Center studies at the University of Leipzig

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The articles Mitte-Studien from the University of Leipzig and Mitte-Studien from the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung overlap thematically. Help me to better differentiate or merge the articles (→  instructions ) . To do this, take part in the relevant redundancy discussion . Please remove this module only after the redundancy has been completely processed and do not forget to include the relevant entry on the redundancy discussion page{{ Done | 1 = ~~~~}}to mark. X2liro ( discussion ) 10:47, Jan. 7, 2019 (CET)

The “Mitte” studies at the University of Leipzig are representative surveys of authoritarian and right-wing extremist attitudes in Germany. They have been carried out every two years since 2002 by a working group at the University of Leipzig under the direction of social psychologists Elmar Brähler and Oliver Decker and with the assistance of Johannes Kiess . From 2006 to 2012 they were created in collaboration with the SPD- affiliated Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung as part of their project “Against Right-Wing Extremism” (Forum Berlin). Since 2014, the University of Leipzig and the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung have each carried out their own “middle” studies. In the Leipzig “Mitte” studies, a shift in the focus to authoritarian dynamics was marked by including authoritarian attitudes in the subtitle.

In 2016, the study was funded by the Heinrich Böll Foundation , which is close to the Greens , the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation , which is close to the left, and the Otto Brenner Foundation , which is close to the union ; the study From concentration camp to home - pictures of a model settlement was supported by the Amadeu Antonio Foundation and the State Center for Civic Education Saxony-Anhalt .

The methods and results of the “Mitte” studies at the University of Leipzig are incorporated into extremism research. It is debatable whether the studies empirically support the theory of center extremism .

Theoretical foundations

Since the German reunification in 1990, empirical social research has increasingly dealt with the causes of right-wing extremism. In doing so, she concentrated on manifest right-wing extremist behavior, such as acts of violence, less on right-wing extremist attitudes and their overall societal development factors. The “Mitte” studies at the University of Leipzig were developed to close this research gap and to empirically test various theoretical explanatory models. The initiators take a critical view of the term “ extremism ” because it does not distinguish enough between right and left “extremes” and too strongly delimit it from an indefinite social “middle”. However, they retained the term “right-wing extremism” for the attitudes included under it, because terms such as “xenophobia” only cover individual aspects or, like “ authoritarianism ”, only favor a single theory of origin. They used the linguistic paradox of “right-wing extremism of the center” to make the ideological content of both terms visible: the “center” claimed by many parties and politicians does not designate a social situation, but rather the expression pleads for moderation and should point out “That in this society everyone has their lot in their own hands.” The chosen title is intended to emphasize that the “center”, despite this function, is not opposed to right-wing extremism. The authors expressly exclude the Critical Theory and the "Studies on Authority and Family" and the "authoritarian personality."

Questionnaire

A “questionnaire on right-wing extremist attitudes”, which was developed in several steps, has been used in the representative survey as part of the Leipzig “center” studies. In March 2001, eleven German experts in empirical social research met to bring together different measurement conventions on right-wing extremism: Elmar Brähler, Michael Edinger , Jürgen W. Falter , Andreas Hallermann , Joachim Kreis , Oskar Niedermayer , Karl Schmitt , Richard Stöss , Siegfried Schumann , Helmut Tausendteufel and Jürgen R. Winkler . They first discussed the components that make up right-wing extremism. As a result, they formulated a working definition:

"Right-wing extremism is a pattern of attitudes, the common characteristics of which are ideas of inequality. In the political field, these express themselves in the affinity to dictatorial forms of government, chauvinistic attitudes and a trivialization or justification of National Socialism. In the social field they are characterized by anti-Semitic, xenophobic and social Darwinist attitudes. "

This definition contains six interrelated components ("dimensions"):

It has not been fully clarified whether these components are linked by a common background variable or common intersections. The consensus was that right-wing extremism, like left-wing extremism, is directed against the democratic constitutional state, but also has a special dimension, namely the advocacy of a right-wing dictatorship. Scientists viewed authoritarianism as such as an independent variable. They also discussed the status of anti-Semitism in right-wing extremism and chose the term chauvinism to specifically differentiate right-wing extremists from democratic nationalism and patriotism . They rejected other components such as law and order , friend-foe thinking, anti-pluralism, ethnic collectivism and willingness to use violence as too unspecific.

As a second step, the experts agreed on a catalog of 30 test questions (" items "), five per dimension. These should be tested with an initial survey and then reduced to two to three selective items. It was unclear whether one could measure hostility towards democracy with the same items for right-wing and left-wing extremism and then include the results in the right-wing extremism scale. A pragmatic agreement was reached to measure only specific right-wing extremist dictatorship support and to include this component in the overall measurement.

The following 18 questions proved to be particularly selective in the first study in 2002 and were therefore retained:

Support for a right-wing authoritarian dictatorship
  1. In the national interest, under certain circumstances, a dictatorship is the better form of government.
  2. We should have a leader who rules Germany with a strong hand for the good of all.
  3. What Germany needs now is a single strong party that embodies the national community as a whole.
chauvinism
  1. We should finally have the courage to have a strong national feeling again.
  2. What our country needs today is tough and vigorous assertion of German interests against foreign countries.
  3. The primary goal of German policy should be to give Germany the power and status it deserves.
Xenophobia
  1. The foreigners only come here to take advantage of our welfare state.
  2. When jobs become scarce, the foreigners should be sent back to their homeland.
  3. The Federal Republic is dangerously foreign to the large number of foreigners.
anti-Semitism
  1. Even today the influence of the Jews is too great.
  2. The Jews, more than other people, work evil tricks to get what they want.
  3. The Jews just have something special and peculiar about themselves and do not really suit us.
Social darwinism
  1. As in nature, the stronger should always prevail in society.
  2. Actually, Germans are naturally superior to other peoples.
  3. There is valuable and unworthy life.
Downplaying National Socialism
  1. Without the extermination of the Jews, Hitler would be seen today as a great statesman.
  2. The crimes of National Socialism have been greatly exaggerated in historiography.
  3. National Socialism also had its good sides.

Further development

In the summer of 2001, the USUMA Institute surveyed 4005 West Germans and 1020 East Germans of all age groups on behalf of the University of Leipzig about right-wing extremist attitudes. The agreed measurement convention was tested for reliability in two further surveys by the universities of Leipzig (2002; first “Mitte” study) and Berlin (2003; expanded and published in 2004).

The results showed considerable differences. At a follow-up conference in 2004, the ten experts involved discussed possible causes, including the different number of questions and possible answers, the position or distribution of the questions and the choice of the threshold value for a right-wing extremism scale. They decided to standardize the methods with regard to these points, to keep the six dimensions and to reduce the 30 items to one to three selective items per dimension.

In the “middle” studies of 2004 and 2006, three combined items per dimension were tested. In contrast to the Berlin study of 2003, which had found one and a half times as many right-wing extremist East Germans as West Germans, the Leipzig study of 2006 found almost seven percent fewer right-wing extremists East Germans than West Germans. The initiators therefore had the data sets of both studies compared. The social and political scientist Joachim Kreis commissioned with this task attributed the differences partly to the different interview situations, partly to the fact that many of the East Germans surveyed in 2006 would have ticked the socially desirable answers they assumed to the test questions. He confirmed some of Klaus Schroeder's criticisms of the measurement method from 2006, but at the same time emphasized the general reliability of the components and items agreed between 2001 and 2004.

In 2007/2008 the team led by Oliver Decker and Elmar Brähler carried out a group discussion study as part of the “Mitte” studies, in 2016 a photo-documentary study was published at the same time as the Leipzig “Mitte” study was published.

The more recent “Mitte” studies at the University of Leipzig use questionnaires on right-wing extremist attitudes - Leipziger Form - by Oliver Decker and others (2013), to measure defamation of Sinti and Roma , refugees and Muslims in the Bielefeld series German Conditions by Wilhelm Heitmeyer (2012 ) and those for measuring authoritarianism by Peter Schmidt, Karsten Stephan and Andrea Herrmann (1995), or a selection of items from the KAS-3 (short scale authoritarianism; Beierlein, Asbrock, Kauff & Schmidt 2014). The 2014 study also included items on the dimensions of Islamophobia , devaluation of asylum seekers and antigypsyism . Of the 4,386 interview partners drawn from this sample, 2,432 people (54.8 percent) could be questioned. When asked on Sunday which party the respondents would vote for in the event of a federal election on the following Sunday, the alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Pirate Party were included in the answer options for the first time, in addition to the established and right-wing extremist parties .

execution

The “Mitte” studies at the University of Leipzig determine the attitudes of German citizens with and without a migration background from the age of 14. You use a representative random sample in a three-stage procedure with area selection ( ADM design )

Since 2002, the USUMA opinion research institute has been commissioned by the University of Leipzig to carry out representative surveys of the studies .

Results

The studies from 2002 to 2018 showed the following percentages for the six dimensions:

dimension 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Number of respondents 2051 2442 4872 2410 2411 2415 2432 2420 2416
Xenophobia 26.9 25.5 26.7 21.2 24.7 25.1 18.1 20.4 24.1
chauvinism 18.3 19th, 0 19.3 14.9 19.3 19.4 13.6 16.7 19.0
anti-Semitism 09.3 10, 0 08.4 9, 08.7 08.6 05.1 04.8 4.4
Dictatorship advocacy 07.7 06.4 04.8 03.7 05.1 03.5 03.6 05.0 3.6
Social darwinism 05.2 06.4 04.5 03.1 03.9 04.3 02.9 03.4 3.2
Downplaying the NS 04.1 04.1 04.1 03.2 03.3 03.1 02.2 02.1 2.7
Closed right-wing extremist worldview 09.7 09.8 08.6 07.6 08.2 09.0 05.6 05.4 6.0
east 08.1 08.3 06.6 07.9 10.5 15.8 07.4 07.6 8.5
west 11.3 10.1 09.1 07.5 07.6 07.3 05.2 04.8 5.4

Overall, the approval of right-wing extremist statements fell within the study period, and the proportion of respondents with a closed right-wing extremist worldview decreased. Oliver Decker stated in a press release to present the results: “We have known for years about the close connection between economy and political attitudes. Now the contrast to all other countries in Europe is very great: that stabilizes the middle of society. "

In 2012, the researchers worked out that there is “a clear line between criticism of religion and hostility towards Islam based on resentment ”. The Islamophobia is the new "garb of racism ". It is "no longer argued biologically, but the alleged backwardness of Islamic culture thematized." The "culturalist racism" breaks "important taboos, as already known from the communication latency of primary anti-Semitism."

Xenophobia varies according to the level of education. The majority of the German population is skeptical about the EU , with "stable" approval of the European Union . The results show an east-west divide within Germany.

With the results of the 2016 survey, the authors described social development as “polarization” and “radicalization”. In a comparison of the political milieus they identified in 2010 and 2016, they come to the conclusion that the authoritarian-anti-democratic milieus have not grown any larger than in the past decade. On the contrary, more people would live in milieus with democratic norms. However, the authoritarian milieus would have radicalized and advocate violence as a means of political conflict more than before. At the same time, the measured loss of confidence in social and constitutional institutions would mark a loss of legitimacy for the democratic system.

One result of the group discussion study carried out as part of the Leipzig “Mitte” studies was highlighted by the authors as the function of a strong economy in Germany as a “narcissistic seal”. Finally, this leads to the formulation of a “secondary authoritarianism” to characterize the authoritarian dynamic in the Federal Republic. It is characteristic that it manages without a leader figure, but with the “strong German economy” continues to allow identification with an object of power and strength that can at the same time demand submission to its rules. The fact that the first “German economic miracle” was established as early as 1936 and that it is part of the founding myth of the Federal Republic of Germany plays a major role.

The results will be picked up by research, the mass media and information media on right-wing extremism.

criticism

The Berlin political scientist Klaus Schroeder criticized in a given by the Bavarian State Office for Political Education in 2006 report commissioned at the "center" study "that the result by the chosen procedure is programmed to speak. Many questions are ambiguous or formulated too general and can be misunderstood by the respondents or only inadequately answered. In addition, in this, as in other relevant studies, answers are expected that ignore the reality of life or, above all, reproduce the self-image of the questioner. ”In a comment, Schroeder described the“ middle ”study from 2010 as not serious. It is “an openly pronounced left-wing campaign against liberal and conservative views and the local social order. The forces that support the state - the social and political center - who finance the welfare state, work for the cohesion of society and do more voluntary work than average, are defamed as extremist. ”Joachim Kreis from the Otto Stammer Center at the Free University of Berlin found in a comparative study that Schroeder's criticism suffered from insufficient knowledge of the methodology of empirical social research and the discussion among researchers who tried to measure right-wing extremist attitudes using representative surveys. Schroeder works with "unprovable assumptions and an almost malicious reading" of the study.

At an event organized by the state offices for the protection of the constitution in Saxony and Brandenburg, the extremism researcher and Eckehard Jesse Schüler Uwe Backes commented : “The authors of the study raise questions in their introductory chapter ('The results of the' Mitte studies '2002-2010 on right-wing extremist attitudes and structures') , make assumptions and suggest connections that give the reader the impression that they are derived from the empirical findings of the study. They take the scandal surrounding the late uncovering of the series of murders of a ' National Socialist Underground ' (NSU) as an occasion for all kinds of speculations. "Backes does not consider the empirically obtained findings at the attitude level, which, according to him," should by no means be questioned in general " , but points out, among other things, the considerable difference between attitudes and actions and addresses the largely indeterminate nature of the concept of “center”.

For his part, Eckhard Jesse (2013) considers the definition of right-wing extremism and the six dimensions to be "coherent". On the other hand, he doubts the validity and selectivity of some items and criticizes suggestive questions . He also says that the authors deny left-wing extremism. Jesse defends extremism research in his contribution and holds up to the representatives of the middle term an unreasonable expansion of the right-wing extremism potential. The bottom line is that the results are “untenable”. A "closed right-wing extremist worldview" was determined here too quickly and the syndrome was not completely covered. Jesse concluded: “Right-wing extremists shouldn't be angry about being put in the 'center' through interpretations such as those offered by the Leipzig research group. What they fail in everyday political life, social scientists manage with their 'ideologically guided', 'analytically misleading' and 'content-wise questionable' approach. "

The political scientists of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS) Viola Neu and Sabine Pokorny criticized the studies on behalf of the KAS for various reasons: On the one hand, the foundation on the concept of “middle-class extremism” was problematic: the American sociologist had used this term In 1958 Seymour Martin Lipset tried to grasp fascism , which he distinguished from right-wing extremism (as extremism of the upper class ) and left-wing extremism (as extremism of the lower class ). For the authors of the study, however, right-wing extremism and middle-class extremism are congruent. On the other hand, it is hardly possible to empirically define where the middle lies. The authors of the “middle” studies used occupation, income and level of education for their class model . These social indicators would have little informative value for unemployed academics, students, housewives, etc. In more advanced sociological approaches such as the milieu model , a social center is even more difficult to identify. The same applies to the political center: its fringes cannot be clearly defined, especially since it is also subject to constant change. Third, the empirical findings of the “Mitte” studies would contradict their own interpretations. For example, the 2012 “Mitte” study claimed that “right-wing extremist attitudes, authoritarian fantasies and a lack of democratic awareness are widespread” in the center. The sociological findings, on the other hand, showed that these phenomena are much more widespread in lower-income population groups. The social center, on the other hand, is “ least susceptible to right-wing extremism as well as group- related enmity”. The same applies to the political center. For people who locate themselves there, the approval ratings for chauvinist, anti-Semitic or other right-wing extremist statements are always significantly lower than for people who are politically right-wing. Neu and Pokorny therefore come to the conclusion: "The data from the current 'Mitte' studies can therefore not confirm the thesis that right-wing extremism is primarily a phenomenon of the social and political center."

Klaus Schroeder, on the other hand, described the title of the “Mitte” study 2016, “The disinhibited center”, as sensational and not covered by the study. The study puts the percentage of citizens with a closed right-wing extremist worldview at 5% and that is the lowest value ever determined in such a study. Generalizing leading questions would also indicate interest-based research. Questions such as “The foreigners only come here to take advantage of our welfare state”, “I sometimes feel strange in my own country because of the many Muslims” and “Muslims should be prohibited from immigrating” did not allow for differentiated answers. If a differentiated answer were possible, the citizens would answer more differently.

In a comment in the daily newspaper, the editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Jasper von Altenbockum criticizes the fact that the “Mitte” study by the University of Leipzig from 2016 tried to compensate for the decline in approval ratings for clearly right-wing extremist theses in the area of ​​anti-Semitism or the trivialization of National Socialism by introducing new questions to “produce dramatic news” after all. Anyone who answers the question: “The state should not be generous when examining asylum applications” with “more or less” or “completely” is already counted as a “xenophobia”. The question: “I would never use physical violence myself. But I think it's good when there are people who keep things in order in this way, ”von Altenbockum said in the affirmative if one advocates police protection, which is why, in his opinion, this answer does not make the interviewee a potential violent criminal. The question: "In certain situations I am quite ready to use physical violence to assert my interests" also includes legitimate reasons such as self-defense or emergency aid.

The project leaders of the study replied that they did not justify the title "The Uninhibited Center" with the increase in anti-democratic attitudes, but with the radicalization of certain political milieus. For example, people with right-wing extremist attitudes are more willing to use violence in political disputes or to support them. Regarding the allegations against the questionnaire, the project leaders emphasized that it was the result of a conference of leading political scientists. For this purpose, statements were used that had already been used in other studies for years and are still used. A statistical test check of the questionnaire proves its quality.

In January 2019, political scientist Eckhard Jesse saw the formulation of the statements in the catalog of questions as problematic in the new study. They led to a high percentage of approval. Jesse also stated that the authors' core thesis of right-wing extremism in the “middle of society” was not supported by empirical evidence. Anyone who “fully” agreed to half of the 18 statements that are considered right-wing extremist, but “predominantly” rejected the other half, is already considered by the researchers to be someone with a unified right-wing extremist worldview. Jesse also asked if someone could be accused of “devaluing asylum seekers” just because the person agrees with the statement that the state should not be generous in examining asylum applications. In support of the practice of concentrating only on right-wing extremism, Oliver Decker had also argued that right-wing violence had other dimensions and cited statistics on hate crimes (7180 cases from the right, 44 from the left), which Eckhard Jesse wrote: " actual “statistics of acts of violence (1054 from the right, 1648 from the left) compared.

Published studies

  • Matthias Claus Angermeyer , Elmar Brähler: Right-wing extremist attitudes in Germany - results of a representative survey in the summer of 2001. In: Behavioral therapy and psychosocial practice , vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 847–857.
  • Oliver Decker, Oskar Niedermayer, Elmar Brähler: Right-wing extremist attitudes in Germany. Results of a representative survey in April 2002. In: Zeitschrift für Psychotraumatologie und Psychologische Medizin , Vol. 1, pp. 65–77.
  • Oskar Niedermayer, Elmar Brähler: Right-wing extremist attitudes in Germany - results of a representative survey in April 2002. Workbooks from the Otto Stammer Center No. 6, Berlin / Leipzig 2002 ( PDF ).
  • Oliver Decker, Elmar Brähler: Right-wing extremist attitudes in Germany 2004. In: From Politics and Contemporary History 42/2005, pp. 8-17.
  • Oliver Decker, Elmar Brähler: From the edge to the middle. Right-wing extremist attitude and their influencing factors in Germany. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Berlin 2006, ISBN 978-3-89892-566-2 ( PDF ).
  • Oliver Decker, Katharina Rothe, Marliese Weissmann, Norman Geißler, Elmar Brähler: A look into the middle. Group discussion study on the emergence of right-wing extremist attitudes. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Berlin 2008, ISBN 978-3-89892-920-2 ( PDF ).
  • Oliver Decker, Johannes Kiess, Elmar Brähler: Movement in the middle: Right-wing extremist attitudes in Germany 2008. With a comparison from 2002 to 2008 and the federal states. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Berlin 2008, ISBN 978-3-86872-002-0 ( PDF ).
  • Oliver Decker, Johannes Kiess, Marliese Weißmann, Elmar Brähler: The middle in the crisis: Right-wing extremist attitudes in Germany 2010. Zu Klampen, Springe 2012, ISBN 978-3-86872-469-1 ( PDF ).
  • Oliver Decker, Johannes Kiess, Elmar Brähler: The middle in transition: Right-wing extremist attitudes in Germany 2012. Dietz, Bonn 2012, ISBN 978-3-8012-0429-7 ( PDF ).
  • Oliver Decker, Johannes Kiess, Elmar Brähler: The stabilized center. Right-wing extremist attitudes in Germany 2014. Leipzig 2014 ( PDF ).
  • Oliver Decker, Johannes Kiess, Elmar Brähler: The uninhibited center. Authoritarian and right-wing extremist attitude in Germany. Psychosozial-Verlag, Giessen 2016, ISBN 978-3-8379-2630-9 ( PDF ).
  • Oliver Decker, Elmar Brähler: flight into authoritarianism. Extreme right-wing dynamics in the middle of society. Psychosozial-Verlag, Giessen 2018, ISBN 978-3-8379-2820-4 (print) / ISBN 978-3-8379-7461-4 (e-book) ( PDF ).

literature

  • Oliver Decker, Johannes Kiess, Elmar Brähler: Right-wing extremism in the middle. A socio-psychological diagnosis of the present. Psychosocial, Giessen 2013, ISBN 978-3-8379-2294-3 .
  • Eckhard Jesse : middle and extremism. A criticism of the “middle” studies by a Leipzig research group. In: Uwe Backes , Alexander Gallus , Eckhard Jesse (eds.): Jahrbuch Extremismus & Demokratie , Vol. 25, 2013, pp. 13–35.
  • Joachim Kreis: To measure right-wing extremist attitudes: Problems and controversies using the example of two studies. In: Laboratory for Empirical Political Sociology, Free University of Berlin (ed.): Workbooks from the Otto Stammer Center No. 12 , Berlin 2007 ( PDF ).
  • Klaus Schroeder : Expertise on “From the edge to the center. Right-wing extremist attitudes and their influencing factors in Germany ". In: Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung (Hrsg.): Political Studies: Monthly Issues of the University of Political Sciences , Volume 58, Edition 411: Extremism in Germany - Focuses, Perspectives, Comparison. Isar-Verlag, Munich 2007, pp. 83–119.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ University of Leipzig: New “Mitte” study by the University of Leipzig: Society is increasingly polarized, readiness for violence is increasing. News, June 16, 2016
  2. ↑ Oliver Decker, Frank Berger, Falk Haberkorn: From the concentration camp to the home. Pictures of a model settlement . To Klampen, Springe, ISBN 978-3-86674-541-4 .
  3. ↑ Tagesschau.de, The Leipzig “Center” Studies 2016
  4. ↑ Decker / Brähler: From the edge to the middle. Right-wing extremist attitudes and their influencing factors in Germany , 2006, PDF pp. 9–12
  5. ↑ Oliver Decker, Christoph Türcke: The middle - a mythical place. Journal for Critical Theory 22, Zu Klampen, Springe, pp. 214–228.
  6. ↑ Oliver Decker, Johannes Kiess, Elmar Brähler: Right-wing extremism in the middle and secondary authoritarianism. Psychosocial, Giessen, pp. 21–34
  7. ↑ a b Joachim Kreis: On the measurement of right-wing extremist attitudes , Berlin 2007, PDF p. 103
  8. ↑ Joachim Kreis: To measure right-wing extremist attitudes. Berlin 2007, PDF, p. 5.
  9. ↑ Joachim Kreis: To measure right-wing extremist attitudes. Berlin 2007, PDF, p. 10 f.
  10. ^ Joachim Kreis: On the measurement of right-wing extremist attitudes , Berlin 2007, PDF pp. 11-14
  11. ↑ Marc Coester: Hate Crimes: The concept of hate crimes in the United States with special emphasis on right-wing extremism in Germany. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main 2008, p. 416, fn. 1295
  12. ^ Bodo Zeuner, Jochen Gester, Michael Fichter, Joachim Kreis, Richard Stöss: Unions and right-wing extremism. Suggestions for educational work and the political self-understanding of the German trade unions. Westphalian steam boat, Münster 2007, ISBN 3-89691-590-8
  13. ↑ Michael Fichter, Richard Stöss, Bodo Zeuner: Selected results of the research project "Trade Unions and Right-Wing Extremism"
  14. ^ Oskar Niedermayer, Richard Stöss: Preliminary remark. In: Joachim Kreis: On the measurement of right-wing extremist attitudes , PDF pp. 1–8 and pp. 61–62
  15. ^ Competence center for right-wing extremism and the Leipzig “Mitte” studies. (No longer available online.) Formerly in the original ; accessed on December 8, 2017 .  ( Page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.kredo.uni-leipzig.de  
  16. ↑ Table 2.4.1, PDF p. 54 ( Memento of the original dated June 6, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. ; Figure 13, PDF, p. 48 ( Memento of the original from July 14, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.fes-gegen-rechtsextremismus.de @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.uni-leipzig.de
  17. ↑ Oliver Decker et al .: The Leipzig Authoritarianism Study 2018. Method, results and long-term course. Psychozozial-Verlag, 2018, pp. 65–115 , accessed on March 7, 2020 . In: Oliver Decker, Elmar Brähler (eds.) Escape into the authoritarian. Extreme right-wing dynamics in the middle of society. Psychosozial-Verlag 2018. ISBN 978-3-8379-2820-4 (print), ISBN 978-3-8379-7461-4 (e-book PDF)
  18. ^ Right-wing extremist attitudes in Germany. Results of a representative survey in April 2002 , PDF, p. 1
  19. ↑ The stabilized center. Right-wing extremist attitude in Germany 2014  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Press release, June 4, 2014.@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.uni-leipzig.de  
  20. ↑ Oliver Decker, Johannes Kiess, Elmar Brähler: The stabilized middle right-wing extremist attitude in Germany 2014 , 2014, p. 48 f.
  21. ↑ Oliver Decker, Elmar Brähler: A decade of politicization: Social polarization and violent radicalization in Germany between 2006 and 2016 . In: Oliver Decker, Johannes Kiess, Elmar Brähler (eds.): The uninhibited center. Authoritarian and right-wing extremist attitude in Germany . Psychosocial, Giessen 2016, p. 95-135 .
  22. ↑ Oliver Decker, Katharina Rothe, Marliese Weissmann, Johannes Kiess, Elmar Brähler: Economic Wealth as “Narcissistic Filling”: A Missing Link between Political Attitudes and Economical Crisis. In: Journal of Conflict & Violence. Retrieved December 8, 2017 .
  23. ↑ Oliver Decker: Narcissistic seal and secondary authoritarianism . In: Oliver Decker, Johannes Kiess, Elmar Brähler (eds.): Right-wing extremism in the middle and secondary authoritarianism . Psychosocial, Giessen 2015, p. 21-34 .
  24. ^ Stefan Locke: Study on right-wing extremism. A large majority of Germans reject asylum seekers . In: FAZ , June 4, 2014 .; Vanessa Steinmetz: Right-wing extremism study: majority of Germans reject Sinti and Roma . SPON , June 4, 2014; Kim Björn Becker: Study on Extremism. The measurement of the rights . In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , June 4, 2014; Ulrich Clauß, Martin Lutz: Fear of relegation makes you susceptible to Nazi slogans . In: Die Welt , November 13, 2012; Insa van den Berg: Germans reject Muslims . In: taz , June 5, 2014; Olaf Sundermeyer: Current study by the University of Leipzig - Alternative for demagogues. RBB, June 4, 2014; Study on right-wing extremism. "Islamophobia is the new garb of racism" . N24, June 4, 2014.
  25. ^ Klaus Schroeder : Right-Wing Extremism in the Middle of Society? Deutschlandradio Kultur, January 8, 2007.
  26. ↑ Klaus Schroeder: Chauvinists everywhere . In: Tagesspiegel , October 21, 2010.
  27. ↑ Uwe Backes: Right-wing extremism between “middle of society” and counterculture . In: State Office for the Protection of the Constitution of Saxony: Right-wing extremism between “middle of society” and counterculture. Dresden 2013, pp. 33–50, here: pp. 34–35 (PDF).
  28. ↑ Eckhard Jesse: Middle and Extremism. A criticism of the “middle” studies by a Leipzig research group . In: Uwe Backes, Alexander Gallus , Eckhard Jesse (eds.): Jahrbuch Extremismus & Demokratie , Vol. 25, 2013, pp. 13–35.
  29. ↑ Viola Neu and Sabine Pokorny: Is the middle (right-) extremist? In: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 65 (2015), issue 40, pp. 3–8, the quotations on pp. 5 and 8.
  30. ↑ Deutschlandfunk, political scientist considers “Mitte” study on xenophobia to be irrelevant , June 15, 2016
  31. ^ FAZ, The Uninhibited Scientists , June 18, 2016
  32. ↑ Oliver Decker and Elmar Brähler: The Leipzig “Center” - Study 2016 - Authoritarian and right-wing extremist attitudes in Germany. An opinion. (PDF) Retrieved September 23, 2016 .
  33. ↑ Oliver Decker, Andreas Hinz, Norman Geißler, Elmar Brähler: Questionnaire on right-wing extremist attitudes - Leipziger Form (FR-LF). (PDF) Retrieved September 23, 2016 .
  34. ↑ Eckhard Jesse: Those who are not right-wing extremists do not have to be democratic. Neue Zürcher Zeitung, January 18, 2019