aspects1:
Can you decide for yourself:
• Which friends do you meet?
• What clothes do you wear?
• What do you spend your pocket money on?
• What to eat at home?
• How many friends can you bring home with you?
• What do you do in your free time?
• When do you do your homework?
• What does your family do in its free time (e.g., at the weekend)?
A large majority of children can decide for themselves which friends they meet
(88%) and what they do in their free time (85%). Hence, even at home, more than
four-fifths of children see themselves as relevant “decision makers”. Likewise, the
majority report that they themselves can generally say what clothes they want to
wear (79%), that they codetermine what the family does in its free time (75%), and
that they themselves also generally decide what to spend their pocket money on
(72%). Only roughly every second child, and thus a much smaller proportion,
reports that they can decide what is to eat at home (53%) or also how many friends
they can bring home with them (48%). No more than 35% of the children can gener-
ally decide when they want to do their homework (Fig. 7.1).
As to be expected, relevant differences depend on the children’s age (Table 7.1).
The largest—relatively speaking—possibilities of codetermination are found in the
10- to 11-year-olds. Almost every child (more than 90%) in this age group can
determine what to do in her free time and can largely decide what to wear. Eighty
percent can decide what to do with their pocket money. Interestingly, at 81%, sig-
nificantly more children in this age group report possibilities of codetermining what
the family does in its free time. Significantly more older children report, though on
a lower level at 54%, that they can generally decide for themselves how many chil-
dren they bring home with them, and 46% can decide for themselves when to do
their homework.
Results are similar though on a somewhat lower level for the 8- to 9-year-olds.
They also report more possibilities of codetermination than the 6- to 7-year-olds.
This holds true for the circle of friends and for their own leisure-time choices.
Although there are slight differences between 8- to 9-year-olds and 10- to 11- year-­
olds here, they do not attain statistical significance. The same applies to what they
do with their pocket money. Here as well, the differences between 8- to 9-year-olds

1
 Specifically, we asked children: “If you think about your everyday life, which are the situations in
which your opinion counts. Can you decide for yourself: . . . which friends you meet? Generally
yes, Generally no, Don’t know/No answer.” Compared to 2010, four more domains were included,
so that the question in 2013 contained seven items. A further question on possibilities of codeter-
mining family activities during leisure time was added to the 2010 and 2013 surveys.
152 M. Pupeter and U. Schneekloth

“I can decide for myself or help decide on…“

Which friends to meet 88

What to do in my free time 85

What clothes to wear 79

What to do as a family on a free time 75

What to spend my pocket money on 72

What to have to eat at home 53

How many friends can I bring home

48
with me

When to do my homework 35

Fig. 7.1  Where can children make their own decisions in everyday life
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

Table 7.1  Which aspects of everyday life can children determine for themselves?
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
Generally yes, columns in % Girls Boys 6–7 years 8–9 years 10–11 years
I can decide for myself or help decide on
Which friends to meet 88 87 81a 89 92
What to do in my free time 85 85 77a 86 91
What clothes to wear 82 75a 63a 79a 90a
What to do as a family on a free time 77 72a 66a 75a 81a
What to spend my pocket money on 74 70 60a 73 80
What to have to eat at home 54 53 51 53 55
How many friends can I bring home with me 47 48 46 43 54a
When to do my homework 36 34 25 31 46a
a
Significant differences between means (p > .05) are printed in bold

and 10- to 11- year-olds fail to attain significance. At 79%, significantly more 8- to
9-year-olds can decide for themselves what they want to wear than 6- to 7-year-olds,
but significantly fewer 8- to 9-year-olds can decide this compared to 10- to 11- year-­
olds. The same applies for codetermining what the family does in its free time.
Here, 75% of 8- to 9-year-olds can have their say—significantly more than among
7  Participation and the Children’s Own Opinion 153

the 6- to 7-year-olds, but significantly less than among the 10- to 11- year-olds.
However, there are no significant differences compared to the 6- to 7-year-olds
regarding whether they can decide for themselves how many friends they bring
home with them (43%) or when they do their homework (31%).
In comparison, 6- to 7-year-olds markedly less frequently report being able to
decide for themselves. The majority at this age can determine whom they are friends
with and what they do in their free time. However, only two out of three reported
that they can decide what clothes they want to wear or codetermine what the family
does in its free time. Sixty percent, and thereby significantly fewer compared to the
other age groups, report being able to do largely what they want with their pocket
money. However, as reported above, they do not differ from the 8- to 9-year-olds in
terms of being able to decide how many friends they bring home with them and
when they do their homework.
No significant age effects can be found regarding whether they can also decide
for themselves what is to eat at home. Participation in decision-making over what is
cooked at home seems to be less a question of the children’s age in the sense of a
continuous increase in autonomy, but primarily a question of what is the customary
practice in a particular family and how they organize themselves. Family framing
conditions in the form of the available domestic resources are naturally effective
elsewhere as well, for example, regarding how many friends they can bring home
with them, what the family does in its leisure time, or whether they can decide what
to spend their pocket money on. Nonetheless, it is interesting to see where the
child’s age actually is and is not a major determining factor.
Comparing genders on the possibilities of participation and codetermination that
children report in their everyday lives reveals only two significant differences: At
82%, girls report significantly more frequently being able to determine what clothes
they wear compared to 75% of boys. In addition, girls feel more integrated into plan-
ning family activities at 77% compared to 72% of boys. Otherwise, the possibilities
of codetermination in everyday life are fairly comparable in both genders. Regarding
clothing, it can be assumed that “external appearances” continue to play a greater
role for girls due to their socialization, and the importance of their self-­determination
in this domain will be encouraged more strongly. Regarding the codetermination of
family leisure-time activities, no such clear explanation suggests itself.
Results do not reveal any clear trend over time. The replies to the questions on
the choice of clothing and on pocket money reveal no significant differences com-
pared to the last Child Study. For the item on the number of friends children can
bring home with them, 48% report that they can decide this in 2013 compared to
42% in 2010. Currently, 75% report that they can codetermine what the family does
in its leisure time compared to 80% in the last Child Study.
154 M. Pupeter and U. Schneekloth

Table 7.2  Possibilities of self-determination in everyday life by social origin

Lower Upper
Children in Germany aged Lower middle Middle middle Upper
6–11 yearsGenerally yes, columns in % class class class class class
I can decide for myself or help decide on
Which friends to meet 76a 83a 89 89 95
What to do in my free time 69a 82 86 87 92
What clothes to wear 78 74 80 78 82
What to do as a family on a free time 49a 72 77 79 81
What to spend my pocket money on 56a 69 72 74 79
What to have to eat at home 34a 54 56 54 59
How many friends can I bring home with 32a 49 44 51 57
me
When to do my homework 38 32 33 33 43a
a
Significant differences between means (p > .05) are printed in bold

7.1.2  L
 ower Class Children Have the Lowest Possibilities
of Self-Determination

In contrast, there is once again a clear effect of social origin. Children from the
lower class have the least decision-making scope in everyday life whereas children
from the upper class in contrast have the most (Table 7.2).
The largest difference is found on the item addressing participation in planning
family leisure time. Only 49% of lower class children consider that they can code-
termine this compared to 72% from the lower middle class, 77% from the middle
class, 79% from the upper middle class, and 81% from the upper class. Certainly, as
with the item on pocket money, a lack of possibilities of codetermination will be
particularly marked among lower class children when they do not even have the
“basis” for them; in other words, when there is a general lack of family leisure-time
activities and no pocket money.2 Things are probably similar for the items on how
many children they can bring home with them or whether they also decide on what
the family eats. Lack of space and economic constraints on housekeeping certainly
regulate the facts here.
It is symptomatic that at 92%, nearly all upper class children can decide for
themselves how they spend their leisure time compared to only 69% of lower class
children. Lower middle-class children also differ from upper class children at 82%,
whereas the differences compared to the middle class (86%) and the upper middle
class (87%) are not significant. At 76% in the lower and 83% in the lower middle,
significantly fewer children in these classes are able to choose which friends they
meet compared to the upper middle and upper class children. This notable finding is

2
 Results of the First World Vision Child Study indicated that lower class children less frequently
get pocket money (Schneekloth and Leven 2007).
7  Participation and the Children’s Own Opinion 155

probably due predominantly to parents in the lower social classes seeing far higher
risks in their children’s circle of friends than parents in higher social milieus
(Andresen and Galic 2015).
No relevant social class effects can be ascertained for the item on whether chil-
dren can decide for themselves what clothes they will wear. Possible parental guide-
lines seem to be irrelevant here for children between 6 and 11 years. At 43%, upper
class children most frequently perceive that they can also codetermine when to do
their homework. Members of all other social classes, and therefore also explicitly
the lower class, significantly less frequently report participation in decision making
on this issue (between 32% and 38%).

7.1.3  P
 ossibilities of Self-Determination in Everyday Life:
A Question Not Only of Age But Also of Social Origin
and Family Practices

The possibilities of self-determination we survey address various aspects of every-

day life and refer to the action scopes of children in the living space of the family.
Because they are determined decisively by family framing conditions and family
practices,3 the eight indicators in our survey can be aggregated to form an index
distinguishing between three groups of children that differ sufficiently clearly in the
scopes of action and decision making available to them in their everyday family
lives (Fig. 7.2).4
At 58%, the majority of children have possibilities of self-determination in four
to six domains and thereby more frequently possess decision-making scopes in
everyday life (“children with just about all possibilities of self-determination”).
Almost all these children choose their own leisure-time pursuits and circle of
friends, and a majority also tends to be able to make their own choices in the other
domains we survey. The exceptions here are the number of children they can take
home with them and when they do their homework. Only one child in four can
codetermine this.
A total of 27% of the children belong to the group with “average possibilities of
self-determination” in everyday life. These children report that they can determine
or codetermine in nearly all the domains we survey. The only exception here, if at

3
 The institutional space, in this case, the decisive “school living space” with its own binding rules
and framing conditions, is excluded here. This is addressed separately in our study with special
questions on codetermination and participation from the children’s perspective (see Chap. 4).
4
 The computed index can take a range of values from 0 (codetermination in no domain) to 8 (code-
termination in all eight domains). Referring to the mean and the standard deviation, we could dis-
tinguish three groups of children: those with 4–6 namings (mean plus or minus 1 standard
deviation), 0–3 namings (lower than 1 standard deviation), and 7–8 namings (higher than 1 stan-
dard deviation).
156 M. Pupeter and U. Schneekloth

Number of domains in which children report

co- or self-determination in everyday life

8 domains 9 Just about all possibilities of self-

determination
7 domains 27%
18

6 domains 25
Average possibilities of self-
determination
5 domains 20
58%

4 domains 13

3 domains 9
Few possibilities of self-
determination
2 domains 4 15%

1 domain 2

Fig. 7.2  Possibilities of self-determination in everyday life

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

all, is yet again when they do their homework. However, more than two out of three
children in this group can codetermine this.
Finally, 15% of the children are in the group with “few possibilities of self-­
determination” in everyday life. Here, only just above one out of two children can
determine which friends they meet, whereas in all other domains, including what
they do in their leisure time, the majority report a lack of self-determination.
As reported above, the possibilities of self-determination increase as children
grow older. Nonetheless, the different scopes cannot be explained by age alone. We
also find variations within age groups. This becomes visible when we study which
children more frequently, that is, with a greater probability, belong to one of our
three groups. Analyzing the statistical relations between these features5 confirms the
effects of not only age but also other social and familial background factors
(Table 7.3).
As can be expected, younger children more frequently (and older children, in
contrast, less frequently) belong to the group with few possibilities of
self-­determination in everyday life. The older the children are, the more frequently
they report being generally able to determine their everyday lives themselves.
Whereas 27% of 6- to 7-year-olds report having only a few of the decision-making

5
 We tested relationships with both a multifactorial analysis of variance across our specially formed
total index and an ordinal regression across the three levels “possibilities of codetermination in
daily life: few, more frequent, consistent.” Both approaches produced comparable findings.
7  Participation and the Children’s Own Opinion 157

Table 7.3  Significant relations between possibilities of self-determination in everyday life and
personal and social variablesa
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
Per cell in % Few Average Just about all
All children 15 58 27
Age
6–7 years 27 55b 18b
8–9 years 13 64b 23b
10–11 years 8 54b 38b
Social origin
Lower class 37 50b 13b
Lower middle class 19 56 25
Middle class 12 63b 25
Upper middle class 14 57 29
Upper class 8 56b 36b
Migration background
Native German children 11 59 30b
Children with a migration background 24 55b 21b
Type of family
One-child family 15 55 30
Two-child family 15 55 30
Three-or-more-child family 17 64b 19b
Single parent 14 60 26
Parental care and attention
No deficit 14 57 29
Deficit in one parent 19 61 20
Care deficit 21 60 19b
Gender
Girls 15 55 30b
Boys 15 61b 24
a
The relationship was tested with a multivariate ordinal regression on the variable “possibilities of
self-determination in everyday life”
Variables included: Age, gender, social origin, migration background, type of family, care deficit,
and east vs. West Germany
b
For ease of presentation, bivariate values are presented as percentages in the table. Notable devia-
tions for variables that were also significant within the multivariate statistical analysis are printed
in bold (p < .05)

scopes we surveyed in their everyday lives, this is the case for only 8% of 10- to
11-year-olds. On the other hand, there are also 55% of 6- to 7-year-olds and 54% of
10- to ­11-year-­olds who report more frequent possibilities of self-determination,
and 18% of 6- to 7-year-olds as well as 38% of 10- to 11-year-olds who report just
about all possibilities of self-determination in everyday life.
We also find a slight gender effect: At 30%, girls belong slightly more frequently
than boys (at 24%) to the group with just about all possibilities of self-­determination.
As mentioned above, this difference can be ascertained in only two of the eight
158 M. Pupeter and U. Schneekloth

domains we survey. In these domains, we cannot rule out a possible effect of differ-
ent perceptions. If we were to look at other aspects of everyday life as well, this
difference might well level out. On the other hand, there are no indications that boys
in this age range feel that they are granted more autonomy in everyday life and girls
correspondingly less.
Independent of age, statistics once again reveal the effect of social origins: the
lower the social class, the higher the proportion of children with only few possibili-
ties of self-determination in their everyday lives. Lower class children at 37% and
lower middle-class children at 19% disproportionately frequently report having few
possibilities of self-determination. In contrast, 36% of upper class children dispro-
portionately frequently report having possibilities of codetermination in just about
all domains. On the one hand, the low possibilities of self-determination are, as
mentioned above, due to the less favorable framing conditions typical for lower
class children. If there is little space at home, then it is naturally more difficult to
bring an unlimited number of friends home with you. If money is limited, then free-
doms and the regulation of leisure time differ from those experienced by children in
the higher social classes (see also Sect. 3.4 on how children experience poverty). On
the other hand, different family practices and childrearing styles also play a role
here.
Another independent factor that is not mediated by, for example, class member-
ship is the effect of a migration background. At 30%, native German children mark-
edly more frequently have possibilities of codetermination in just about all domains
compared to 24% of children with a migration background. This result is in line
with findings on different childrearing styles in native German families and families
with a migration background. Not only families with roots in Islamic cultures but
also Spätaussiedler (ethnic German immigrants from the countries of the former
Soviet Union) particularly reveal a higher frequency of traditional and authoritarian
childrearing styles. Especially in children in this age range, these are often com-
bined with the demand to comply more strongly with the cultural traditions of the
country of origin (Fuhrer and Uslucan 2005; Uslucan 2008).
Children with deficits in care and attention (“My mother and father do not give
me enough of their time”) are also more likely to have low possibilities of self-­
determination independent of age and social origins. They are also less likely to
have possibilities of self-determination in just about all domains. It can be seen here
that children who complain about a lack of parental attention are disadvantaged in
many ways. Parents whose children feel that they do not look after them enough
also grant their children fewer possibilities of self-determination and codetermina-
tion. This can be viewed as a restriction of the potential opportunities in these chil-
dren’s everyday lives.
Finally, there is an interesting relationship with the type of family. Independent
from the aforementioned factors, children from families with three or more children
report having somewhat fewer possibilities of self-determination in their everyday
lives than children in families with only one or no siblings. Combining this with the
finding in Chap. 2 that children from families with three or more children also com-
plain somewhat more frequently about being disadvantaged in their everyday lives,
7  Participation and the Children’s Own Opinion 159

there are many indications at this stage that this is not due primarily to the parental
childrearing style. It is at least just as much due to the constraints imposed on
­families with lots of children by the lack of support for large families in everyday
life in Germany.

7.1.4  C
 hildren with Low Possibilities of Self-Determination
in Everyday Life Also Experience Less Codetermination
at School

Relating the results on the possibilities of self-determination in everyday life to

those on codetermination at school (see Chap. 4) reveals that children who are used
to acting in a self-determined way in their everyday lives also experience more pos-
sibilities of codetermination at school. We asked the children about seven potential
forms of codetermination at school:
• How is your classroom decorated.
• Whom are you allowed to sit next to.
• How are the desks, chairs, and tables arranged in your classroom.
• On working out the rules in your class.
And for children attending 2nd grade and above:
• Where do you all go on school outings.
• On suggesting possible topics for future class projects.
• On organizing school events.
The correlation between the possibilities of self-determination in everyday life and
codetermination at school is highest in the oldest children in our survey; that is, the
10- to 11-year-olds who are generally already attending secondary school. However,
those 10- to 11-year-olds with low possibilities of codetermination in everyday life
report that they are often allowed to codetermine 0.9 of the 7 areas surveyed. Among
children with more frequent possibilities of self-determination in everyday life, this
already rises to 1.3 areas, and in children with possibilities of self-determination in
just about all fields, it rises to 2.2 areas.6 Figure 7.3 presents the means; that is, the
mean number of areas in which children are often allowed to codetermine at school
differentiated according to the frequency of self-­determination in everyday life.
Among the 8- to 9-year-olds, that is, children generally attending 3rd or 4th
grade of elementary school, those reporting low possibilities of self-determination
in everyday life report less than one area in which they are able to codetermine at
school. In contrast, children with more possibilities of self-determination in every-
day life significantly more frequently report more areas: 1.2 codetermined areas
among children with more frequent possibilities of self-determination in everyday

6
 Means would have been higher and the correlation stronger if we had added together the “often”
and “sometimes” responses and thereby weighted possibilities of codetermination at school
differently.
160 M. Pupeter and U. Schneekloth

6-7 years

“In our school, we are often allowed to help decide…“ 8-9 years
10-11 years
Number of domain sat school in which children
often are able to help decide
Mean from 0 to 7 (*significant at p < .05) *
2.2
*
1.7
1.2 1.3 1.2*
0.9 * 0.8
*
0.6 0.7

Hardly ever More frequently Nearly always

“In everyday life, I can decide more for myself…“

Possibilities of self-determination in everyday life

Fig. 7.3  Children with greater possibilities of self-determination in everyday life also experience
a bigger decision-making scope at school
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years

life and 1.7 (thereby not significantly more) among children with possibilities of
self-determination in just about all fields of everyday life. Among 6- to 7-year-olds,
in contrast, with less than one reported area of codetermination at school, all differ-
ences between groups fail to attain significance.
The finding that children who have more possibilities of self-determination in
everyday life also report more opportunities to codetermine at school is another
decisive effect of social origins. As pointed out above, upper class children have
more possibilities of self-determination not only in everyday life but also when they
attend a Gymnasium for their secondary education. Both in the family and at school,
they generally experience more possibilities of codetermination and they gain more
decision-making competencies. Being able to choose and decide for oneself is an
aspect of everyday life that these children take for granted, unlike children from the
lower classes who markedly more frequently have no access to these opportunities
for developing social competencies. In the last Child Study, we examined this aspect
in more detail from the perspective of perceived self-efficacy (Schneekloth and
Pupeter 2010). It is interesting to see this relationship emerge here as well.
It is also interesting to see that this correlation is already found in elementary
school children. Even though somewhat weaker, it can still be confirmed statisti-
cally. We attribute this to what we call the school district principle. In Germany,
elementary school children are assigned to specific elementary schools in their resi-
dential areas. Elementary schools in “posh” areas accordingly offer more possibili-
ties of codetermination than schools in less posh areas. Viewing possibilities of
codetermination as a feature of educational quality, children with a lower socioeco-
nomic family background have less access to high-quality institutions in this sphere
as well. This has also been noted critically in the German Parliament’s 14th Report
on Children and Youth (Deutscher Bundestag 2013). In addition, personality char-
7  Participation and the Children’s Own Opinion 161

acteristics probably also play a role. Self-confident and “self-efficacious” children

will tend to demand codetermination more than children from milieus in which
hardly any possibilities of codetermination are given. Depending on the composi-
tion of the school class, this can also lead to differences along with different reac-
tions by teachers to the topic of codetermination in the class.

7.2  Their Own Opinion

Our study also asked children whether they feel that their opinions are taken seri-
ously: “Which of the following do you think care more about what you think and
which care less?” (Table 7.4).
Six- to 11-year-olds most frequently consider that their own opinions are taken
generally more seriously by their mothers (60%). Here, 27% report “sometimes
one, sometimes the other”; 9% are explicitly negative with “generally less”; and 4%
do not reply. Just under one-half feel they are taken seriously by their fathers (49%
“generally more,” 27% “sometimes one, sometimes the other,” 13% “generally
less,” 11% no reply), and results are similar for the circle of friends (51% “generally
more,” 35% “sometimes one, sometimes the other”, 11% “generally less”, and 3%
no reply).
Ratings of class teachers and, when applicable, of caregivers in institutions (day-
care centers, etc.) are lower. Not even one-third of children report that their class
teacher respects their opinion quite a lot (29% “generally more”, 33% “sometimes
one, sometimes the other”, 30% “generally less”, 8% no reply), and, likewise, only
one-third give positive reports on the persons providing them with institutional care
in the afternoons (33% “generally more”, 35% “sometimes one, sometimes the
other”, 25% “generally less”, 7% no reply).
Generally, children’s evaluations of how well their opinion is valued increase as
they grow older. Among the 10- to 11-year-olds, 65% report that their mothers and
52% that their fathers place generally more value on their personal opinion. Among
the 8- to 9-year-olds, this applies to 59% and 49% respectively; and among the 6- to
7-year-olds, 56% and 46%. In contrast, 7% of 10- to 11-year-olds report generally
less regard from their mothers and 12% (according to Table 7.4) generally less from
their fathers. Among the 8- to 9-year-olds, this applies to 8% and 12% respectively;
and among the 6- to 7-year-olds, 12% and 16%. Results are similar for how well
their opinion is valued by their circle of friends and by their class teachers and day-
care staff.
In contrast, differences in the ratings of boys and girls are less homogeneous. For
example, girls somewhat more frequently give no reply when estimating the regard
of their fathers whereas boy tend to rate their fathers more positively. The “some-
times one, sometimes the other” and negative answers reveal no differences. In con-
trast, girls rate the regard of their class teacher more positively than boys (32% vs.
25%). Correspondingly fewer girls give negative ratings than boys (28% vs. 33%).
162 M. Pupeter and U. Schneekloth

Table 7.4  Respect for their own opinion

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years
Columns in % All children Girls Boys 6–7 years 8–9 years 10–11 years
Respected by:
Mother
Generally more 60 60 61 56 59 65
Sometime one, sometime other 27 27 27 24 30 26
Generally less 9 8 9 12 8 7
Don’t know/no reply 4 5 3 8 3 2
Father
Generally more 49 47 52 46 49 52
Sometime one, sometime other 27 27 27 24 30 27
Generally less 13 14 13 16 12 12
Don’t know/no reply 11 12 8 14 9 9
Friends
Generally more 51 52 51 47 49 57
Sometime one, sometime other 35 35 33 36 36 32
Generally less 11 9 13 11 12 9
Don’t know/no reply 3 4 3 6 3 2
Class teacher
Generally more 29 32 25 27 28 31
Sometime one, sometime other 33 31 35 30 33 35
Generally less 30 28 33 31 31 29
Don’t know/no reply 8 9 7 12 8 5
If child attends after-school care:
Caregiver
Generally more 33 36 30 33 30 38
Sometime one, sometime other 35 31 41 39 35 29
Generally less 25 26 23 19 29 28
Don’t know/no reply 7 7 6 9 6 5

Findings seem to be similar for institutional daycare staff. Girls feel better regarded
by them than boys (36% vs. 30%). On the other hand, more girls than boys give
explicitly negative ratings here (26% vs. 23%).
Accordingly, the children are quite capable of taking a “critical” perspective
when rating how seriously their opinion is taken. As far as the family and circle of
friends are concerned, however, at 10%, only a smaller portion give explicitly nega-
tive ratings. The “sometimes one, sometimes the other” ratings that one-quarter
report regarding the regard of their mothers nonetheless emphasize how sensitive
children are in this age range. In comparison, answers on satisfaction with life or
ratings of parental care are far more positive, but perhaps these questions are also
answered without so much thought. More than 90% rate the care they receive from
their parents either positively or very positively, and only a minority give neutral or
even negative ratings (see Chaps. 2 und 3).
7  Participation and the Children’s Own Opinion 163

“Care more about what I think…”

56
Mother 57
60

47
Father 48
49

43
Friends 42
51

26
Class teacher 32
29
2007
24 2010
(If child attends after-school care)
36 2013
The staff where I go after school
33

Fig. 7.4  Respect for their own opinion

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (2007: 8 to 11 years) (%)

7.2.1  T
 he Trend: Slightly More Regard in the Family
and Circle of Friends; Ups and Downs at School
and in Institutions

Viewed as a trend, the regard that children experience in the family and the circle of
friends has increased slightly since our first Child Study in 2007 (Fig. 7.4). At this
point, we are referring to the explicitly positive ratings (“generally more”). For
mothers, the positive assessment has increased in the last two Child Studies from
56% in 2007 over 57% in 2010 to 60% in 2013. For fathers, it has risen from 47%,
across 48%, to a current 49%.7 The explicitly negative ratings fluctuate for the
mothers but remain below the 10% level. In the fathers, they were 13% in 2007, 9%
in 2010, and therefore slightly below the latest value of 13%. When rating the circle
of friends, positive ratings have moved from 43%, across 42%, to a current 51% and
thereby show the strongest increase. Negative ratings, in contrast, have remained
constant at round about 10%.
In contrast, there has been a slight decline compared to the 2010 Child Study in
ratings of the regard in which they are held by teachers and daycare staff. From
2007 to 2010, positive ratings rose from 26% to 32% for class teachers and from
24% to 36% for daycare staff. Currently, 29% of children give explicitly positive
ratings to the esteem in which they are held by class teachers and 33% by daycare

7
 Note that the increase in reported positive regard from fathers was not large enough to attain sta-
tistical significance.
164 M. Pupeter and U. Schneekloth

staff, when appropriate. Negative ratings for class teachers have changed from 23%
in the first Child Study in 2007, across 19% in 2010, to 30% in 2013. In the daycare
institutes, explicitly negative ratings have changed from 25% in 2007, across 17%
in 2010, to 25% in 2013.
Regarding parents and the circle of friends, there is a clear trend toward children
perceiving that their own opinion is being taken more seriously. However, regarding
teachers and daycare staff, there is no recognizably stable trend, with findings fluc-
tuating across the three waves of assessment.
Viewed in context, the degree of respect for their own opinion that children
report perceiving in their mothers and fathers is determined decisively by how much
time mothers or fathers dedicate to them. If children consider that their mothers
spend enough time with them, then an above-average 67% give explicitly positive
ratings on how well their mothers respect their opinion. If fathers devote enough
time, then the proportion of children who give explicitly positive ratings on how
well their fathers respect their opinion even reaches 68% (compared to an average
of 49%).
More negative ratings of how seriously they are taken by their fathers or mothers
are once again found more frequently among children from the lower classes.
Sixteen percent of lower class children rate the regard of their mothers and even
31% that of their fathers as being explicitly negative. A notable finding is that 19%
of children with a migration background compared to 10% of native German
­children rate the regard of their fathers negatively. There are no significant differ-
ences in ratings on the regard of their mothers. The differences in the regard of
mothers versus fathers on the one hand and children with versus without a migration
background on the other reveal the significance of parental childrearing styles. The
children’s statements can be evaluated as support for an appraisal that continues to
dominate research on childrearing styles to this day: Children from less educated or
socially more deprived classes tend to be reared in an authoritarian manner and this
leads to differences in the regard paid to their opinion. The ratings of children with
a migration background can be related to the dominance of a “traditional father
role” in their families. For the rating on the regard given to one’s own opinion by
class teachers, it is the age of the child and the type of school that play a central role.
Children attending a Gymnasium or also a Realschule somewhat more frequently
consider that the class teacher takes their opinions seriously. The aforementioned
gender effect with a slightly higher rating of the class teacher’s regard for girls’
opinions is also significant. This finding also indicates that it is not just social fac-
tors that play an important role but the individual character as well. How regard is
perceived also depends on the way teachers as individuals impart the educational
goals of the school.
7  Participation and the Children’s Own Opinion 165

7.2.2  Not Much Interest in Politics

Do politicians take the well-being of children into account when making their deci-
sions? Do children feel that politicians take them seriously? We posed these ques-
tions only to children who showed some understanding of the term “politics.” We
first asked whether they had any interest at all in politics: “Are you interested in
politics?” If necessary, we also explained “What I mean is what politicians (such as
Frau Merkel) or what political parties do.”
In the present Child Study, 30% did not answer this question (53% of 6- to
7-year-olds, 31% of 8- to 9-year-olds, and 11% of 10- to 11-year-olds). In 2010, this
was 19% (30% of 6- to 7-year-olds, 31% of 8- to 9-year-olds, and 6% of 10- to
11-year-olds). However, we attribute this increase predominantly to method effects.
In contrast to 2010, in 2013, we had already presented a series of questions on poli-
tics and social justice. The children who were unable to answer these questions (see
Chap. 2) also more frequently gave no answer here either. In 2010 in contrast, 47%
replied “not at all interested”—markedly more than the 37% in the 2013 Child
Study (Fig. 7.5).
Otherwise, there are hardly any changes. Twenty-two percent characterize them-
selves as not very interested (compared to 24% in the 2010 Child Study); 9%, as
interested (compared to 8%); and 2%, as very interested (same in 2010). For older
children aged 8 to 11 years, we also have findings from our first Child Study in
2007. Here, 9% of 8- to 9-year-olds were interested (or even very interested) in poli-
tics. In 2010, this was 10%; and in 2013, it is also 10%. Among the 10- to
11-year-­olds, the numbers were 11% in 2007, 15% in 2010, and 14% in 2013.
Generally speaking, there are no relevant changes apart from the correction of the
unusually low result among the 10- to 11-year-olds in 2007.
The majority of children still describe themselves as not being interested in poli-
tics. However, when we ask them to give concrete evaluations of, for example, what
they think about the way certain groups are treated in Germany, most give thor-
oughly differentiated appraisals and also demand to be included themselves when
the interests of children are at stake (see Chap. 2). This result is in line with findings
on political interests in adolescents (Schneekloth 2010). Here as well, it seems to be
a contemporary phenomenon that children pick up on and articulate here.

7.2.3  S
 kepticism Regarding Whether Politicians Bother
About the Interests of Children

We asked the children who had at least some basic grasp of “politics” to rate how
they felt that politicians treat children: “Do you think that politicians also pay much
attention to children, that is, do they consider what they need to do so that children
will have a good life?”
166 M. Pupeter and U. Schneekloth

2
Very interested
2

8
Interested
9

24
Not very interested
22

47
Not interested at all
37

Child does not know what 19 2010

to say 30 2013

Fig. 7.5  Interest in politics

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

At 35%, the largest group of children who were given this question reply some-
what skeptically. A positive appraisal of whether politicians look after the interests
of children is given by 29%, 22% are undecided, and the remaining 14% do not
agree with any of the available response alternatives.
The reported appraisals depend strongly on age, even when, as here, we analyze
only the responses of those who have some grasp of politics (Fig. 7.6). Among the
6- to 7-year-olds, a small relative majority of 29% answer positively; 25% rate the
consideration given to them by politicians more negatively, 20% are undecided, and
26% are unable to answer the question. The opinions of 8- to 9-year-olds are bal-
anced: 34% tend to think that politicians do not value the interests of children; 33%
think they do, 21% are undecided, and 12% cannot answer the question. Among the
10- to 11-year-olds in contrast, negative appraisals dominate. The majority of 41%
do not think that politicians spend much time thinking about what they should do
for children, 26% appraise them positively, 23% are undecided, and 10% can give
no answer. Hence skepticism about what politicians do increases with age.
7  Participation and the Children’s Own Opinion 167

29
I think so 33
26

20
Can’t decide, can’t say 21
23

25
I don’t really think so 34
41
6-7 years

26 8-9 years
Don’t know 12 10-11 years
10

| Only children who understand what is meant by politics

Fig. 7.6  My opinion on whether politicians also pay much attention to what they need to do so
that we children can have a good life
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

7.3  General Appraisal of Freedoms in Everyday Life

When we ask the children quite generally about how they rate the freedoms their
parents grant them in their everyday lives, a large majority give positive or very
positive answers. At 83%, the positive rating has even increased compared to the
78% in the last Child Study in 2010 (Fig. 7.7).
This even more positive evaluation can be found in all age groups and underlines
how strongly children in Germany approve of the way their parents are rearing and
caring for them. Warmth, affection, and reliability, but also the willingness to dis-
pute with the child and if necessary set limits (authoritative childrearing style, see
Baumrind 1991) are appreciated by the majority of children and reflected in their
answers here. Discontent is found where children gain the impression that they are
not able to act in a sufficiently self-determined way in their everyday lives, or where
parents lack either the time or the ability to deal with them. This particularly fre-
quently affects 29% of lower class and 19% of lower middle-class children who
give neutral to negative reports on the freedoms granted to them by their parents. In
contrast, 12% of middle-class, 15% of upper middle-class, and 11% of upper class
children give neutral to negative reports on this.
The importance of social origins for both satisfaction and well-being as well as
for the opportunities to participate at school and during leisure time dominates the
life worlds of children throughout the 2013 Child Study. We can see that children
from the lower classes are disadvantaged. However, they are also disadvantaged
because their families are disadvantaged and have fewer opportunities and less
168 M. Pupeter and U. Schneekloth

40
Very positive
43

38
Positive
40

16
Neutral
14

3
Negative
1 2010
2013

2
Very negative
1

| Failure to reach 100% due to “Don’t know/No answer” responses

Fig. 7.7  Assessment of the amount of freedom granted by parents in daily life
Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (%)

potential to offer their children comparably good conditions and starting chances in
life. It is precisely these children who also need strong families, who need to be
socially well-embedded in their circles of friends, and who need to be respected in
all areas of life. Children and parents need the support of “the whole village” as we
have tried to portray it since our first Child Study. They do not need stigmatization
and exclusion. Instead it is necessary to promote initiatives to provide concrete sup-
port in everyday life that will effectively meet the primary goal of giving children
the capabilities they need in order to participate in society. The final Chap. 9 of the
Child Study will go into more detail on the political challenges this embodies.

References

Andresen, S., Hurrelmann, K., & Fegter, S. (2010). Wie geht es unseren Kindern? Wohlbefinden
und Lebensbedingungen der Kinder in Deutschland. In World Vision Deutschland. (Hrsg.)
Kinder in Deutschland 2010. 2. World Vision Kinderstudie (S. 35 – 59). Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer.
Andresen, S., & Galic, D. (2015). Kinder. Armut. Familie. Alltagsbewältigung und Wege zu
wirksamer Unterstützung. Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance
use. Journal of early adolescence. Band 11, Heft 1, S. 56 – 95.
Deutscher Bundestag. (2013). Der 14. Kinder- und Jugendbericht. Bericht über die Lebenssituation
junger Menschen und die Leistungen und Bestrebungen der Kinder- und Jugendhilfe Iin
Deutschland. Deutscher Bundestag, Drucksache 17 / 12200. http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/
btd/17 / 122 / 1712200.pdf (Stand: 24.06.2013).
7  Participation and the Children’s Own Opinion 169

Fuhrer, U., & Uslucan, H.-H. (Hrsg.). (2005). Familie, Akkulturation und Erziehung: Migration
zwischen Eigen- und Fremdkultur. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Schneekloth, U. (2010). Jugend und Politik: Aktuelle Entwicklungstrends und Perspektiven. In
Shell Deutschland Holding. (Hrsg.), Jugend 2010. Eine pragmatische Generation behauptet
sich (16. Shell Jugendstudie). Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer, S. 129 – 164.
Schneekloth, U., & Leven, I. (2007). Familie als Zentrum: nicht für alle gleich verlässlich. In
World Vision Deutschland. (Hrsg.), Kinder in Deutschland 2007. 1. World Vision Kinderstudie
(S. 65 – 109). Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer.
Schneekloth, U., & Pupeter, M. (2010). Wohlbefinden, Wertschätzung, Selbstwirksamkeit:
Was Kinder für ein gutes Leben brauchen. In World Vision Deutschland. (Hrsg.), Kinder in
Deutschland 2010. 2. World Vision Kinderstudie (S. 187 – 221). Frankfurt a. M: Fischer.
Uslucan, H.  H. (2008). Männlichkeitsbilder, Familie und Erziehung in den Communities von
Zuwanderern. Berliner Forum Gewaltprävention (BFG Nr. 34).
Chapter 8
Challenges Facing a “Policy for Children”

Sabine Andresen, Klaus Hurrelmann, and Ulrich Schneekloth

Now that we have presented and discussed the results of this, our Third World
Vision Child Study, we want to name the challenges facing a “policy for children”
that we, as the research team, derive from our findings. Here, we can link up with
the ideas presented in the corresponding chapter in the Second World Vision Child
Study, and some of these ideas will be repeated here. However, having introduced
the children’s idea of justice for the first time in the present World Vision Child
Study, we shall also ask how justice can serve as a benchmark for child and family
policy, and what steps have to be taken to implement it. In our first step, we shall
concentrate on more rights for children and present proposals regarding how to
enable children to participate in those areas of life that are relevant to them. Then
we shall present proposals for linking child policy together with policies for the
family, education, and the common good.

S. Andresen (*)
Department of Education, Institute of Social Pedagogy and Adult Education,
Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
K. Hurrelmann
Hertie School of Governance, Berlin, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
U. Schneekloth
Kantar Public, München, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 171

S. Andresen et al. (eds.), Well-being, Poverty and Justice from a Child’s
Perspective, Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research 17,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57574-2_8
172 S. Andresen et al.

8.1  Granting Children More Rights

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child distinguishes the child’s
rights of protection, development, and participation. These rights all belong together
and should ensure that children can grow up into healthy adults. In Chap. 1, we
presented our justice theory approach showing how far justice depends on proce-
dures being transparent and open to the possibility of codetermination. Nonetheless,
such procedures have to be built on a legal basis that is valid and binding for all
persons. This is why the formulation and ratification of basic rights are such an
important step forward—precisely for those, such as children compared to adults,
who possess less power because of their elementary dependence on protection and
care.

8.1.1  S
 trictly Applying the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child

Germany ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child back in
1992. The intervening years have seen discussions going far beyond Germany
regarding whether and, if yes, in which areas there is a need to act and introduce
reforms and which measures are needed to further support the rights of the child.
One important discussion in Germany addresses whether or not the rights of the
child should be formally entered into the national constitution. A frequent criticism
of this is that children’s rights would then have to be given primacy over parents’
rights and that the two cannot be reconciled. We do not share this concern. The
United Nations Convention also treats parents’ rights in a sensitive way. In German
law, parents’ rights focus on the interests and well-being of the child and therefore
expressly do not run counter to the child’s rights.
Regardless of one’s opinion on whether or not the rights of the child should be
laid down in the constitution, it is necessary to clarify exactly what is understood by
these rights, because, to some extent, we can see that different goals are being pur-
sued in different fields of action. Precisely in light of the interests revealed by the
children we surveyed, we consider this clarification to be the responsibility of politi-
cians. Working together not only with experts but also with children, politicians
need to clarify what exactly are the goals of the rights of the child, what duties they
impose on which groups, and which conceivable procedures are appropriate for dif-
ferent age groups.
Currently, one can see different accents. These have been analyzed recently in
the German parliament’s 14th Report on Children and Youth (Deutscher Bundestag
2013, p.  264): The rights of the child are associated with the recognition of the
legitimate interests of children and youths in light of their dependence on protection
and care. Hence, the need is to establish procedures that guarantee that even the
youngest children can make their voices heard and have their wishes taken into
8  Challenges Facing a “Policy for Children” 173

account. However, procedures designed to take the child’s wishes into account have
a somewhat different meaning within the family compared to public institutions.
Therefore, it is necessary to clarify exactly who is required to do what in order to
establish the rights of the child: be it the state, individual institutions, and/or the
family. Finally, it is necessary to reach agreement on who is responsible for the
rights of the child when the child herself is not in a position to stand up for them.
These few comments already show that particularly from a justice perspective, there
is a need to clarify how the rights of the child can be ensured and translated into
sensitive but effective procedures.

8.1.2  Implementing the Right to Participation

In general, we find that attention is focused particularly on the right of participation.

Participation is a central child’s right, and the results reported in our Chap. 7 show
how far children participate in decisions within the family. Nowadays, probably
hardly anybody in a responsible position would dispute the importance of children
being able to participate and being listened to. As pointed out in Chap. 1, Piaget
already called for children to participate in decision making at elementary school at
the earliest possible age—not least because this would cultivate their sense of jus-
tice. Nonetheless, in almost all fields, we can see how difficult it is to put this
demand into practice. The Convention on the Rights of the Child also calls for their
rights to be implemented in all areas of legal practice. An example of this is the
German law on child and youth services. According to § 8 of Book Eight of the
Social Code (SGB VIII), “depending on their level of development, children have
the right to participate in all relevant decisions of public youth welfare” (AGJ 2012,
p. 35, translated). This is an important and indispensable step that is supplemented
by children also having the right to avail themselves of the youth services.
Such a transfer needs to be introduced in all public domains. Human rights
experts such as the lawyer Hendrik Cremer (2012) are campaigning to interpret
Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child as demanding that children
should have the right to participate in all decisions that are relevant to their lives. In
order to ascertain the best interests of the child, it is necessary to listen to what each
individual child has to say in each situation, so that she or he can contribute her or
his own important information, perspectives, and experience. As the results of our
study show, the children themselves consider this to be appropriate and fair. By
justice, they understand equal treatment; they want to be asked what they think
when it comes to all decisions, and they expect matters that concern themselves to
be discussed with them seriously and to be presented to them in a way they can
understand. In Chap. 2, we showed how children reflect on interactional justice in
their daily lives in the sense of equal treatment in personal relations; procedural
justice with a view to equal rights and equal access for all; need-related justice as
compensation and well-being; as well as egalitarian justice in the sense of ensuring
an equal distribution.
174 S. Andresen et al.

8.1.3  Securing the Rights of the Child in the Family

Just like its two predecessors, the Third World Vision Child Study reveals how
parental homes already make a major contribution to the success of participation. In
their own homes, children experience being held in high regard, having the way they
see things taken into consideration, and holding joint discussions on everyday
issues. This is shown by our results reported in Chap. 7: Children aged 6 to 11 years
decide for themselves on many aspects of everyday life such as what to spend their
pocket money on, what clothes they want to put on in the morning, and which
friends they have. At the same time, however, they have the backing of their par-
ents—who protect them but finally also supervise their decisions. This provides
children in many families with a protected free space in which they can develop
their self-esteem and self-efficacy—a free space in which they are also able to make
wrong decisions that can be corrected later.
This finding reveals how parents today make an important contribution to putting
the rights of the child into practice: They transform the family into a living open
discussion household. The willingness and ability of these parents should not be
misunderstood as “not having the courage to rear their children properly.” Involving
children and getting them to participate in making decisions on topics that they can
grasp does not mean giving in to them or avoiding conflicts. It is important to take
one’s own stance and justify it in order to take the child and the child’s own outlook
seriously. From the child’s perspective, things are fair when everybody has to stick
to the rules and receives equal treatment. What is needed is reliability and account-
ability rather than giving in as far as possible or ignoring problems.
Even when our study shows that a very large majority of children are very con-
tented with the way things are in their families, from the perspective of the rights of
the child, we must not forget that the family is not always a home in which people
treat each other with loving respect. In all social classes, there are families in which
the child’s right to physical and mental integrity and the right to participation and
respect have not been achieved. Recent years have seen far more public discussion
and acknowledgement of neglect and the sexual abuse of children than ever before.
For a long time, talking about sexual abuse was taboo—much to the detriment of the
children exposed to it. Even when the dark figure of undetected crime continues to
be high for these offences and we do not know precisely how widespread the prob-
lem is, one thing does seem to be clear: Most cases of sexual abuse of children take
place in the proximal environment, that is, within the family. When children are
faced with such abuse, they need to know that they can turn to attentive and respect-
ful adults in their daycare centers, schools, clubs, and neighborhood; and they need
to experience a climate in which they can have the courage to trust in others. A study
of the sexual abuse of girls and boys in institutions carried out by the German Youth
Institute (Deutsches Jugendinstitut e.V., DJI, 2011) has shown how frequently child
victims turn to educators they can trust and take them into their confidence. This
potential needs to be strengthened.
8  Challenges Facing a “Policy for Children” 175

After a long debate over the National Child Protection Act

[Bundeskinderschutzgesetz] in Germany, Book Eight of the Social Code (SGB VIII)
now states that children and adolescents have a right to counseling independent of
parental permission; however, only when counseling is necessary because of a con-
flict or emergency (Article 8, Paragraph 3). Precisely against the background of our
knowledge that parents do not always act in the best interests of the child, this fixed
right to counseling is an important and correct step. At the same time, we have to
ask why this right applies only in conflict situations or emergencies. It would be
more appropriate to establish a culture—without placing parents under general sus-
picion—in which children have a right to immediate counseling at any time and for
any reason.

8.1.4  E
 xtending the Rights of the Child in Educational
Institutions

As pointed out above, the right to counseling is an important aspect of child partici-
pation wherever children are to be found. This means that those responsible in insti-
tutions, in daycare centers, in schools, boarding schools, children’s homes, or sports
clubs also need to think about which options and procedures they can establish to
grant children comprehensive participation rights. We still see a major need for
action here, because ever since our first Child Study in 2007, only about 30% of the
children we survey report feeling that their opinion is respected in school and in
daycare. This percentage has not changed over the years, and it is also relatively
independent of a child’s age. Whereas parents involve their children in decisions
more and more frequently as they grow older, there are only some signs of such an
approach among professionals.
From our perspective, this is a task to be tackled in professional training and
further training: Respect for what children think and how they think about things is
a basic precondition for participation and thus an important aspect of a professional
approach to working with children. Here as well, we consider it to be important to
emphasize that this attitude should not be derided as an easy way of avoiding con-
flict when dealing with children. Taking children seriously also means arguing with
them about which is the correct path for them to take. On this basis, individual
institutions can develop procedures in which the rights of the child are applied com-
prehensively. The Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Landesjugendämter (2013)
[National Association of Länder youth welfare offices] has recently announced that
the establishment of the rights of the child is a quality feature of child daycare cen-
ters and a guideline for working with children. As well as being a feature of educa-
tional quality, it is something that institutions are obliged to implement by law.
Those responsible understand the rights of the child as a central strategy for imple-
menting child protection. This is based on the assumption of a close link between
active rights such as participation and the right of protection.
176 S. Andresen et al.

All institutions—schools just as much as daycare centers or clubs—are called

upon to develop a protective concept, and to do this as far as possible together with
all persons involved; that is, with the children and their parents as well.
Acknowledging the dark side of the family, this strategy is a response to the existing
knowledge on the locations of violence and abuse (particularly of a sexual nature;
see Andresen and Heitmeyer 2012). From our perspective, one element is particu-
larly important, namely, the active participation of children themselves and their
parents in developing so-called protective concepts. This is also linked to major
educational processes as is also emphasized clearly in the resolution of the National
Association of Länder youth welfare offices when it states:
Children should be actively included as suggestion makers and complainants. In their daily
lives at daycare centers, they should experience that their dissatisfaction will also be taken
seriously and acknowledged when it is expressed in the form of crying, withdrawal, or
aggressiveness. Children should receive active support in acquiring appropriate forms of
making complaints within the framework of their education, whereby the participation of
children is itself a precondition for effective education. (Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft
Landesjugendämter 2013, p. 4).

This call to take the dissatisfaction of children seriously, to teach them how to com-
plain, to encourage them to do so, and to view this as a task of education represents
an important step in establishing justice from the children’s perspective. It is pre-
cisely the nontransparent, at times seemingly unjust behavior of adults that offends
the child’s idea of justice. Providing a space for these feelings and helping children
to express them is an indispensable element of a progressive child policy. This has
been aided by an important legal reform since 2012, because two paragraphs (§ 8b
and 45) of Book Eight of the Social Code (SGB VIII) specify that institutions have
to provide complaint procedures through which children and youths can express
their personal concerns. Children can find themselves in situations in which they
have to refer to an independent complaints office or ombudsman. Here as well, it is
necessary to study how schools, in which all children spend a great deal of their
time, intend to put these provisions into practice and whether they also engage in
implementing children’s rights more strongly than before. In the context of the
school, this could certainly be linked to the theory of good teaching (Klieme et al.
2010), because this promotes three elements that are highly compatible with the
rights of the child: the greatest possible own initiative in children including their
cognitive activation, a good classroom climate, and a responsible and proactive
class management. In Chap. 4, we have shown how important the school is for chil-
dren’s daily lives. Therefore, it is precisely teachers whom we wish to encourage to
invest more energy than before in exploiting the potential of the school as a space in
which children can experience participation and strengthen their self-efficacy
(Hurrelmann and Timm 2011).
8  Challenges Facing a “Policy for Children” 177

References

AGJ – Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Kinder- und Jugendhilfe. (Hrsg.). (2012). Sozialgesetzbuch VIII
auf dem Stand des Bundeskinderschutzgesetzes. Berlin: Gesamttext und Begründungen.
Andresen, S., & Heitmeyer, W. (Hrsg.). (2012). Zerstörerische Vorgänge. Missachtung und sexuelle
Gewalt gegen Kinder und Jugendliche in Institutionen. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Juventa.
Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Landesjugendämter. (2013). Sicherung der Rechte von Kindern
als Qualitätsmerkmal von Kindertageseinrichtungen. http://www.bagljae.de/downloads/114_
sicherung-­der-­rechte-von-kindern-in-kitas.pdf (Stand: 24.06.2013).
Cremer, H. (2012). Kinderrechte und der Vorrang des Kindeswohls. Die UN-Kinderrechtskonvention
bietet ein weites Anwendungsfeld. Anwaltspraxis, 4, S. 327 – 329.
Deutscher Bundestag. (2013). Der 14. Kinder- und Jugendbericht. Bericht über die Lebenssituation
junger Menschen und die Leistungen und Bestrebungen der Kinder- und Jugendhilfe Iin
Deutschland. Deutscher Bundestag, Drucksache 17 / 12200. http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/
btd/17 / 122 / 1712200.pdf (Stand: 24.06.2013).
DJI (Deutsches Jugendinstitut e.V.). (Hrsg.). (2011). Sexuelle Gewalt gegen Kinder. Missbrauch
in Institutionen, Forschungsergebnisse und Empfehlungen für einen besseren Kinderschutz.
München: DJI.
Hurrelmann, K., & Timm, A. (2011). Kinder, Bildung, Zukunft Drei Wege aus der Krise. Stuttgart:
Klett.
Klieme, E., Artelt, C., Hartig, J., Jude, N., Köller, O., Prenze, M., Schneider, W., & Stanat, P.
(Hrsg.). (2010) PISA 2009. Bilanz nach einem Jahrzehnt. Münster/ New  York/ München/
Berlin: Waxmann.
Appendices

 ppendix 1: Methods Applied in the Third World Vision Child

A
Study

Methodological Profile of the 2013 Child Study

The design of the Third World Vision Child Study 2013 and the methods applied are
oriented toward the two earlier Child Studies of 2007 and 2010. Once again, we
carried out a quantitative survey of a representative sample of 6- to 11-year-old
children (in 2007, only 8- to 11-year-old children). We supplemented this standard-
ized survey with a qualitative assessment resulting in 12 portraits of children who
had been selected systematically. Within the study design, our quantitative survey
served to present the living conditions and life worlds of children in all their breadth.
The qualitative survey portrays selected children, thereby delivering an impression
of children in their life worlds characterized by more depth and closeness to daily
life.
The underlying population for the quantitative survey is children in Germany
between the ages of 6 and 11 years. We surveyed 2535 children. To gather enough
cases for analyses in the new German states in the east of the country, we used a
disproportional sample distribution: A total of 1729 interviews were carried out in
the old German states (including Berlin) and 806  in the new German states. Of
course, we took this deliberate overrepresentation of children from the new German
states into account when analyzing the data. We did this by using official statistics
to construct a sample weighting framework and projecting the sample on to the resi-
dential population aged 6–11 years in the actual East–West relationship differenti-
ated according to gender. We also took account of the fact that not all 6-year-olds
are already attending school. Weighted in this way, the structure of the sample cor-
responds to the true distribution of 6- to 11-year-old school children found in offi-
cial statistics.

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 179

S. Andresen et al. (eds.), Well-being, Poverty and Justice from a Child’s
Perspective, Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research 17,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57574-2
180 Appendices

Survey Instruments

The quantitative survey is based on two different instruments: First, the interview
with the children was a personal oral survey conducted by well-trained interviewers
on the basis of a set standardized assessment instrument. The survey itself was
computer-­assisted: The respondent’s answers were entered directly into the inter-
viewer’s laptop computer. The second instrument was a short written questionnaire
that one parent was asked to complete preferably while the child was being inter-
viewed. This parent questionnaire was used to gather basic sociodemographic infor-
mation on the child’s family background.
When developing the child questionnaire, we tried not only to ensure that the
instruments were comparable with those used in the 2007 and 2010 surveys, but
also to focus on one special topic in each Child Study—in this case, the idea of
justice. When rating their idea of justice, the children were given visual support in
the form of a 4-point smiley scale. This visual support enabled them to quickly ori-
ent themselves and perform a ranking on the given dimension. The items on satis-
faction or on well-being were assessed with the 5-point smiley scale used in previous
Child Studies. The children also received visual support with their qualitative rat-
ings in other response formats (see the questionnaire in Appendix 4).
While preparing the study, we tested the suitability of our instruments as part of
a cognitive pretest of children and then revised the instruments as required. In addi-
tion, when formulating items on the idea of justice, we took account of results
obtained from the first qualitative interviews that had already been carried out by
this time. In the subsequent pilot test in the field, several interviewers carried out 95
advance interviews with children in the target group under the same conditions as
those to be used in the subsequent main survey. This also included asking the chil-
dren to reply to some open unstructured questions on what they understand by the
term justice.
According to the interviewers, the children responded to the Third World Vision
Child Study just as willingly as they had done to the previous ones. In 87% of cases,
the interviewers rated the children’s willingness to answer their questions as good;
and in 12%, as moderate or “sometimes one, sometimes the other.” They rated the
willingness to answer their questions as bad in only 21 children (< 1%). However,
even in these cases, individual analyses revealed no reason to drop them from the
sample. The child questionnaire is documented in Appendix 4 and the parent ques-
tionnaire in Appendix 5.

Sample

As in the first two Child Studies, the survey was based on quota sampling.
Interviewers were instructed to survey a precisely defined number of school chil-
dren aged 6 and above who could be classified to specific subgroups.
Appendices 181

Quota sampling was based on the following features:

• Age groups: 6–7  years, 8–9  years, 10–11  years, differentiated according to
gender
• German states and regional types of settlement pattern (9
BIK-Siedlungsstrukturtypen)
• Migration background: yes, no
When setting the quotas, we lowered the target for 6- and 7-year-olds by the
proportion of 6-year-olds who are still not attending school (as in the previous Child
Studies, we specified that 62% of the 6-year-olds should already be attending
school).
Quota sampling was based on the tried and tested two-stage approach: In the first
stage, interviewers were asked to report how many available target persons they had
in each of the quota cells who matched the quota characteristics. These interviewer
reports were collected by the operations management of TNS Infratest, the research
agency responsible for carrying out the survey work.
For the Third World Vision Child Study, the number of reported target persons
proved to be markedly higher than the number of interviews required. This made it
possible to draw on the official statistics and gain a sample from the reported target
persons that corresponded largely to our requirements. Because, as pointed out
above, the sample distinguished disproportionally between the old and new German
states, possible deviations in the operationalization of the interviews in terms of age
groups and gender could also be balanced by using the proportional weighting
procedure.
We included the following parameters from official statistics (Federal Statistical
Office: population estimate, general education statistics, and special analyses all
taken from the 2011 micro census) in our weighting: age groups (6–7, 8–9, and
10–11 years; 6-year-olds reduced by the estimated proportion of children not yet
attending school) and gender; federal state and BIK settlement structure types; type
of school (elementary, secondary, other, and special needs school); type of family
(single parent: yes or no); and nationality. Generally speaking, effects on the
weighted distributions tended to be small. Different East–West distributions were
taken into account in all weighting variables.
Regarding the age structure in the study, it has to be noted that we set age bound-
aries according to the ages reported by the children. Compared to the usual practice
of using year of birth in empirical social research, we found that it was far easier to
get the children to just report how many years old they were.
The distribution of the sample across federal states was a relatively good fit with
the target requirements, as was also the distribution according to BIK settlement
structure type. Any deviations that occurred were additionally corrected by ex post
weighting.
The proportion of non-German children in the sample is roughly 3%. During
weighting, we also corrected this proportion to the target of roughly 6%. A further
23% of the German children in the Child Study have parents or one parent born
outside of Germany. Weighting also increased this proportion to 28%, although the
182 Appendices

characteristic of migration background was not included separately in the weight-

ing. Accordingly, the proportion of children with a migration background was 26%
before and 34% after weighting.

Field Work

Data for the Third World Vision Child Study were collected between the beginning
of January and the middle of February 2013. Therefore, the Third World Vision
Child Study was carried out in the middle of the school year in contrast to the
Second World Vision Child Study, which had been carried out at the beginning of
the school year in the fall of 2009. There were 400 well-trained Infratest interview-
ers who each performed an average of six surveys. For 76% of the surveys, at least
one further person was present. In 61% of all cases, this was the mother; in 15%, the
father.
The interviewers themselves were allowed to select the specific target persons
based on the given criteria in the quota sample. They could recruit these persons
within their personal circle of friends and acquaintances, institutions, or typical
locations in which children congregate. After gaining the parents’ permission in
advance (obligatory in this age range), they interviewed them in their parental
homes.
The average interview lasted 37 minutes. Surveys of 6- to 7-year-old and 8- to
9-year-old target persons took only slightly longer at 37 minutes than those of 10- to
11-year-old target persons at 36 minutes. When looking at the duration in the young-
est age group, it has to be considered that questions on more general topics in soci-
ety were dropped if the child was unable to answer the first leading question on that
topic.
As part of the Infratest controls, interviewers had to document the addresses of
respondents. Infratest controlled roughly 10% of all surveyed target persons at ran-
dom by asking the children’s parents either directly by telephone or by post whether
the interviewer had actually carried out an interview of the given length addressing
the given topic. Further quality controls were applied to the completed question-
naires by checking the internal consistency of the responses. This resulted in only
minor corrections. Reports that were obviously incorrect were analyzed as “no
reply.”
After completion of the field work and the quality controls, we were left with a
valid dataset that could be subjected to a differentiated analysis with the help of the
statistical software packet SPSS 19. This book presents the detailed results of these
analyses.
Appendices 183

Appendix 1.1 Methodology Profile for the 2013 Child Study

Population Children living and attending school in Germany aged 6–11 years (2007:
8–11 years)
Sample Household survey. Quota sample controlled for:
Age and gender
Type of school (elementary, Hauptschule, Realschule, Gymnasium,
other schools, special needs school)
Migration background
Federal State and type of settlement structure (BIK-Type),
Case numbers n = 2,535 child interviews (disproportionate allocation),
n = 1,729 in West German states (including Berlin) und n = 806 in East
German states
Assessment Individual oral child interview (CAPI: Computer Assisted Personal
method Interviews)
Written parent questionnaire (self-report). German- and Turkish-language
versions
Time period Beginning of January to mid-February 2013
Weighting Official statistics (Bevölkerungsfortschreibung 2011 andMikrozensus
2011)

Appendix 1.2 Sample statistics

Actual numbers Target numbers

Case numbers Girls Boys Girls Boys
Old German Statesa
6-year-olds 82 84 83 91
7-year-olds 139 114 146 150
8-year-olds 164 147 144 151
9-year-olds 153 165 145 155
10-year-olds 172 182 150 160
11-year-olds 148 179 159 166
Total 858 871 827 873
New German Statesa
6-year-olds 39 32 46 50
7-year-olds 57 70 71 73
8-year-olds 87 66 70 75
9-year-olds 56 69 68 72
10-year-olds 73 74 67 71
11-year-olds 97 86 69 70
Total 409 397 391 411
a
Disproportionate allocation: West including Berlin, East not including Berlin
184 Appendices

Appendix 2: Documentation of the Social Origins Index

The Social Origins Index applied in the World Vision Child Study is a combination
of the parents’ educational background and the material resources available to the
household. Information on both aspects is taken from the Parent Survey. This is
supplemented by the children’s estimates on the number of books in the home and
the parents’ reports on the housing type. Depending on the replies, each individual
variable is assigned a different number of points.

Social Origins Index: Component Variables and the Number of Points Assigned to Them

(Highest) Secondary school qualification of mother or father

Hauptschule (basic secondary: 8th–9th grade) 2

Realschule/mittlere Reife (intermediate secondary: 10th grade) 4

Fachhochschulreife (university of applied sciences entrance qualification) 6

Abitur (university entrance qualification) 6

No secondary school qualification 2

Roughly how many books are there in your home?

Very few (up to 10 books) 0

About one small shelf (11–24 books) 1

About one bookcase (25–100 books) 2

About two bookcases (101–200 books) 2

Three or more bookcases (more than 200 books) 3

Housing type

Rented 1

Own property 2

How well do you manage your household with the amount of money available to you and
your family every month?

Very well 3

Well 2

Moderately 2

Poorly 1

Very poorly 0

Figure Appendix 2.1

Appendices 185

The points awarded on the variables are added together to form a summary index.
If information on both parents is available for the variable “educational back-
ground,” the higher of the two qualifications is entered. The summary index can
range from 3 to 14 points.
The Social Origins Index is formed by dividing the summary index into five
groups. Each group then corresponds to one level on the Social Origins Index. This
takes the following ranking:

Social Origins Index: Distribuon of Summary Points

Lower class 3–6 points

Lower middle class 7–8 points

Middle class 9–10 points

Upper middle class 11–12 points

Upper class 13–14 points

Figure Appendix 2.2

Appendix 2.1 Social class Index: Variables included and their scores

(Highest) secondary school education of mother or father

Hauptschule (8th–9th grade) 2
Realschule/Mittlere Reife (10th grade) 4
Fachhochschulreife 6
Abitur 6
I have no secondary school qualifications 2
Roughly how many books are there in your home?
Only a few (up to 10 books) 0
About one shelf (11–24 books) 1
About one bookshelf (25–100 books) 2
About two bookshelves (101–200 books) 2
Three or more bookshelves (more than 200 books) 3
Type of housing
Rented 1
Own property 2
In your own household, how well do you get by on the amount of money available to you
and your family each month?
Very well 3
Quite well 2
Just about okay 2
Less well 1
Not well at all 0
186 Appendices

Appendix 2.2 Social class Index: Classification of sum index

Lower class 3–6 points

Lower middle 7–8 points
class
Middle class 9–10 points
Upper middle class 11–12 points
Upper class 13–14 points

Appendix 3: Pretest – Unstructured Responses

Appendix 3.1 Unstructured Responses on the Topic of Justice

Basis: Children aged 6–11 years in Germany (Pretest: n = 95)

Categories:
1 = Equal treatment
2 = Equal rights/Equal access
3 = Equal status, well-being
4 = Equal distribution
9 = Don’t know/No reply

What do you understand by the term justice? Age 1 = Girl Category

2 = Boy
That we can sometimes do what we want to do, that 10 1 1, 2, 3,
everybody has enough to eat and toys, that nobody
has to go hungry. That all people are treated equally
regardless of where they come from, what they
look like, or whether they have a lot of money
or only a little.
When my mum sometimes allows me to go out, and 9 2 1, 2, 4
she lets me play with my friends, and that it’s not just
my little brother who is allowed to play the learning
games that I am not allowed to play with so much.
That you don’t make distinctions. 11 2 1, 2
Everybody has the same rights. 9 1 1, 2
That everybody is treated in the same way and 10 2 1, 2
everybody has the same opportunities.
That all people are treated equally! 11 2 1, 2
All people are on the same wavelength regardless of 10 1 1, 2
whether they are rich or poor.
Appendices 187

That everybody is free to say what they think, 10 1 1, 2

that there is religious freedom.
Everybody has the same rights. 10 1 1, 2
That everybody has equal rights. 11 1 1, 2
That people are allowed to say what they want, that 6 1 1, 2
people don’t get into trouble straight away if they do
something wrong, that my children are all allowed
to play together regardless of whether they
come from somewhere else or are poor.
All people should be treated equally regardles 10 2 1, 2
s of whether their skin color is white, yellow, or black.
Treating the unequal unequally; the equal, equally. 9 2 1, 2
It’s unjust to steal from the poor. 6 1 1, 3
By just, I understand that you help people not to hurt 10 1 1, 3
themselves.
That you help other people and that you try to get 8 2 1, 4
as much as the others as well.
That we are treated equally. 7 1 1
When you are treated with respect. 11 1 1
It is just, for example, when you are allowed to play 9 1 1
outside with your friends.
Being allowed to play outside; not nagging 8 2 1
very much.
When everybody is treated equally; that is, when 11 2 1
nobody gets preferential treatment.
Having freedom. 11 2 1
Justice is when everybody is treated equally. 6 2 1
That you get what is your right when you can decide. 9 1 1
Then it should be that everybody is allowed 7 2 1
the same things.
That everybody is treated equally well. 7 2 1
That you are equally nice to everybody. 7 2 1
That you are equally nice to everybody and don’t give 9 1 1
special preference to anybody.
That you don’t cheat and there are no quarrels. 8 2 1
Everybody has the same rights and duties. 9 2 1
When everybody who puts their hand up at school 9 2 1
gets their turn.
That you are polite to each other and help others. 9 1 1
That you have to treat everybody equally. 7 1 1
Justice, that all are treated equally. 11 1 1
188 Appendices

Everybody should be nice to everybody else and 8 1 1

adults should be as fair to others as they are to
themselves.
No rows in the family, with friends, at school, that 11 1 1
nobody gets beaten, that people are also not rude to
foreigners.
That everybody treats each other nicely, nobody 6 1 1
quarrels, and everybody is good.
When you get punished for doing something you 8 2 1
are not allowed to do, and you don’t do it again.
I can participate in decisions. 8 2 1
That everybody is equally allowed to do the things 7 2 1
they want to do.
That you get punished if you do something bad! 9 2 1
For me, justice means when no distinctions are made, 11 1 2, 3, 4
everybody gets the same, everyone is treated in the
same way—be it financially or also in their careers.
That nobody is excluded and that everybody gets as 10 1 2, 3, 4
much as everybody else.
That all people, whether rich or poor, get the same 6 2 2, 3, 4
things, are able to travel, get toys, and have enough
to eat.
When all children can go to school and have food 7 2 2, 3
to eat.
When everybody has food to eat and is allowed to 11 2 2, 3
say what they want.
Everybody is treated the same way and has enough 9 1 2, 3
to eat.
That everybody has enough to eat, everybody can 11 2 2, 3
live in freedom, everybody can go to school, there is
no poverty, and that there are not so many rich people
who do not share.
That you share with each other and don’t just leave 7 1 2, 3
anybody out.
Everyone has the same amount of money, the same 11 2 2, 4
rights, and they are all treated equally well.
When my sister gets the same as I get and when 9 1 2, 4
all people are treated equally.
That it’s fair to take turns with something if there is 10 2 2
only one available.
When everybody can do the same. 11 1 2
That all the people in the world, regardless of their 8 1 2
skin color, are treated equally and children can
go to school.
Appendices 189

That all people are treated equally regardless of 9 1 2

whether they are poor or rich or have another
skin color.
When you treat someone well who is disabled 10 2 2
or poor; when you help people who is injured
or sick, that’s justice for me.
It is just when you are rewarded for something you 7 1 3
do, or I am given something and my brothers and
sisters also get something.
When everybody gets what they want. 6 1 3
That everybody gets everything they need. 10 2 3
When everybody gets what they want and doesn’t 8 1 3
get what they don’t want.
That you share something. 7 1 3
Everybody has a home, nobody has to sleep outside, 10 1 3
everybody has something to eat.
When everybody has a job, a home, enough to eat, 6 1 3
and still has money left over to afford something nice.
When everybody has a good livelihood, doesn’t have 11 2 3
to go hungry, and has their own home.
The poor get poorer all the time; the rich get richer all 8 1 3
the time. A lot of people don’t have much to eat and
have to go hungry. Not enough help is given. A lot of
people own nothing.
That you give something to other people and share 6 1 3
with them.
That there are so many friends. 8 2 3
When the children in Africa have to go hungry 10 1 3
and the children in Germany throw food away.
Peace. 10 1 3
Justice is when I am eating sweets with my friend 6 1 4
and my friend gets more. That is unjust. It would be
better to share things exactly.
When playing in a group game at school, it was 6 1 4
unjust because there were four children in one group
and only three in the other group.
Justice is when you have three lollipops and there are 9 1 4
four people. Then you don’t go and get lollipops
but candies instead.
When you get the same as my brother. 9 2 4
I get the same as my friends. 6 2 4
When everybody has the same amount. 10 2
Everybody gets the same. 7 1 4
190 Appendices

Justice is when all children get the same present 8 1 4

when Father Christmas comes.
That children of the same age also get the same 9 2 4
amount of pocket money.
I don’t know at the moment. 8 2 9
No statement that can be evaluated. 8 1 9
No concrete answer. 9 1 9
I can’t say. 10 2 9
No answer. 10 2 9
No idea. 9 2 9
No answer. 7 1 9
I can’t say exactly. 10 2 9
Don’t know. 7 1 9
I don’t know. 6 1 9
I don’t know. 6 2 9
I don’t know any answer. 9 2 9
Child does not know any direct answer. 11 1 9
At the age of 6 years, Luis still can’t assign any 6 2 9
meaning to the term “justice.”
No answer. 10 1 9
No answer. 6 2 9
No clear classification.

Appendix 3.1 Unstructured responses on the topic of justice

Children in Germany aged 6–11 years (Pretest n= 95)
Categories:
1 = Equal treatment
2 = Equal rights/Equal access
3 = Equal status, well-being
4 = Equal distribution
9 = Don’t know/No reply

Unstructured Response: What do you understand by the term 1 = Girl

justice? Age 2 = Boy Category
That we can sometimes do what we want to do; that 10 1 1, 2, 3
everybody has enough to eat and toys; that nobody has to be
hungry. That all people are treated equally regardless of where
they come from, what they look like, or whether they have a
lot of money or only a little.
When my mum sometimes allows me to go out and she lets 9 2 1, 2 ,4
me play with my friends, and that it’s not just that my little
brother is allowed to play the learning games that I am not
allowed to play with so much.
That you don’t make distinctions. 11 2 1, 2
Everybody has the same rights. 9 1 1, 2
(continued)
Appendices 191

Unstructured Response: What do you understand by the term 1 = Girl

justice? Age 2 = Boy Category
That everybody is treated in the same way and everybody has 10 2 1, 2
the same opportunities.
That all people are treated equally! 11 2 1,2
All people are on the same wavelength regardless of whether 10 1 1, 2
they are rich or poor.
That everybody is free to say what they think, that there is 10 1 1, 2
religious freedom.
Everybody has the same rights. 10 1 1, 2
That everybody has equal rights. 11 1 1, 2
That people are allowed to say what they want, that people 6 1 1, 2
don’t get into trouble straight away if they do something
wrong, that my children are all allowed to play together
regardless of whether they come from somewhere else or are
poor.
All people should be treated equally regardless of whether 10 2 1, 2
their skin color is white, yellow, or black.
Treating the unequal unequally; the equal, equally 9 2 1, 21
It’s unjust to steal from the poor. 6 1 1, 3
By just, I understand that you help people not to hurt 10 1 1, 3
themselves.
That you help other people and that you try to get as much as 8 2 1, 4
the others.
That we are treated equally. 7 1 1
When you are treated with respect. 11 1 1
It is just for example, when you are allowed to play outside 9 1 1
with your friends.
Being allowed to play outside; not nagging very much. 8 2 1
When everybody is treated equally; that is, when nobody gets 11 2 1
preferential treatment.
Having freedom. 11 2 1
Justice is when everybody is treated equally. 6 2 1
That you get what is your right when you can decide. 9 1 1
It should be so that everybody is allowed the same things. 7 2 1
That everybody is treated equally well. 7 2 1
That you are equally nice to everybody. 7 2 1
That you are equally nice to everybody and don’t give special 9 1 1
preference to anybody.
That you don’t cheat and there are not quarrels. 8 2 1
Everybody has the same rights and duties. 9 2 1
When everybody who puts their hand up at school gets their 9 2 1
turn. . .
That you are polite to each other and help others. 9 1 1
That you have to treat everybody equally. 7 1 1
Justice, that all are treated equally. 11 1 1
(continued)
192 Appendices

Unstructured Response: What do you understand by the term 1 = Girl

justice? Age 2 = Boy Category
Everybody should be nice to everybody and adults should be 8 1 1
as just to others as they are to themselves.
No rows in the family, with friends, at school, that nobody 11 1 1
gets beaten, that people are also not rude to foreigners.
That everybody treats each other nicely, nobody quarrels, and 6 1 1
everybody is good.
When you get punished for doing something you are not 8 2 1
allowed to do, and you don’t do it again.
I can participate in decision making. 8 2 1
That everybody is equally allowed to do the things they want 7 2 1
to do, and not that some are allowed to and others are not.
That you get punished if you do something bad! 9 2 1
For me, justice means when no distinctions are made, 11 1 2, 3, 4
everybody gets the same, everyone is treated in the same
way—be it financially or also in their careers.
That nobody is excluded and that everybody gets as much as 10 1 2, 3, 4
everybody else.
That all people, whether rich or poor, get the same things, are 6 2 2, 3, 4
able to travel, get toys, and have enough to eat.
When all children can go to school and have food to eat. 7 2 2, 3
When everybody has food to eat and is allowed to say what 11 2 2, 3
they want.
Everybody is treated the same way and has enough to eat. 9 1 2, 3
That everybody has enough to eat, everybody can live in 11 2 2, 3
freedom, everybody can go to school, there is no poverty, and
that there are not so many rich people who do not share.
That you share with each other and don’t leave anybody out. 7 1 2, 3
Everyone has the same amount of money, the same rights, and 11 2 2, 4
they are all treated equally well.
When my sister gets the same as I get and when all people are 9 1 2, 4
treated equally.
That it’s fair to take turns with something if there is only one 10 2 2
available.
When everybody can do the same. 11 1 2
That all the people in the world, regardless of their skin color, 8 1 2
are treated equally and children can go to school.
That all people are treated equally regardless of whether they 9 1 2
are poor or rich or have another skin color.
When you treat someone well who is handicapped or poor; 10 2 2
when you help people who are injured or sick, that’s justice
for me.
It is just when you are rewarded for something you do, or I am 7 1 3
given something and my brothers and sisters also get
something.
When everybody gets what they want. 6 1 3
(continued)
Appendices 193

Unstructured Response: What do you understand by the term 1 = Girl

justice? Age 2 = Boy Category
That everybody gets everything they need. 10 2 3
When everybody gets what they want and doesn’t get what 8 1 3
they don’t want.
That you share something. 7 1 3
Everybody has a home, nobody has to sleep outside, and 10 1 3
everybody has something to eat.
When everybody has a job, a home, enough to eat, and still 6 1 3
has money left over to afford something nice.
When everybody has a good livelihood, doesn’t have to go 11 2 3
hungry, and has their own home.
The poor get poorer all the time; the rich get richer all the 8 1 3
time. A lot of people don’t have much to eat and have to go
hungry. Not enough help is given. A lot of people own
nothing.
That you give something to other people and share with them. 6 1 3
That there are so many friends. 8 2 3
When the children in Africa have to be hungry and the 10 1 3
children in Germany throw food away.
Peace. 10 1 3
When I am eating sweets with my friend and my friend gets 6 1 4
more, that is unjust. It would be better to share things exactly.
When playing in a group game at school, it was unjust 6 1 4
because there were four children in one group 3 and only three
in the other group.
Justice is when you have three lollipops and there are four 9 1 4
people. Then you don’t go and get lollipops but candies
instead.
When you get the same as my brother. 9 2 4
I get the same as my friends. 6 2 4
When everybody has the same amount. 10 2
Everybody gets the same. 7 1 4
Justice is when all children get the same present when Father 8 1 4
Christmas comes.
That children of the same age also get the same amount of 9 2 4
pocket money.
I don’t know at the moment. 8 2 9
No statement that can be evaluated. 8 1 9
No concrete answer. 9 1 9
I can’t say. 10 2 9
No answer. 10 2 9
No idea. 9 2 9
No answer. 7 1 9
I can’t say exactly. 10 2 9
Don’t know. 7 1 9
I don’t know. 6 1 9
(continued)
194 Appendices

Unstructured Response: What do you understand by the term 1 = Girl

justice? Age 2 = Boy Category
I don’t know. 6 2 9
I don’t know any answer. 9 2 9
Child does not know any direct answer. 11 1 9
At the age of 6 years, Luis still can’t assign any meaning to 6 2 9
the term “justice.”
No answer. 10 1 9
No answer. 6 2 9
1
No clear classification.

Appendix 4: Survey Instrument: Child Questionnaire (CAPI)

Thank you for agreeing to take part in our study. I am now going to ask you a few
questions that either tell me about you personally or let me know what you think
about things.

Interviewer: Please enter:

1a. Your name is?

Child’s first name.

1b. Child is
Male
Female

Sociodemographics and family.

2. First of all, I’d like to know how old you are.

Child’s age (2013: 6–11 years).

3. How many people live in your home? Add everybody together and please
count yourself as well.
Interviewer: Make sure that the child counts her or himself as well
Household size ________
Does not apply, I live in a children’s home (wrong target group; end of survey)
Appendices 195

4. And who are all the people you live with in your home? Look at this list, and
tell me which of these persons live with you.
(Question text for 6-, 7-, and 8-year-olds) And who are they? I am going to read out
this list, and I want you to tell me if that person lives together with you in your
home.
Interviewer: Present List 4, read it out loud, and go through it together with the
child.

□ Myself
□ My father
□ My mother
□ My stepfather/My mother’s partner
□ My stepmother/My father’s partner
□ My brother or brothers (Interviewer: also stepsiblings)
□ My sister or sisters
□ My grandfather
□ My grandmother
□ Other relatives (uncle or aunt, cousins, …)
□ Other people my parents know

5. (If no siblings are named in Question 4)

Do you have any brothers and sisters; perhaps ones who are not living together with
you?

□ Yes
□ No, I do not have any brothers or sisters

6. (If siblings are mentioned in Question 4 or 5)

And exactly how many younger or older brothers and sisters do you have?
Interviewer: Also classify twins appropriately.
This means ALL siblings: those living in the family home AND those NOT (no lon-
ger) living in the family home

_______ Younger brother(s) none

_______ Younger sister(s) none
_______ Older brother(s) none
_______ Older sister(s) none
196 Appendices

7. Were your parents born in Germany, or does one or both of your parents
come from another country?

□ Parents were born in Germany

□ One parent comes from another country
□ Both parents come from another country

8. (If one or both parents were born in another country; otherwise proceed to
Question 9)
What language do you speak mostly at home?

□ Mostly German
□ Mostly the language of my parents (my non-German
parent)

9. Do you think that your (if the child reports living with a father who has a new
partner in Question 4, add “real”) mother gives you enough of her time?

□ Yes
□ Sometimes yes, sometimes no
□ No
□ Doesn’t apply, mother not present

10. (If the child reports living with a stepmother or the father’s new partner in
Question 4)
And do you think that your stepmother or your father’s new partner gives you
enough of her time?

□ Yes
□ Sometimes yes, sometimes no
□ No

11. How about your (if the child reports living with a mother who has a new partner
in Question 4, add “real”) father? Does he give you enough of his time?

□ Yes
□ Sometimes yes, sometimes no
□ No
□ Doesn’t apply, no father present
Appendices 197

12. (If the child reports living with a stepfather or the mother’s new partner in
Question 4)
And your stepfather or your mother’s new partner, does he give you enough of his
time?

□ Yes
□ Sometimes yes, sometimes no
□ No

13. Generally speaking, how happy are you about the way your parents look
after you? Look at the faces on this list and show me which one fits best.
You can just point with your finger or you can tell me which letter fits.
Interviewer: Show the Smiley scale (5-point smiley scale at end of booklet). Let
younger children point to the faces and then classify them.

A B C D E

14. Now for something different. Do you pray at home?

□ No
□ Hardly ever
□ Sometimes
□ Very often

15. Do you regularly attend religious services at a church or mosque?

Interviewer: This also means prayer rooms or other places of worship such as syna-
gogues—regardless of which religion.

□ Yes, every week

□ Yes, once or twice a month
□ Less often
□ Never or hardly ever

16. Roughly how many books are there in your home? We have prepared the
following answers for you.
(For 6-, 7-, and 8-year-olds in addition) I shall read them out loud. (For all chil-
dren) Just tell me which is the right amount or point it out to me with your
finger.
Interviewer: Present List 16, read the response categories out loud, and use your
finger to point out which answer you mean. If necessary, repeat the procedure twice.
Interviewer: This item assesses the number of books in the home and not just the
child’s own books.
198 Appendices

1  2  3  4  5
Only a few (up to 10 books)
About one shelf (11–24 books)
About one bookcase (25–100 books)
About two bookcases (101–200 books)
Three or more bookcases (more than 200 books)
17. Do you have a room of your own?
Interviewer: If the child shares her or his room with other children (e.g., brother,
sister, cousin), enter 2 “Yes, together with my brother(s) or sister(s)”

□ Yes, just for me

□ Yes, together with my brother(s) or sister(s)
□ No, I do not have my own room

18. (If the child reports having her or his own room or a room with siblings in
Question 17)
In your room, do you have

(a) Yes  (b) No

_______Your own writing desk?

_______A radio?
_______A CD player or MP3 player?
_______Your own television?
_______Your own DVD player or Blue Ray?
_______Your own computer (or laptop)?
_______A game console/PlayStation for video games?
_______A portable Gameboy (PSP/Nintendo)?
19. I am going to read out some sentences. Tell me which of them is more like
the way things are in your home and which is less like the way things are in
your home.
(a) More like things are  (b) Less like things are  (c) Don’t know (don’t read
last choice out loud)
_______In our home, we normally eat breakfast before I go to school.
_______We are often short of money in our family.
_______I generally have at least one warm meal every day.
_______We have enough money for everything we need.
Appendices 199

Only continue with further questions when child answers “More like things are” to
Question 19–2 or “Less like things are” to Question 19–4
_______Because there is not enough money in my family, I can hardly ever go to
movies or swimming pool.
_______Sometimes we can’t afford to buy things for school such as exercise books
or pens.
_______I can’t join a club or learn to play a musical instrument, because my family
cannot afford to pay for it.
_______We hardly ever have children’s birthday parties because they cost too
much.
_______I often have to wear clothes that are out of fashion.
_______From time to time, we get food for free, for example, from the “Tafel” (a
stall where people can get free food handouts).
_______Sometimes I am cold in winter because I do not have any warm clothes.
_______Because there is not enough money in our family, I sometimes earn some
extra money myself.
_______Within the last year, my parents have had to borrow money from my own
savings.
_______Every year we take at least a one-week vacation away from home.
20. How satisfied are you in general with the amount of freedom your parents
give you in your daily life; in other words, what they let you do and what
they don’t let you do? Please just tell me which face in the list fits best or
tell me which letter fits.
Interviewer: Show the Smiley scale at the end of the booklet. Let younger children
point to the faces and then protocol them.

A  B  C  D  E

Justice
21. I shall now read out some sentences. Please tell me whether you find them
to be very fair, quite fair, rather unfair, or very unfair.
Interviewer: Give children the list for Question 21. Let younger children point to the
faces and then protocol them.

Read out the response categories once, and then as needed.

Very fair  Quite fair  Rather unfair  Very unfair
_______Some families have very little money; others have a great deal. Do you
think that is very fair, quite fair, rather unfair, or very unfair?
_______A group of children at the daycare center want to go on a trip together. It
has been decided that rich parents should pay more money for the trip than
200 Appendices

poor parents. Do you think that is very fair, quite fair, rather unfair, or very
unfair?
_______Mostly it’s adults—and not the children themselves—who decide where
and when to build a children’s playground. This is because they say that
they are the ones who know best about such things. Do you think that is
very fair, quite fair, rather unfair, or very unfair?
_______What would you think if non-German children had to speak only German
not just in class but also in the school breaks. Do you think that is very fair,
quite fair, rather unfair, or very unfair?
22. And how fair do you think things are in general?
Interviewer: Give children the list. Let younger children point to the smiley faces
and then protocol them.
Read out the response categories once, and then as needed.
A  B  C  D  E
_______In your family, are things very fair, quite fair, rather unfair, or very unfair?
_______And in your school? Are things there very fair, quite fair, rather unfair, or
very unfair?
_______And with your friends? (pause, and when no response) Are things very fair,
quite fair, rather unfair, or very unfair?
_______And when you think about Germany as a whole? (pause, and when no
response) Are things very fair, quite fair, rather unfair, or very unfair?
For 6- to 7-year-olds who reply to Question 22.4 with “Don’t know/No answer,”
skip Question 22.5
_______And what about the whole world? (pause, and when no response) Are
things very fair, quite fair, rather unfair, or very unfair?
23. For 6- to 7-year-olds who reply to Question 22.4 or Question 22.5 with “Don’t
know/No, answer,” skip Question 23
What do you think: Is the way people treat the following groups in Germany
very fair, quite fair, rather unfair, or very unfair?

Interviewer: Give children the list. Let younger children point to the smiley faces
and then protocol them.
Read out the response categories once, and then as needed.
A  B  C  D  E
_______Children or adolescents
_______Old people
_______Foreigners
Appendices 201

_______The handicapped
_______Poor people
24. And how about you yourself? Do you feel treated unfairly for any of the
following reasons?
Interviewer: Give children the list for Question 24
(a) Often   (b) Sometimes   (c) Hardly ever (Does not apply)
_______Because of your age
_______Because you are a boy/girl (depending on answer to Question 1. b)
_______Because of your external appearance (that is, what you look like)
_______Because your parents don’t have much money
_______Because your mother or your father do not come from Germany (if child
reports that either one or both parents were not born in Germany in
Question 7)
School/Institutions
25. Now let’s turn to school. What grade are you in?

□ _____ grade (1st–7th grade)

□ I haven’t started school yet

26. How do you like school? Please point to the smiley that fits or tell me which
letter fits.
Interviewer: Show the Smiley scale. Let younger children point to the faces and then
protocol them.
A  B  C  D  E
27. What would you say? Are you

□ Not a good student at all

□ Not a very good student
□ An average student
□ A good student
□ A very good student

28. Do you go to a half-day school that normally ends at midday, or do you go

to an all-day school with regular lessons and other activities in the
afternoon?
Interviewer: The latter does not mean a daycare center, lunchtime childcare, or
other nonschool care provision.
202 Appendices

□ Half-day school (Continue with Question 30)

□ All-day school (Continue with Question 29)
□ Don’t know/Other (Filter: If child reports “Don’t know” or makes
no report, proceed to Questions 29 and 31)

29. Would you rather go to a school that ended at midday?

□ Yes
□ No

30. In your school, are you allowed to help decide:

Interviewer: Give child the list for Question 30 and read out the response
categories
(a) Often   (b) Sometimes   (c) Hardly ever
_______How your classroom is decorated?
_______Whom you are allowed to sit next to?
_______How the desks, chairs, and tables are arranged in your classroom?
_______ (Filter: Skip Grade 1) Where you will all go on school outings (e.g., by
being given a list of different places to choose from)?
_______ (Filter: Skip Grade 1) On suggesting possible topics for future class
projects?
_______On working out the rules in your class, that is, how everybody treats each
other in the class?
_______ (Filter: Skip Grade 1) On organizing school events (e.g., what should be
included in the program)?
31. (If Question 28 = half-day school)
After school, do you regularly go to one of the following care centers?
Interviewer: At least twice a week. Multiple answers possible. If child reports sev-
eral institutions, give the one the child attends most frequently on weekdays

□ Midday care at the school

□ An after-school care center
□ Some other kind of afternoon care center or group
□ No, none of them/I don’t go to any center (Proceed to
Question 33)
Appendices 203

32. (If child reports 1, 2, or 3 in Question 31)

How do you like it there (daycare or afternoon care)? Simply point to the right
Smiley or tell me which letter.
Interviewer: Show the Smiley scale. Let younger children point to the faces and then
protocol them. If child reports several institutions, give the one the child attends
most frequently on weekdays
A  B  C  D  E
33. Do you have private lessons to help you keep up with your school work?

□ No
□ Yes, once a week
□ Yes, more than once a week

34. (If child reports up to 4th grade on Question 25)

Which type of secondary school would you like to go to later?
Interviewer: If there is uncertainty regarding the type of school (e.g., when the child
wishes to attend a comprehensive school covering the entire three-­track system),
classify according to the type of school-leaving certificate.

□ Basic secondary school (Hauptschule – Hauptschulabschluss)

□ Intermediate secondary school
(Realschule – Realschulabschluss)
□ Upper secondary school (Gymnasium – Abitur)
□ Don’t know/Don’t care

35. (If child reports 5th grade or higher on Question 25)

Which type of school-leaving certificate would you like to attain?

□ Basic secondary school leaving certificate (Hauptschulabschluss)

□ Intermediate secondary school leaving certificate (Realschulabschluss)
□ University entrance qualification (Abitur)
□ Don’t know/Don’t care

Leisure Time, Media Consumption, and Friendships

Now let’s turn to your free time and your friends
36. I shall read you a list of things children do in their free time, and l want you
to tell me which ones you never do or hardly ever do, which ones you do
sometimes, and which ones you do a lot of the time.
Interviewer: Give the child List 36 and read the response categories out loud.
204 Appendices

(a) Hardly ever   (b) Sometimes   (c) Very often

_______Sports (swimming, playing soccer, etc.)
_______Riding a bike, inline skating, or skateboarding
_______Theater group, dance, or ballet
_______Watching television
_______Meeting friends
_______Playing with my toys at home
_______Playing a musical instrument, making music
_______PlayStation, Nintendo, Wii, computer games
_______Reading books or magazines (Text for 6- to 7-year-olds: “Looking at”)
_______Handicrafts, painting, or drawing
_______Making things with tools
_______Listening to music
_______Building things with Lego™ or playing with Playmobil™
_______Doing things together with my family (going on excursions)
_______Engaging with nature or animals
_______Playing outside on the street
_______Listening to audio plays or stories.
37. Generally speaking, how happy are you with what you do in your free
time?
Interviewer: Show the 5-point Smiley scale at the end of the booklet. Let younger
children point to the faces and then protocol them.
A  B  C  D  E
38a. (Text: for 8- to 11-year-olds as reported in Question 2)
How often do you spend some time reading a book (except when doing
homework)?
38b. (Text: for 6- to 7-year-olds as reported in Question 2)
How often do you spend some time looking at a book (except when doing
homework)?
Interviewer: Some time means at least one quarter of an hour.

□ Hardly ever
□ Not very often
□ Once a week
□ Several times a week
□ Every day
Appendices 205

39. (Skip question if child reports “hardly ever” watching television in Question
36)
And how long do you normally watch television or DVDs every day?
Interviewer: This question addresses regular television viewing on weekdays.

□ At the most, half an hour

□ Half an hour to one hour
□ One to two hours
□ Two to three hours
□ Three hours and more
□ I hardly ever watch television (Proceed to Question 40)

40. (Skip question if child reports “hardly ever” playing computer games in
Question 36)
And how about computer games, Gameboy, PlayStation, and the like? How
often do you play with them?

□ Not very often

□ At the most, one hour a week
□ Several times a week (Proceed to Question 41)
□ Every day (Proceed to Question 41)
□ I hardly ever play computer games

41. (Answers 3 or 4 on Question 40) And roughly how many hours do you play
with them each day (on Question 40 = 4)/on these days (on Question 40 = 3)?
Interviewer: Please ask for the exact amount of time: Half an hour is 0.5 h and a
quarter of an hour is 0.25 h.

□ No more than half an hour

□ Up to one hour
□ For more than one hour, give exact number of hours: Number of
hours___. ___ (1.25–24 h)

42. Do you have your own mobile phone?

□ Yes
□ No, I do not have my own mobile phone
206 Appendices

43. Do you have access to the Internet (that is, can you go online with a com-
puter)? (Filter: Proceed to Question 47 if child reports “No answer/Don’t
know”

□ No (Proceed to Question 47)

□ Yes (Proceed to Question 44)

44. (If Question 43 = yes) Do you use the Internet regularly every week? (Filter:
Proceed to Question 47 if child reports “No answer/Don’t know”).

□ Yes
□ No, only occasionally, or never (Proceed to Question 47)

45. (If Question 44 = yes) And for roughly how long do you use the Internet
each week?

□ Not more than half an hour

□ Up to 1 hour
□ Up to 2 hours
□ Up to 3 hours
□ Up to 4 hours
□ Up to 5 hours
□ More than 5 hours (Follow-up question: 5 to 10 hours, 10 to 20 hours,
or 20 hours and more)

46. (If child reports “Up to 1 hour” and above on Question 45)
What do you do most of the time on the Internet?
Interviewer: Present list. Name the response categories again for each question. For
younger children, read them out loud while using your finger to point out which
answer you mean.
(a) Hardly ever   (b) Sometimes   (c) Very often
_______Send e-mails
_______Search for something in particular
_______Use Facebook (or other social networks such as Local List)
_______Chat, that is, talk to others on the Internet
_______Just surf to see what I can find
_______Play computer games
_______Look at or download videos
_______Download music
_______Twitter
Appendices 207

47. Now, make a rough guess: Round about how many friends do you have?

□ One
□ 2–3
□ 4–5
□ 6–9
□ 10 or more
□ None at all (Proceed to Question 49)

48. Skip if child reports “None at all” in Question 47; still pose question if child
reports “No answer/Don’t know”
And how many really good friends do you have?

□ 1
□ 2
□ 3
□ 4
□ 5
□ 6–9
□ 10 or more
□ None at all

Check: Number reported in Question 48 should not be higher than that reported in
Question 47
49. Do you find it easier or more difficult to make friends?

□ Easier
□ More difficult

50. If child reports between “1” and “10 or more” in Question 47 or between “1”
and “10 or more” in Question 48. Skip if child reports “None at all” in
Question 48
How frequently do you meet your friends/friend?
Interviewer: Present the list and read out the response categories
(a) Just about every day   (b) Several times a week   (c) Hardly ever/
Never
_______At school?
208 Appendices

_______During midday care or after-school care? (Filter, only if indicated in answer

to Question 31)
_______Outside (outside, playground, school yard)?
_______At your home?
_______At your friend’s house?
_______At a club?
_______(Filter, when child reports “yes” in Question 44) Online?
51. And how happy are you with your circle of friends?
Interviewer: Show the Smiley scale (5-point smiley scale at end of booklet). Let
younger children point to the faces and then protocol them.
A  B  C  D  E
52. People can be more or less happy in the place where they live. Which of the
following sentences is more or less true for you?
(a) More true   (b) Less true
_______In the place where I live, there is very little public transport such as buses
or trams.
_______Our neighbors are always complaining because they think we are too loud.
_______I have enough friends to play with living in my neighborhood.
_______There is too much traffic in the street where I live.
_______I am afraid of aggressive youths and adults in my neighborhood.
_______At any time, I have a playground or an open field to play in within walking
distance.
53. Now just a few more questions about you yourself: How happy are you
with your bodyweight? Do you think that you are

□ Much too thin

□ A bit too thin
□ Just the right weight
□ A bit too fat
□ Much too fat

Own Opinion and Codetermination in Daily Life

54. If you think about your everyday life, which are the situations in which
your opinion counts: Can you decide for yourself
(a) Generally yes   (b) Generally no
Appendices 209

_______Which friends you meet?

_______What clothes you wear?
_______What you spend your pocket money on?
_______What’s to eat at home?
_______How many friends you can bring home with you?
_______What you do in your free time?
_______When you do your homework?
55. And are you allowed to help decide what your family does in its free time
(e.g., at the weekend)?

□ Generally yes
□ Generally no

56. Which of the following people do you think care more about what you
think and which care less?
Interviewer: Please do not read “Sometimes one, sometimes the other” out loud.
Only offer it as a response category when the child is hesitant.
(a) Generally more   (b) Generally less   (c) Sometimes, one, sometimes
the other
_______Your mother (does she tend to care more about what you think or less?)
_______Your father.
_______Your friends.
_______Your class teacher.
_______ (If child reports attending some sort of after-school care in Question 31)
The staff at the place you go to after school.
57. Do the following things worry you?
Interviewer: Give the child the list. Name the response categories again for each
question. For younger children, read them out loud while using your finger to point
out which answer you mean.
(a) Hardly ever   (b) Sometimes   (c) Very often
_______Poor grades and that I won’t be able to keep up with the others at school
_______That my parents will become unemployed or not be able to find any work
_______That somebody might bully or hit me
_______That environmental pollution is increasing
_______That there are more and more people who are poor in Germany
_______That a war might suddenly break out in Germany
_______That more and more foreigners are coming to Germany all the time
210 Appendices

58. Are you interested in politics? Would you say that you are
Interviewer: If the child does not understand what is meant by politics, then please
explain as follows:
“What I mean is what politicians (such as Frau Merkel) or what political parties
do.”

□ Not interested at all

□ Not very interested
□ Interested
□ Very interested
□ Child does not know what to say; doesn’t know how to
handle the term politics (Proceed to Question 60)

59. Filter: Skip when answer to Question 58 = 5)

Do you think that politicians also pay much attention to children; that is, do
they consider what they need to do so that children will have a good life?

□ I think so
□ I don’t really think so
□ Can’t decide, can’t say

60. And, finally, how happy are you with your life in general?
Interviewer: Show the Smiley scale (5-point smiley scale at end of booklet). Let
younger children point to the faces and then classify them.
A  B  C  D  E
Thank you for taking part and answering my questions!
To be completed by the interviewer.
61. How willing was the child to answer the questions?

□ Very willing
□ Moderately willing
□ Unwilling
□ Sometimes one, sometimes the other

62. Were other persons present during the interview?

□ No
□ Yes
Appendices 211

63. (If Question 62 = yes) Which persons were present?

Interviewer: Multiple answers possible!

□ The mother
□ The father
□ Grandparents
□ Siblings
□ Other relatives
□ Other children
□ Other adults

64. (If Question 62 = yes) Did anybody intervene during the course of the inter-
view (e.g., by reformulating questions, giving hints, or influencing the
direction of answers)?

□ Yes, very frequently

□ Yes, occasionally
□ No, generally not
□ No, not at all

Appendix 5: Survey Instrument: Parent Questionnaire

Dear Parents,
Thank you very much for granting permission for your child to participate in the
Third World Vision Child Study and allowing us to ask our questions. In the follow-
ing questionnaire, we would like to obtain some background information on you
and your family.
Naturally, your answers will be dealt with completely anonymously and they will
not be passed on or made available to any third persons.

Attention interviewer: Please enter in advance

Name of the child being surveyed:
Please answer the following:
P 01  I am
The child’s mother

The child’s father

212 Appendices

P 02  I am
Married

Not married, but raising the child together with my partner

A single parent
P 03a  My present age is
  years.
P 03b  If you are married or living with your partner
The present age of my partner is
  years.
P 04a  My (highest) secondary school education is
Hauptschule (8th–9th grade)
Realschule/Mittlere Reife (10th grade)
Fachhochschulreife
Abitur
I have no secondary school qualifications
I am still attending secondary school
P 04b  If you are married or living with your partner
My partner’s (highest) secondary school education is
Hauptschule (8th–9th grade)
Realschule/mittlere Reife (10th grade)
Fachhochschulreife
Abitur
My partner has no secondary school qualifications
My partner is still attending secondary school
P 05a  I am currently
Employed full-time (35 h a week or more)
Employed part-time (between 15 and 35 h a week)
Marginally employed (less than 15 h a week)
Unemployed
Taking parental leave or some other form of leave
In training
Studying or still attending secondary school
A housewife or househusband or for some other reason not employed
P 05b  If you are married or living with your partner
My partner is currently
Employed full-time (35 h a week or more)
Employed part-time (between 15 and 35 h a week)
Appendices 213

Marginally employed (less than 15 h a week)

Unemployed
Taking parental leave or some other form of leave
In training
Studying or still attending secondary school
A housewife or househusband or for some other reason not employed
P 06a  (when employed) I am employed as a
Manual worker
Clerical worker
Public official
Freelance university graduate (e.g., lawyer, physician, …)
Self-employed
P 06b  If you are married or living with your partner and your partner is employed
My partner is employed as a
Manual worker
Clerical worker
Public official
Freelance university graduate (e.g., lawyer, physician, …)
Self-employed
P 07a  Have you been unemployed for a period of 3 months or more during the
past 2 years?
Yes
No
Does not apply, I am not gainfully employed and I have not sought employment
P 07b  If you are married or living with your partner
Has your partner been unemployed for a period of 3 months or more during the past
2 years?
Yes
No
Does not apply, my partner is not gainfully employed and has not sought
employment
P 07c  If you are employed: Would you prefer to work more hours or fewer hours?
Work more
Work less
Things are fine the way they are
P 07d  If you are NOT employed: Would you like to be employed?
Yes, full-time
Yes, part-time
No, things are fine the way they are
P 08a  I was born in
Germany
214 Appendices

Turkey
Greece
Italy
Former Yugoslavia
Former Soviet Union
Another West European country
Another East European country
An Arabic country
An African country
Another country
P 08b  If you are married or living with your partner
My partner was born in
Germany
Turkey
Greece
Italy
Former Yugoslavia
Former Soviet Union
Another West European country
Another East European country
An Arabic country
An African country
Another country
P 09a  My current nationality is
German
Turkish
Greek
Italian
Former Yugoslavian
Former Soviet Union
Another West European country
Another East European country
An Arabic country
An African country
Another country
P 09b If you are married or living with your partner
My partner’s current nationality is
German
Turkish
Greek
Italian
Appendices 215

Former Yugoslavian
Former Soviet Union
Another West European country
Another East European country
An Arabic country.
African
Another country
P 10a  My religion
Catholic
Protestant
Other Christian religion
Islam
Other non-Christian religion
No religious affiliation
P 10b  If you are married or living with your partner
My partner’s religion
Catholic
Protestant
Other Christian religion
Islam
Other non-Christian religion
No religious affiliation
P 11  What is your child’s nationality?
German
Non-German
My child has dual nationality
P 12  What type of school is your child currently attending?
Elementary school
Hauptschule
Realschule
Gymnasium
School with several tracks (orientation stage [Orientierungsstufe], comprehensive,
…)
Special needs school
P 13 Does your child spend some time outside the family or school in, for exam-
ple, a club such as a sports club, a social group, a music group, a church
group, a nature or animal protection group, or the like?
Sports club (soccer, swimming, horse riding, tennis, …)
Music group/Music school
Dance club/Ballet
Painting/drawing group
Theater or movie group
216 Appendices

Church group
Girl guides/Boy scouts
Nature or animal protection society
Organized group in a child or youth club
Trachtenverein [society for traditional costumes]/Brauchtumspflege [cultural folk-
lore group]
Other group or club (please specify) ______________________
No, my child does not belong to any organized group or a club
P 14 And when your child was younger, did she or he attend a day nursery?
No, my child did not attend a day nursery (Proceed to Question P 15)
Yes, my child did attend a day nursery (Proceed to Question P 14a)
P 14a  How old was your child when she or he first attended a day nursery?
Age when my child first attended a day nursery:
Less than one year old
One year old
Two years old
More than two years old
P 15  Did your child attend a Kindergarten or preschool?
No, my child did not attend a Kindergarten or preschool (Proceed to Question P 16)
Yes, my child did attend a Kindergarten or preschool (Proceed to Question P 15a)
P 15a  How old was your child when she or he first attended a Kindergarten or
preschool?
Age when my child first attended a Kindergarten or preschool
Less than three years old
Three years old
Four years old
Five years old
More than five years old
P 16  We live in a
Single family house (terraced house or detached)
In a smaller building containing several apartments (up to 12 apartments)
In a larger building or block (more than 12 apartments)
P 17  Type of housing
Rented
Own property
P 18  In your own household, how well do you get by on the amount of money
available to you and your family each month?
Very well
Quite well
Just about okay
Less well
Appendices 217

Not well at all

P 19  Nowadays, there is a lot of talk about reconciling work and family life. How
well does this work for you? How well do you manage to reconcile work and
family life in your family?
Very well
Quite well
Just about okay
Less well
Not well at all
Thank you for your time and your cooperation!

Appendix 6: Case Scenarios

Circus Story

Next month, a famous circus will be coming to town. The children in a school class
would really like to go to the circus and see the show. Although the class has its own
savings account with money to pay for excursions, there is not enough money to pay
for tickets for everybody to go to the circus. The class is discussing what they can
do. The children come up with the idea of holding a garage sale. All the children
should bring things they no longer need from home so that they can be put on sale.
On the day of the garage sale, all the children bring things to be sold. Only Jana
and Emil come with empty hands. Anton and Luise, in contrast, have brought a
particularly large number of things. What do you think: Should all the children be
able to go to the circus?
After the question has been discussed in detail, the next question probes deeper:
At the circus, the class has reserved a complete block of seats. One-half of the chil-
dren can sit in the front row; the other one-half have to sit behind them. How
should the children decide who gets to sit in the front row? Why?
If the children fail to grasp the dilemma themselves, the questioner poses follow-
u­ p questions and asks whether the children would judge the following two versions
differently:
Version A: Jana didn’t manage to bring anything because she was ill and Emil sim-
ply didn’t have anything at home that he could bring.
Version B: Jana and Emil couldn’t be bothered/had something else they wanted to
do on the day they should have spent some time looking for things to bring.
218 Appendices

Flute Story

Three children—Anne, Bob, and Carla—are quarrelling over who should get a flute
to play with. Imagine you have to decide which child should get the flute. Anne
claims the flute because she is the only one of the three who knows how to play it.
Bob points out that he is the only one of the three who has no other toys to play with
because he is poor. Carla, in contrast, claims the flute because she is the one who
spent several months working hard to make it. Which child should get the flute and
why should that child get it?

Money for School Grades

Lukas and Philipp are twins. Now that the school marks the children’s work and
gives them grades, their parents have decided to give them a reward of two Euros for
every Grade 1 (Excellent) and one Euro for every Grade 2 (Good). They get no
money for a Grade 3 (Fair). Philipp is happy, because even when he doesn’t bother
to do any revision on the day before the test, he still always manages to get a 1 or a
2. Things are different for Lukas. He also wants to get good grades and he tries very
hard. Sometimes, he even starts learning and revising hard a couple of days before
the test. Nonetheless, he often manages to get only a 3 and sometimes occasionally
a 2.
Lukas goes to his parents and tells them that he finds the arrangement unfair
because he hardly ever gets a reward—even though he works much harder than
Philipp! What do you think?

Provocation and Punishment

Jakob and Carsten don’t like each other very much, so they mostly just avoid each
other. During a break in the schoolyard, Carsten suddenly starts to call Jakob names.
Jakob tries not to listen, but Carsten doesn’t stop. He provokes Jakob more and
more. Eventually, Jakob gets very angry and gives Carsten a hard push. Carsten falls
down and grazes his knee. The teacher sees this and steps in immediately. Jakob is
kept in after school and given extra work to do as a punishment. What do you think
of that?
Appendices 219

Majority Versus Minority

A class goes on regular school trips. The children get to vote where the class will go
on each trip. Every time there is a vote, 12 children vote for the swimming pool and
8 children vote for the zoo. The class has already gone swimming twice. On the
third time, the children who want to go to the zoo protest. They think that it is not
fair when they have to go the swimming pool again on their school trip. What do
you think?
After the question has been discussed in detail, the next question follows:
Udo is the only child who has always wanted to go to the museum. Hardly any of
the other children want this. Should the class nonetheless take one trip to the
museum?

Participation

A small town has a playground where the younger children like to go and play. The
town mayor believes that there are still not enough places in the town where youths
can meet each other. He wants to organize a meeting with the citizens of the town
and discuss whether the playground should be replaced by a youth center. All the
adult residents of the town are invited to an evening meeting at the town hall. They
should vote whether to keep the playground or to build a youth center instead. The
children are not invited to attend the meeting. What do you think of that?
References

AGJ – Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Kinder- und Jugendhilfe. (Hrsg.). (2012). Sozialgesetzbuch VIII
auf dem Stand des Bundeskinderschutzgesetzes. Berlin: Gesamttext und Begründungen.
Allbus: Datenreport. (2011). Ein Sozialbericht für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Bonn:
Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.
Allensbacher Institut für Demoskopie. (2013). Was ist gerecht? Gerechtigkeitsbegriff und -wah-
rnehmung der Bürger. Allensbacher Archiv, IfD-Umfrage 11001, Allensbach.
Andresen, S., & Heitmeyer, W. (Hrsg.). (2012). Zerstörerische Vorgänge. Missachtung und sexuelle
Gewalt gegen Kinder und Jugendliche in Institutionen. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Juventa.
Andresen, S., & Hurrelmann, K. (2007). Was bedeutet es, heute ein Kind zu sein? Die World Vision
Kinderstudie als Beitrag zur Kinder- und Kindheitsforschung. In World Vision Deutschland.
(Hrsg.) Kinder in Deutschland 2007. 1. World Vision Kinderstudie (S. 35 – 64). Frankfurt a. M.:
Fischer.
Andresen, S., Hurrelmann, K., & Fegter, S. (2010). Wie geht es unseren Kindern? Wohlbefinden
und Lebensbedingungen der Kinder in Deutschland. In World Vision Deutschland. (Hrsg.)
Kinder in Deutschland 2010. 2. World Vision Kinderstudie (S. 35 – 59). Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer.
Andresen, S., Hurrelmann, K., & Schneekloth, U. (2012). Care and freedom. Theoretical and
empirical aspects of children’s well-being. Child Indicators Research, 5, 437–448.
Andresen, S., Mailand, S., Milanovic, D., & Blume, J. (2013). Erfahrungen und Erleben von Armut
aus der Sicht von Kindern: »Ich würde meiner Familie was schenken und dafür sorgen, dass sie
nicht so viel in Schwierigkeiten sind.« Unsere Jugend 65. Jg. (S. 123 – 129).
Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung. (2012). Bildung in Deutschland 2012. Ein indika-
torengestützter Bericht mit einer Analyse zu Perspektiven des Bildungswesens im demograf-
ischen Wandel. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag.
AWO-ISS. (2012). Lebenssituation und Zukunftschancen von (armen) Kindern und Jugendlichen.
AWO-Verlag.
Bacher, J., Winkelhofer, U., & Teubner, M. (2007). Partizipation von Kindern in der Grundschule.
In Alt, C. (Hrsg.), Kinderleben – Start in die Grundschule (Band 3: Ergebnisse aus der zweiten
Welle, S. 137 – 163). Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Baumert, J., Stanat, P., & Watermann, R. (Hrsg.). (2006). Herkunftsbedingte Disparitäten im
Bildungswesen. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance
use. Journal of early adolescence. Band 11, Heft 1, S. 56 – 95.
Bertelsmann Ländermonitor Frühkindliche Bildungssysteme (o. J.) (2013) Tabelle 6, Tabelle 7,
Tabelle 8 (Stand ab 2007). http://www.laendermonitor.de/downloads-presse/index.nc.html?no_
cache=1 (Stand: 19.06.2013).

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 221

S. Andresen et al. (eds.), Well-being, Poverty and Justice from a Child’s
Perspective, Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research 17,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57574-2
222 References

BMAS (Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales). (2013a). Lebenslagen in Deutschland.

Der vierte Armuts- und Reichtumsbericht der Bundesregierung. (Endfassung: 06.03.2013).
Verfügbar unter. http://www.bmas.de/.
BMAS (Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales). (2013b). Das Bildungspaket. Das ist drin im
Bildungspaket. Verfügbar unter. www.bildungspaket.bmas.de.
BMFSFJ. (2005). 12. Kinder- und Jugendbericht. Berlin: BT. Drs. 15 / 6014.
BMFSFJ. (2006). Familie zwischen Flexibilität und Verlässlichkeit. Perspektiven für eine leb-
enslaufbezogene Familienpolitik. 7. Familienbericht. Berlin: BT. Drs. 16 / 1360.
Bos, W., Klieme, E., & Köller, O. (Hrsg.). (2010). Schulische Lerngelegenheiten und
Kompetenzentwicklung. Münster: Waxmann.
Bradshaw, J., Martorano, B., Natali, L., & de Neubourg, C. (2013) Children’s subjective well-­
being in rich countries (Working Paper). UNICEF Office of Research, Florence.
Bremm, N. (2013). Schulen mit ganztägigem Angebot. Vorbereitung einer Typologie. Diskurs
Kindheits- und Jugendforschung 12, S. 23 – 38.
Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Landesjugendämter. (2013). Sicherung der Rechte von Kindern
als Qualitätsmerkmal von Kindertageseinrichtungen. http://www.bagljae.de/down­loads/114_
sicherung-­der-­rechte-von-kindern-in-kitas.pdf (Stand: 24.06.2013).
Coleman, J.  (1988). Social capital and the creating of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, 95–120.
Cremer, H. (2012). Kinderrechte und der Vorrang des Kindeswohls. Die UN-Kinderrechtskonvention
bietet ein weites Anwendungsfeld. Anwaltspraxis, 4, S. 327 – 329.
Dalbert, C. (1983). Die Gerechte-Welt-Skala (GWS). In Preiser, S. (Hrsg.), Soziales Handeln
im Kindes- und Jugendalter (Dokumentation von Forschungs- und Diagnoseinstrumenten).
Weinheim: Beltz, S. 139.
Dalbert, C., Montada, L., & Schmitt, M. (1987). Glaube an eine gerechte Welt als Motiv:
Validierungskorrelate zweier Skalen. Psychologische Beiträge, 29, S. 596 – 615.
Deutscher Bundestag. (2013). Der 14. Kinder- und Jugendbericht. Bericht über die Lebenssituation
junger Menschen und die Leistungen und Bestrebungen der Kinder- und Jugendhilfe Iin
Deutschland. Deutscher Bundestag, Drucksache 17 / 12200. http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/
btd/17 / 122 / 1712200.pdf (Stand: 24.06.2013).
DJI (Deutsches Jugendinstitut e.V.). (Hrsg.). (2011). Sexuelle Gewalt gegen Kinder. Missbrauch
in Institutionen, Forschungsergebnisse und Empfehlungen für einen besseren Kinderschutz.
München: DJI.
Essau, C. A. (2003). Angst bei Kindern und Jugendlichen. Stuttgart: UTB.
Fattore, T., Mason, J., & Watson, E. (2012): Locating the child centrally as subject in research:
Towards a child interpretation of well-being. Child Indicators Research, 5(3), S. 423 – 435.
Fegter, S., & Richter, M. (2013). The capability approach as a framework for research on children’s
well-being. In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Casas, I. Frones, & J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child well-
being: theory, indicators, measures and policies. Dordrecht/Heidelberg/ London/New York:
Springer. Chapter No. 151.
Fehr, E., Bernhard, H., & Rockenbach, B. (2008). Egalitarianism in young children. In Nature
(Vol. 454, pp. 1079–1083).
Fischer, N., Holtappels, H.  G., Rauschenbach, T., Stecher, L., & Zürchner, I. (Hrsg.). (2011).
Ganztagsschule; Entwicklung, Qualität, Wirkungen. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.
Fuhrer, U., & Uslucan, H.-H. (Hrsg.). (2005). Familie, Akkulturation und Erziehung: Migration
zwischen Eigen- und Fremdkultur. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Gauze, C., Bukowski, W. M., Aquan Assee, J., & Sippola, L. K. (1996). Interactions between fam-
ily environment and friendship and associations with self perceived well-being during adoles-
cence. Child Development, 67, 2201–2216.
Gifford-Smith, M. E., & Brownell, C. A. (2002). Childhood peer relationships: Social acceptance,
friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 235–284.
Glatzer, W. (2009). Gefühlte (Un)Gerechtigkeit. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 47 / 2009, S. 15 – 20.
References 223

Hadjar, A., & Becker, R. (Hrsg.). (2006). Die Bildungsexpansion. Wiesbaden: Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Hamann, K., Warneken, F., Greenberg, J.  R., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Collaboration encour-
ages equal sharing in children but not chimpanzees. Nature. doi: 10.1038/nature10278. http://
wkprc.eva.mpg.de/pdf/2011/Hamann_Warneken_Greenberg_Tomasello_2011.pdf (Stand:
20.08.2013).
HBSC-Team Deutschland. (2011). Studie Health Behaviour in School-aged Children – Faktenblatt
»Lebenszufriedenheit von Kindern und Jugendlichen”. Bielefeld: WHO Collaborating Centre
for Child and Adolescent Health Promotion.
Hernandez, D. J., & Marotz, K. G. (2012). Disparities in child well-being across income groups:
Trends in the U.S. from 1985 to 2008. Child Indicators Research, 5(1) S. 93 – 121.
Hinsch, W. (2002). Gerechtfertigte Ungleichheiten: Grundsätze sozialer Gerechtigkeit. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter.
Holst, E., & Seifert, H. (2012). Arbeitszeitpolitische Kontroversen im Spiegel der
Arbeitszeitwünsche. WSI-Mitteilungen, 2 / 2012, S. 141 – 149.
Hopf, W. (2010). Freiheit-Leistung-Ungleichheit. Bildung und soziale Herkunft in Deutschland.
Weinheim: Beltz.
Hunner-Kreisel, C., & Stephan, M. (Hrsg.). (2013). Neue Zeiten, neue Räume: Kindheit und
Familie im Kontext von (Trans-)Migration und sozialem Wandel. Wiesbaden: Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Hurrelmann, K., & Schultz, T. (Hrsg.). (2012). Jungen als Bildungsverlierer. Weinheim: Beltz
Juventa.
Hurrelmann, K., & Timm, A. (2011). Kinder, Bildung, Zukunft Drei Wege aus der Krise. Stuttgart:
Klett.
Hurrelmann, K., Quenzel, G., & Rathmann, K. (2011). Bildungspolitik als Bestandteil moderner
Wohlfahrtspolitik. Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation, 31, S. 313 – 328.
Ittel, A., & Scheithauer, H. (2007). Geschlecht als »Stärke« oder »Risiko«? Überlegungen zur
geschlechterspezifischen Resilienz. In Opp, G., & Fingerle, M. (Hrsg.). Was Kinder stärkt.
Erziehung zwischen Risiko und Resilienz (S. 98 – 115). München/Basel: Reinhardt.
Jampert, K., Zehnbauer, A., Sens, A., Leuckefeld, K., & Laier, M. (Hrsg.). (2009). Kinder-Sprache
stärken. Aufwachsen mit mehreren Sprachen. Praxismaterial. Weimar/Berlin: Das Netz.
Klieme, E., Artelt, C., Hartig, J., Jude, N., Köller, O., Prenze, M., Schneider, W., & Stanat, P.
(Hrsg.). (2010) PISA 2009. Bilanz nach einem Jahrzehnt. Münster/ New  York/ München/
Berlin: Waxmann.
KMK Sekretariat. (2012). Allgemein bildende Schulen in Ganztagsform in Ländern der
Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Bonn und Berlin: KMK.
Kohlberg, L. (1964). The development of moral character and ideology. In M. L. Hoffmann (Ed.),
Review of child development research. New York: Wiley.
Kohlberg, L. (1974). Zur kognitiven Entwicklung des Kindes. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
LBS-Kinderbarometer. (2011). Stimmungen, Trends und Meinungen von Kindern aus Deutschland.
Recklinghausen: RDN Verlag.
Leven, I., & Schneekloth, U. (2007). Die Freizeit. Anregen lassen oder fernsehen. In World Vision
Deutschland. (Hrsg.), Kinder in Deutschland 2007. 1. World Vision Kinderstudie (S. 165 – 200).
Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer.
Leven, I., & Schneekloth, U. (2010). Die Schule: Frühe Vergabe von Lebenschancen. In World
Vision Deutschland. (Hrsg.), Kinder in Deutschland 2010 (S. 161–185). Frankfurt a. M.:
Fischer.
Liebig, S., & Lengfeld, H. (Hrsg.). (2002). Interdisziplinäre Gerechtigkeitsforschung. Zur
Verknüpfung empirischer und normativer Perspektiven. Hamburg: Campus.
Liebig, S., & May, M. (2009). Dimensionen sozialer Gerechtigkeit. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte,
47 / 2009, S. 3 – 8.
Luthar, S. S. (1999). Poverty and children‘s adjustment. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
224 References

Maaz, K., Baumert, J., Gresch, C., & McElvany, N. (Hrsg.). (2010) Der Übergang von der
Grundschule in die weiterführenden Schulen. Berlin und Bonn: BMBF.
Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest. (Hrsg.). (2012). FIM-Studie (2011): Familie,
Interaktion & Medien. Untersuchung zur Kommunikation und Mediennutzung in Familien.
Stuttgart: Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest: LFK.
Meiland, S., Andresen, S., Milanovic, D., & Blume, J. (2013a) Denkst du, die Kinder sind hier arm?
Sichtweisen und Erfahrungen von Kindern in prekären Lebenslagen. In Fisher, D., Gathen, J.,
Höhmann, K., Klaffke, T., Rademacker, H. (Hrsg.). Friedrich Jahresheft XXXI 2013, Schule
und Armut (S. 16 – 18). Oldenburg: Friedrich Verlag.
Meiland, S., Andresen, S., Milanovic, D., & Blume, J.  (2013b). Erfahrungen und Erleben von
Armut aus der Sicht von Kindern: »Ich würde meiner Familie was schenken und dafür sorgen,
dass sie nicht so viel in Schwierigkeiten sind.« Unsere Jugend 65. Jg. (S. 123 – 129).
Minkkinen, J. (2013). The structural model of child well-being. Child Indicators Research, 6(3),
547–558.
Morschitzky, H. (2009). Angststörungen. Diagnostik, Konzepte, Theorie, Selbsthilfe (4. Auflage).
Heidelberg: Springer.
Oerter, R., & Montada, L. (Hrsg.). (2002). Entwicklungspsychologie (5. vollständig überarbeitete
Auflage). Weinheim: Beltz.
O’Hare, W. P., & Gutierrez, F. (2012). The use of domains in constructing a comprehensive com-
posite index of child well-being. Child Indicators Research, 5, 609–629.
Olk, T., & Roth, R. (2007). Mehr Partizipation wagen. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Parker, J. G., & Gottman, J. M. (1989). Social and emotional development in a relational context;
Friendship interaction from early childhood to adolescence. In Berndt, T. J. & Ladd, G. W.
(Hrsg.), Peer relationships in child development. Zitiert nach: Oerter, R., & Montada, L. (1998)
Entwicklungspsychologie. Ein Lehrbuch. Weinheim: Beltz.
Piaget, J. (1932/ 1983). Das moralische Urteil beim Kinde. Stuttgart: Klett.
Piaget, J. (1937 /1975). Der Aufbau der Wirklichkeit beim Kinde. Stuttgart: Klett.
Piaget, J. (1999). Über Pädagogik. Beltz: Weinheim.
Prazen, A., Wolfinger, N. H., Cahill, C., & Kowaleski-Jones, L. (2011). Joint physical custody and
neighborhood friendships in middle childhood. Sociological Inquiry, 81(2), 247–259.
Pupeter, M., & Schneekloth, U. (2010). Die Gleichaltrigen: Gemeinsame – getrennte Welten?. In
World Vision Deutschland. (Hrsg.), Kinder in Deutschland 2010. 2. World Vision Kinderstudie
(S. 141 – 160). Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer.
Quenzel, G., & Hurrelmann, K. (Hrsg.). (2010). Bildungsverlierer. Wiesbaden: Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
Robert Bosch Stiftung. (2012). Starke Kinder  – starke Familie. Wohlbefinden von Kindern in
Städten und Gemeinden. Stuttgart: Robert Bosch Stiftung.
Salvas, M.-C., Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., Lacourse, E., Boivin, M., & Tremblay, R.  E. (2011).
Interplay between friends’ aggression and friendship quality in the development of child
aggression during the early school years. Social Development, 20(4), 645–663.
Schneekloth, U. (2010). Jugend und Politik: Aktuelle Entwicklungstrends und Perspektiven. In
Shell Deutschland Holding. (Hrsg.), Jugend 2010. Eine pragmatische Generation behauptet
sich (16. Shell Jugendstudie). Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer, S. 129 – 164.
Schneekloth, U., & Leven, I. (2007). Familie als Zentrum: nicht für alle gleich verlässlich. In
World Vision Deutschland. (Hrsg.), Kinder in Deutschland 2007. 1. World Vision Kinderstudie
(S. 65 – 109). Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer.
Schneekloth, U., & Pupeter, M. (2010a). Familie als Zentrum: Bunt und vielfältig, aber nicht für
alle Kinder gleich verlässlich. In World Vision Deutschland. (Hrsg.), Kinder in Deutschland
2010. 2. World Vision Kinderstudie (S. 61 – 94). Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer.
Schneekloth, U., & Pupeter, M. (2010b). Wohlbefinden, Wertschätzung, Selbstwirksamkeit:
Was Kinder für ein gutes Leben brauchen. In World Vision Deutschland. (Hrsg.), Kinder in
Deutschland 2010. 2. World Vision Kinderstudie (S. 187 – 221). Frankfurt a. M: Fischer.
References 225

Schneewind, K. A. (2008). Sozialisation in der Familie. In Hurrelmann, K., Grundmann, M., &
Walper, S. (Hrsg.), Handbuch Sozialisationsforschung (7. vollst. überarbeitete Auflage, S.
256 – 273). Weinheim: Beltz.
Schroeder, D., Picot, S., & Andresen, S. (2010). Die qualitative Studie: 12 Porträts von
Kinderpersönlichkeiten. In World Vision Deutschland. (Hrsg.), Kinder in Deutschland 2010. 2.
World Vision Kinderstudie (S. 223 – 240). Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer.
Sen, A. (2010). Die Idee der Gerechtigkeit. München: C. H. Beck Verlag.
Sikorski, U., & Kuchler, B. (2011). Wer muss worauf verzichten? Einschätzungen zur Wohn- und
Lebenssituation der privaten Haushalte. Wirtschaft und Statistik, 5 / 2011, S. 484 – 492.
Stange, W., Meinhold-Henschel, S., & Schack, S. (2009). Mitwirkung (er)leben. Handbuch
zur Durchführung von Beteiligungsprojekten mit Kindern und Jugendlichen. Gütersloh:
Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Statistisches Bundesamt. (2009). Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit-Einbürgerung 2008 (Fachserie
1 Reihe 2.1). Wiesbaden.
Statistisches Bundesamt. (2011a). Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit. Bevölkerung mit
Migrationshintergrund-Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus 2010 (Fachserie 1 Reihe 2.2). Wiesbaden.
Statistisches Bundesamt. (2011b). Pressemitteilung Nr. 345 vom 20. September 2011: Knapp die
Hälfte der Großstadtkinder aus Familien mit Migrationshintergrund. Wiesbaden.
Stecher, L., Krüger, H. H., & Rauschenbach, T. (Hrsg.). (2011). Ganztagsschule – neue Schule?
Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Stubbe, T. (2009). Bildungsentscheidungen und sekundäre Herkunftseffekte. Münster: Waxmann.
Tracy, R. (2007). Wie Kinder Sprachen lernen. Und wie wir sie dabei unterstützen können.
Tübingen: Francke.
Trautner, H. M. (1991). Lehrbuch der Ent­wicklungspsychologie (Bd. 2: Theorien und Befunde).
Göttingen: Hogrefe.
UNICEF. (2012). Measuring child poverty. New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich
countries. Report Card 10, Innocenti Research Centre, online unter. www.unicef-irc.org/publi-
cations/pdf/rc10_eng.pdf (Stand: 14.07.2013).
UNICEF. (2013a). The state of the world’s children 2013: Children with disabilities. online:
http://www.unicef.org/sowc2013/files/SWCR2013_ENG_Lo_res_24_Apr_2013.pdf (Stand:
14.07.2013).
UNICEF. (2013b). Child well-being in rich countries. A comparative overview (Innocenti Report
Card 11 (UNICEF)).
Uslucan, H.  H. (2008). Männlichkeitsbilder, Familie und Erziehung in den Communities von
Zuwanderern. Berliner Forum Gewaltprävention (BFG Nr. 34).
Woodward, L. J., & Fergusson, D. M. (2001). Life course of young people with anxiety disorders
in adolescence. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40,
1086–1093.
Zander, M. (2013). Resilienz  – Gender  – Prekäre Lebenslagen. Wie kann eine gendersensible
Resilienzförderung aussehen? Betrifft Mädchen, 3 / 2013.
Index

A Father, 1, 54, 56–58, 63, 73, 76, 77, 79, 158,

Anxieties, 28, 29 161, 163, 164
Freedom, 3, 6, 16, 25, 27, 31, 49, 84,
110, 136–138, 149, 150, 158,
C 167–168
Capability Approach, 6, 31, 149 Friends/peers/ Friendship, 6, 7, 9, 23, 24, 27,
Choice, 137, 151, 153, 155 40, 41, 49, 83, 101, 108–110, 125, 128,
Class, 12, 26, 27, 34–39, 45–47, 66–67, 72–75, 135–146, 149, 151–156, 158, 161–164,
85, 86, 88–90, 92–97, 100, 103, 107, 168, 174
117, 118, 120–127, 131–134, 139–141,
146, 154–155, 157–164, 167, 176
I
Inequality, 2, 13, 17–19, 30, 34, 89
D
Deprivation index, 8
Dimensions of child well-being, 4–6 J
Justice, 2, 3, 14–20, 23–25, 27, 30–47, 49,
50, 100–104, 134, 149, 150, 165,
E 171–173, 176
Education, 2–4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 67, 72–75, 80,
84, 86–88, 90, 91, 94, 124, 132, 142,
160, 171, 176 L
Lack of choices, 154

F
Family, 2, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 20, 23, 24, 26, 31, M
40, 41, 45, 47, 49, 53–57, 60, 65–69, Migration / migration background, 2, 9,
71, 72, 74, 76–81, 88, 92, 101, 12–14, 37, 42, 44–49, 53, 61–67, 75,
107–109, 115–117, 120–125, 130, 131, 92, 117, 118, 126, 127, 133, 134, 139,
135, 140, 149–160, 162–164, 171, 140, 146, 157, 158, 164
173–176 Mother, 54, 57–60, 63, 74, 76, 77, 79,
Family types, 47, 54, 131, 157 158, 162

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 227

S. Andresen et al. (eds.), Well-being, Poverty and Justice from a Child’s
Perspective, Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research 17,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57574-2
228 Index

P School, 4, 6, 7, 10–15, 17–20, 23, 24,

Parents, 2, 4–6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 17, 26, 27, 29, 35, 27–30, 34, 35, 37–41, 54, 69–73,
41, 43, 46, 47, 53, 54, 56–81, 83–87, 83–104, 107, 111, 120–125, 130,
90, 91, 108, 110, 116–118, 120, 122, 133, 135, 139, 140, 142, 143, 149,
123, 125, 130–132, 134, 140, 141, 150, 150, 155, 159–162, 164, 167,
155, 157, 158, 162, 164, 167, 168, 172, 173–176
174–176
Participation, 3, 11–13, 31, 33, 38, 40,
58–60, 68, 69, 71, 72, 75, 80, 81, T
93, 96, 99, 122–125, 128, 133, 155, Teachers, 1, 8, 18, 96, 101, 102,
172–176 161–164, 176
Poverty, 2, 3, 7–14, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29, 49, Theory of justice, 16, 17, 19
53, 67–71, 74, 79–81, 117, 118, Time use / leisure time activities,
132, 133, 158 107, 111, 112, 116, 118, 119,
139, 145, 154

R
Respect (of what they think), 7, 102, 161, U
162, 164, 175 Unemployment of parents, 13, 30, 49

S W
Satisfaction, 3, 4, 6, 7, 25–28, 42, 46, 49, Well-being, 2–8, 10, 12, 14, 18–20, 24, 25,
103–104, 107, 132–134, 136, 145–147, 30, 32, 33, 41, 81, 95, 96, 135, 165,
162, 167 167, 172, 173