SOEPpaperson Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research - PDF document

418 views
Uploaded On 2016-10-24

SOEPpaperson Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research - PPT Presentation

Panel study Let Bygones be Bygones Socialist Regimes and Personalities in GermanyTim Friehe Markus Pannenberg Michael Wedow2015SOEP ID: 479938

Panel study Let Bygones Bygones?

Link:

Copy

Embed:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.docslides.com/embed/479938" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Download Presentation from below link

Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "SOEPpaperson Multidisciplinary Panel Dat..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.

Presentation Transcript

SOEPpaperson Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research Panel study Let Bygones be Bygones? Socialist Regimes and Personalities in GermanyTim Friehe, Markus Pannenberg, Michael Wedow2015SOEP The German Socio-Economic Panel study at DIW Berlin 776-2015 SOEPaperson Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research at DIW BerlinThis series presents research findings based either directly on data from the German SocioEconomic Panel study (SOEP) or using SOEP data as part of an internationally comparable data set (CNEF, ECHP, LIS, LWS, CHER/PACO). SOEP is a truly multidisciplinary LetBygonesbeBygones?SocialistRegimesandPersonalitiesinGermanyTimFrieheMarkusPannenbergyMichaelWedowzJuly15,2015AbstractThispaperinvestigatesthein uenceofpoliticalregimesonpersonality,usingtheseparationofGermanyintothesocialistGDRandthedemocraticFRGanditsreunicationin1990asanaturalexperiment.WeshowthattherearesignicantdierencesbetweenformerGDRandFRGresidentsregardingimportantattributesofpersonality(particularlythelocusofcontrol,neuroticism,conscientiousness,andopenness).Tounderstandthein uenceoftheGDR'ssocialistregimeonpersonality,wetestanimportantchannelbyexploitingregionalvariationinthenumberofunocialstate-securitycollaboratorsacrossEastGermancoun-ties.OurresultsindicatethatlocalsurveillanceintensityisindeedanimportantdeterminantofthepersonalityofformerGDRcitizens.ThedierencesinpersonalityimplythatformercitizensoftheGDRhaveeconomicprospectsratherdierentfromformerFRGcitizensandhelptounderstandbehavioraldierencesestablishedinthepriorliterature.Keywords:personality,politicalregime,EastGermany,socialism,BigFive,locusofcon-trol,SOEPJEL:D03,D12,D63 UniversityofMarburg,PublicEconomicsGroup,AmPlan2,35037Marburg,Germany.CESifo,Munich,Germany.E-mail:tim.friehe@uni-marburg.de.yUniversityofAppliedSciencesBielefeld,DepartmentofBusinessandEconomics,Universitatsstrae25,33615Bielefeld,Germany.DIW,Berlin,Germany.IZA,Bonn,Germany.E-mail:markus.pannenberg@fh-bielefeld.de.zEuropeanCentralBank,Sonnemannstrae22,60314FrankfurtamMain,Germany.E-mail:Michael.Wedow@ecb.int.1 1Introduction1.1MotivationandmainresultsThispaperaimstoshowtheeectofasocialistregimeonpersonalities{motivatedbythefactthatpersonalityiskeyforeconomicbehaviorandlifeoutcomes(e.g.,Almlundetal.2011){andtoexploretheroleofstate-securitysurveillanceforthiseect.Tothisend,wetreatthereunicationofthesocialistGermanDemocraticRepublic(GDR)andthedemocraticFederalRepublicofGermany(FRG)in1990aftermorethanfourdecadesofseparationasa\naturalexperiment".Personalityemergesstronglyinyoungage,whereasitbecomesrelativelystableinmiddleadulthood(e.g.,Spechtetal.2014).Thepoliticalregimemayin uencepersonalitydevel-opmentbecauseitseverelyimpacts,interalia,education,parentalinvestment(e.g.,byreinforcingbehaviorsorvaluesthatareconsideredbenecialinthecircumstances),andthefeedbackfromthesocialenvironment,andthereisagrowingbodyofevidencesuggestingthatsuchaspectscancausallyaectpersonalitytraits(e.g.,Almlundetal.2011,Reitzetal.2014).1TheGDR'ssocialistregimepervadedallaspectsoflifeandin uencedmostinterpersonalrela-tionshipsinonewayoranotherformorethanfourdecades,suggestingthatpeoples'personalitiesshowtracesoftheregime.Inthisvein,Fulbrook(2005:5)arguesthatpeoplewhocametomaturityintheGDRwere\productsoftheregime".Forpersonalitydevelopment,theyearsuptoadulthoodareveryimportant,implyingthatschoolingandyouthorganizationsarehighlyrelevant.WithregardtotheroleofeducationintheGDR,Fuchs-SchundelnandMasella(2014:3)pointoutthat\thecurriculasystematicallyaimedatcreatingasocialistpersonality"(em-phasisadded).Indeed,studentshadasubjectthatdealtexplicitlywiththesuperiorityofthesocialistregimeandhowtobehaveasacitizenwithintheregime(e.g.,Latsch2015).Infact,somepeoplelatercommentedthattheschoolsystemwasaninstrumentevenmoreeectiveincreatingsubmissionthanthestate-securityservices(Jahn2014:38).Thein uenceexertedduringschoolhourswascomplementedbytheroleoftheyouthorganizationsYoungPioneers(agessixtoten),Pioneers(agestentofourteen),andtheFreieDeutscheJugend(FDJ)(ages14to25)wheremembershipwasdefactoexpected.Forexample,theFDJhadtheobjectiveofraisingchildrentobecomeclass-conscioussocialistsandalsofunctionedasaselectionstadiumforleadershippo-sitions,organizingmorethan75percentoftherespectiveagecohortinthe1980s(Fulbrook2005:128).Incontrast,maladjustedyouthswereputintooneofthecommunityhomesforso-calledre-education,thatis,forbringingtheirpersonalitiesmoreinlinewiththesocialistideals(e.g., 1Whilepersonalitytraitsaretosomeextenthereditary(e.g.,Riemannetal.1997)andrelativelystableduringadulthood(e.g.,Cobb-ClarkandSchurer2012,2013),theyaremalleablebyexperienceandinvestment(Almlundetal.2011,Borghansetal.2008,Kautzetal.2014).Behavioralgeneticistsarguethatabout50%ofthevariationinpersonalityisattributabletogenes,whiletheotherhalfisshapedbyenvironmentalfactors(KruegerandJohnson2008).2 Schnurr2015).Parentstaughttheirchildrenhowtogetbyinthepoliticalregime.Forexample,toavoidtrouble,parentsinstructedtheirchildrenthathidingwhatyouactuallydoorwanttodoisoftentimesbetterkepttoyourself(e.g.,Jahn2014:53).Moreover,parentshadtoexplaintotheirchildrenthatitisbesttoputupwiththefactthatmanyimportantaspectsoflife(e.g.,housing,careeroptions,theavailabilityofconsumptiongoodsandservices)weredeterminedbythestate.Aftermaturity,thesocialinvestmentprincipleassumesthatpersonalitydevelopmentisprimarilydrivenbyinvestinginchangingsocialrolesthatareassociatedwithdierentexpecta-tions(e.g.,Lodi-SmithandRoberts2007).Inthisregard,thepoliticalregimesintheGDRandtheFRGwereassociatedwithdierentcommunitystructuresanddivergingsex-roleattitudes(see,e.g.,BauernschusterandRainer2012),forexample,implyingdiverginginvestmentincentivesandthuspersonalitydevelopment.OneveryinfamousaspectoftheGDR'spoliticalregimewasthemassivestate-securityserviceanditsextensiverelianceonunocialcollaborators.Theextentofsurveillancewasindeedunprecedented.Roughly,therewasonestate-securitycollaboratorforeveryrandomsampleof50citizens(e.g.,HeineckandSussmuth2013).2Denunciationsfrequentlyresultedindrasticrepression,settingexamplesforalltheonlookers(e.g.,Kowalczuk2013).Asaresult,peoplewereonalertregardingwhatopiniontheymayvoiceorwhichactivitytheymayundertakewithoutendangering,forexample,theircareeroropportunitytostudyatauniversity,or,evenmoreserious,theirphysicalintegrityortheirpersonalfreedom(Fulbrook2005:9).Inaddition,peopleweresubmissiveinordertoavoidharmingrelativesandfriends(e.g.,Jahn2014:139).Thispaperstudiesthesocialistregime'simpactonthelocusofcontrol(e.g.,Rotter1966),theBigFivepersonalityinventory(e.g.,McCraeandCosta1999),andreciprocity.WeusedatafromtheGermanSocio-EconomicPanel(SOEP),whichallowsustoincludeahostofinformationattheindividuallevel.Thelocusofcontrolrepresentstheindividual'sbeliefabouttherelationshipofownbehaviorandconsequences.Individualswithahighinternallocusofcontrolbelievetheyhaveastrongimpactonwhathappensintheirlives,whereasothersattributeincidentstosourcesoutsidetheirin uence(e.g.,chance,fate,orpowerfulothers).TheBigFivepersonalityinventoryincludesthetraitsopenness,conscientiousness,extraversion,agreeableness,andneuroticism.Thistaxonomyisgenerallyregardedasasetofcoredimensionsthatisusefultodescribeindividualdierencesinpersonalityeconomically(Spechtetal.2014).Withrespecttoreciprocity,weincludemeasuresofpositiveandnegativereciprocity.Ourresultsshowasignicant,long-lastingimpactoftheGDR'ssocialistregimeonpersonality.Experiencewiththesocialistregimeisassociatedwithnotonlyhigherneuroticismandconscien-tiousnessscoresbutalsoloweropennessratingsalmost20yearsaftertheGermanreunication. 2RainerandSiedler(2009:251-252),forexample,reportthefollowing:\TheStasikeptlesonanestimatedsixmillionpeople...By1995,174,000EastGermanshadbeenidentiedasunocialcollaborators...Infact,theratioofwatchers'towatched'wasevenhigherthan(i.e.,roughly90-times)thatoftheSovietUnionundercommunism."3 Moreover,whencomparedtocitizensfromWestGermany,individualswhohavelivedintheGDRhavealowerinternallocusofcontrol,thatis,theyascribeconsequenceslesstoownbehaviorandmoretoexternalcircumstances.RegressionsbyagecohortareconsistentwiththehypothesisthatthedurationoftheexposuretothepoliticalregimeandhavingreceivedthecompleteeducationintheGDRareimportantfortheregime'sin uenceonpersonality.Robustnesschecksgivecon-dencethatthedierencescanbeattributedtothepoliticalregimeandarenotdrivenbyregionaldierences.Toidentifyachannelofhowtheregimein uencedpersonality,weconsiderthewell-knowninltrationbyunocialcollaboratorswhomonitoredsupposedlypoliticallyincorrectbehavioroffellowcitizensandreportedittothestate-securityservices.Indeed,wecanestablishthatvariationsinthenumberofunocialcollaboratorsacrossGDRcountiesarerelatedtosigni-cantdierencesinpersonality.Specically,moreregionalsecret-servicesurveillancemakespeoplereciprocatenegativeactsmorestronglyandlowerstheinternallocusofcontrol(i.e.,makesre-spondentsascribeconsequenceslesstoownbehaviorandmoretoexternalcircumstances).Inotherwords,theconsiderationofthewithin-treatmentvariationwithrespecttothesurveillanceintensityproducesndingsalignedwithourbaselineestimatesandthuscontributestotheirex-planation.Thesocialistregime'sfootprintinpersonalitieshaseconomicsignicancetoday.Personalityisdecisiveforeconomicsuccess,health,andotherlifeoutcomes(e.g.,Borghansetal.2008,Fletcher2013,OzerandBenet-Martinez2006).3Thestableassociationofpersonalitytraitsandlifeoutcomesconnotesthattheregimethatdiscontinuedtoexistinthepoliticalspherecontinuestoshapethelifeofitsformercitizenstothisdayandintothefuture.Inourpenultimatesection,wepresentbothqualitativeimplicationsandsomeroughestimatesaboutthemagnitudeoftheeconomicrepercussionsfollowingfromthesocialistregime'seectonpersonality.Ouranalysisalsocontributesbyhelpingtounderstandndingsofthepreviousliterature.Morespecically,ouranalysisinvestigatesviawhatprecisechannelsthesocialistregimein u-encedindividualsthatcausedthemtoexhibitsignicantlydierentbehaviorinspeciccontexts.Forexample,Arielyetal.(2014)indicatethatEastGermansaremorepronetodishonesty,andOckenfelsandWeimann(1999)andBrosig-Kochetal.(2011)showresultsindicatingthatEastGermansexhibitlesssolidaritythanWestGermansubjects.Moreover,ourresultsareimpor-tantfortheinterpretationofndingsinthepriorliterature.Weestablishthatexposuretothesocialistregimechangesthepersonalityofsubjects.Hence,studiesthatinvestigatethesocialistregime'seectonoutcomeslikecollegeattendanceandlabormarketoutcomes(Fuchs-SchundelnandMasella2014)withoutcontrollingforpersonalitytraitsmightoveremphasizethedirecteect 3Forexample,MuellerandPlug(2006)considertheBig5personalitytraitsandestablishsignicantpositiveornegativeearningseectsforallveofthem(e.g.,lessagreeablemenhavehigherearningsonaverage).4 ofthepoliticalregimeduetoomittingimportantmoderatingvariables.1.2RelatedliteratureThepresentpaperinvestigateswhetherandhowpoliticalregimesshapepersonalities,takingadvantageoftheGermanseparationandreunication.Ourpaperisrelatedtocontributionsthatconsidertheroleofpersonality,papersthatsearchforfootprintsofpastinstitutions,andstudiesthatsimilarlymakeuseoftherecentGermanhistoryasanaturalexperiment.PreviousresearchhasalreadysuggestedthattherearedierencesbetweenEastandWestGermans.Bauernschusteretal.(2012)presentevidencefortheintuitiverelationshipofEastGer-manshavinglessofanindividualisticmentalitywhencomparedtoWestGermans,usingsurveyresponsestoquestionssuchas\Doyouagreethatthestatehastocareforthesick,poor,old,andunemployed?".Withregardtotheroleofthestateandtheindividual,twootherstudiesarenoteworthy.First,Brosig-Kochetal.(2011)studyexperimentaldatafromthesolidaritygame{buildingontheexperimentalndingsofOckenfelsandWeimann(1999){andndlastingdierences;theauthorsdeterminethatEastGermansshowmuchlesssolidaritythanWestGer-mans.EastGermansinsteadattributemoreresponsibilitytothestate.Inthisvein,AlesinaandFuchs-Schundeln(2007)showthatEastGermanssupportredistributionandstateinterventionmorethanWestGermans(butalsothatthereisamoderateconvergenceinthisregard).Thelastingconsequencesareattributedtosocialnormsandintergenerationaltransmission.Theim-portanceofintergenerationaltransmissionasamechanismisestablishedbyDohmenetal.(2012),forexample,withrespecttoriskandtrustattitudes.NeckerandVoskort(2014)alsostudythistransmissionprocess,focusingonEastandWestGermanyandresponsestovaluequestions(e.g.,whetherowningahouseisimportant)byparentsandchildren.Thepresentpaperestablishesthatthepoliticalregimehasimprintedonpeoples'personalities,whicharestableovermuchofthelifecycle,contributinganadditionalchanneltoexplainthepersistenceofdierencesinob-servedoutcomessuchastherelativeimportanceofconspicuousconsumption(FrieheandMechtel2014)ortheleveloftrust.RainerandSiedler(2009)studytheextenttowhichEastandWestGermanstrustinstitutionsandotherpeople,usingcross-sectionaldataandndingthatEastGer-manspersistentlyshowlesstrustthanWestGermans.Relatedly,HeineckandSussmuth(2013)examinedierencesintrust,cooperation,andriskinastudythatreliesonthepaneldatasourcethatwealsouse(i.e.,theSOEP).Incontrast,ourfocusisonpersonalitytraits,whicharecomple-mentarytotheeconomicpreferencesaspectsaddressedbyRainerandSiedler(2009)andHeineckandSussmuth(2013)whenitcomestoexplainingheterogeneityinimportantlifeoutcomesandbehavior(asestablishedbyBeckeretal.2012).Thereissomerecentliteratureaboutthelong-termpersistenceandlong-lastingeectsofinstitutions.Forexample,Acemogluetal.(2001)relatecolonizationstylestopresenteconomic5 performance,whereasNunnandWantchekon(2009)explainpresentlevelsoftrustinAfricawithreferencestotheslavetradeandVoigtlanderandVoth(2012)ndthatpogromsinmedievaltimespredictanti-semiticviolenceinNaziGermany.Incomparisontotheseandrelatedimportantcontributions(seeBisinandVerdier2011forarecentoverview),ourinterestiswithamuchshortertimespanandaverydierentobjectofstudy(namelypersonalitytraits).Traditionally,economistshavefocusedondierencesinrisk,timeorsocialpreferencestoex-plainheterogeneousbehavior.However,recently,therehasbeenanupsurgeintheinterestinpersonalitytraits,becausetheyoercomplementaryexplanatorypower(e.g.,Cobb-Clark2014,Dohmen2014).Forexample,Almlundetal.(2011),Beckeretal.(2012),andBorghansetal.(2008)refertotheimportanceofpersonalityforlifeoutcomes.Inaddition,manymuchmorenuancedquestionsareaddressedwithregardtopersonalitytraits.Theserangefromtherelation-shiptocooperation(KagelandMcGee2014,ProtoandRustichini2014,Volketal.2012)overhealth-relatedconduct(Cobb-Clarketal.2014)totherelationshipbetweenhouseholdincomeandsubjectivewell-being(BoyceandWood2011).Thepresentpaperisinsteadprimarilyinterestedinhowdierencesinpersonalitytraitscomeaboutbyexploringwhetherornotpoliticalregimescreatetheircitizens'personalities,aresearchquestionthathastothebestofourknowledgenotbeenaddressedbefore.Thispapercontributestotheliteratureinseveralways.First,itdemonstratesthein uenceoftheGDR'ssocialistregimeonpersonalities.Second,thepresentpaperidentiesonefacetofthesocialistregimeasanimportantdriveroftheobservablefootprintoftheGDRsystem.Third,wepresentback-of-the-envelopecalculationsoftheimplicationsoftheshadowsoftheGDR'ssocialistregimeforpeoples'lifeoutcomestoday.Moreover,wecontributetoabetterunderstandingofdierencesbetweenEastandWestGermanspresentedinthepriorliterature.Theremainderofourpaperisorganizedasfollows:InSection2,wediscussourresearchdesigninmoredetail.InSection3,wedescribethedatausedinouranalysis.InSection4,wepresentourempiricalanalysis.Thein uenceofsecret-serviceinltration(asanimportantfacetofthesocialistregime)onpersonalitytraitsisconsideredinSection5.Section6presentsrougheconomicimplicationsoftheestimateddierencesinpersonality.Thenalsectionconcludes.2ResearchdesignWeproposethatdierencesinpersonalitytraitsofEastandWestGermansmeasuredafterthereunicationarerelatedtohavingtreatedpeoplelivinginEastandWestGermanywithtwodierentpoliticalregimesduringthe40plusyearsofseparation.Inotherwords,weconsidertheGermanseparationintotheFRGandtheGDRtobeanaturalexperiment.Toisolatethecausalimpactofthesocialistregimeonpersonality,akeyidentifyingassumptionisthatEastandWest6 GermansdidnotdierfromeachotherinthisregardpriortotheGermanseparation.Lackingdataonpersonalitytraitsbeforetheimpositionoftherespectivepoliticalregimes,weproposethatsimilaritybetweenEastandWestGermanswithrespecttoahostofothervariablespriortotheseparationmaybesucientlyindicativethatourassumptionisreasonable.Atthetimewhenthetwopoliticalregimeswereimposed,theinhabitantsinthetreatmentandcontrolregionsmusthavebeencomparableinimportantdimensions.Notably,theimpositionofthepoliticalregimewasnotuponrequestoftheinhabitants.Infact,whichpoliticalregimewasimposedwasaresultofhowtheUnitedKingdom,theUnitedStates,andtheSovietUnionagreedonaprotocolforthepartitionofpostwarGermanyin1944,whichhappenedsoastoallowforadivisionoftheterritoryintothreesectorsofroughlyequalpopulationsize(e.g.,BurchardiandHassan2013).Accordingly,theactualimpositionoftheregimeswasunrelatedtothepersonalitiesoftheinhabitants.Inthisvein,ReddingandSturm(2008)highlightthatthedecisionsdeterminingthepartitionofEastandWestGermanyareunlikelytobecorrelatedwithprewarcharacteristicsofrespectiveregions.Moreover,asarguedbyAlesinaandFuchs-Schundeln(2007),forexample,theregionsthatbecametheFRGandtheGDRweresimilarintermsofpre-WorldWarIIaveragepercapitaincomelevelsandintermsoftheamountofdestructionduringWorldWarII.Theavailabledataconrmssimilarityofthetworegionsinotherregardsaswell.Thisapplies,forinstance,tothesplitoftheworkingpopulationacrossindustries(Schafgen1998),thepoliticalorientationofvotersattheturnofthecentury(AlesinaandFuchs-Schundeln2007),andtothepopulationdensity(Hubert1998).Moreover,Wolf(2009)statesthatGermanywasbytheendoftheWeimarRepublicin1933aneconomicallywell-integratedarea,suchthattheseparationintoEastandWestGermanythatexistedbetweenabout1946and1989washardlypredictablein1939.BasedonsuchevidenceRainerandSiedler(2009),amongothers,concludethatthetwopartsofGermanywereindistinguishablepriortotheseparation.Afterthetwopoliticalregimeshadbeenimposed,aroundthreemillionpeopleemigratedfromtheGDRtotheFRGbeforetheBerlinWallwasbuiltinAugust1961(e.g.,Heidemeyer1994,Hubert1998),whereastherewaslittlemigrationafter1961orfromWesttoEastGermany.Importantly,intellectualsandentrepreneurswereoverrepresentedamongthesampleofmigrants(e.g.,Heidemeyer1994).4AlesinaandFuchs-Schundeln(2007)andGeissler(2008),amongothers,arguethatthemainmotivesformigrationwerefamilyreunions,lackingeconomicopportunities,andtheimposedpoliticalrestrictions.Thismigrationduringourtreatmentperiodispotentiallyproblematicforouridenticationofatreatmenteectwhenthemigratingpopulationdieredconsistentlyregardingtheirpersonalitytraits{apossibilitythatisnottestableduetothelackofdata.Toaddressthismigrationissueweincludeinformationpertainingtothesurveyrespondent's 4Schafgen(1998:58)neverthelessassertsthatthestructureofthesocietyregardingeducationalachievementandimplieddierencesbetweensocialgroupsremainedrelativelystableandcomparableinEastandWestGermany.7 parentstocontrolforcharacteristicsofthepersoninchargeofthemigrationdecisionatthetime.AftertheGDR'ssocialistregimewasremoved,wehavefullcontrolwithregardtomigration.5Morespecically,ourdatasetallowsustodierentiateEastGermanswhohavelivedintheGDRin1989andcontinuetoliveinthatregionofGermanytodayfromthosewhohavelivedintheGDRin1989butmovedwestwardsbeforetheirparticipationinthesurveyyearsofrelevancetous.Inaddition,therichSOEPdatasetenablesustotakeintoaccountindividualinformationaboutthepost-reunicationperiodregarding,inparticular,individualemploymenthistory.Thisisimportantforouridenticationstrategybecauseadverselifeevents,suchaslongunemploymentspells,wererelativelymorelikelyinEastGermanyafterthereunicationandmayimprintonpersonality(Cobb-ClarkandSchurer2012).Insummary,webelievethatouridentifyingassumptionthatdierencesinpersonalitytraitsareshapedbythepopulation'sexperiencesunderthetwopoliticalregimesseemsjustied,parallelingtheapproachtakenbyAlesinaandFuchs-Schundeln(2007),BauernschusterandRainer(2012),HeineckandSussmuth(2013),andRainerandSiedler(2009).Whenweanalyzeregionalvariationinsecret-servicesurveillanceintensityacrossGDRcountiesinSection5,wendnotablewithin-treatmentheterogeneityperfectlyalignedwiththeideathatourmainresultsareduetotreatedEastGermansandnon-treatedWestGermans.However,wecannotruleoutthepossibilitythatmigrationduringthetreatmentperiodconfoundsourresults.3DataOurempiricalanalysisisbasedontheGermanSocio-EconomicPanel(SOEP),anationallyrep-resentativelongitudinaldataset,whichstartedin1984.6TheSOEPcombinesextensivesocio-demographicinformationwithvariousmeasuresofpreferencesandpersonalitytraits.Werestrictourworkingsampletorespondentswithvalidinformationaboutwheretheylivedin1989(i.e.,theyearbeforethereunication).Furthermore,weincludeonlysubjectswhowereeitherborninGermanyorimmigratedbefore1949.ThesedataselectioncriteriamirrortheargumentinourresearchdesignsectionthattheseparationandthereunicationofEastandWestGermanyconstituteauniquenaturalexperiment.Inthisspirit,GermannativeslivinginEastGermanyin1989constitutethetreatmentgroup,whilenativeslivinginWestGermanyin1989representthecontrolgroup.Forallrespondents,wecollectdataonpersonalityconstructsprovidedbytheSOEPintheyears2005,2009,and2010.Henceourworkingsampleisanunbalancedpaneldatasetfortheseyears. 5See,forexample,Hunt(2006)andFuchs-SchundelnandSchundeln(2009)foradescriptionandanalysisofthemigrationaftertheendoftheGDR.6FormoreinformationabouttheSOEPingeneral,refertoWagneretal.(2007).8 Westudytherelationshipbetweenthepoliticalregimeandpersonality.Tomeasurethelatter,weusethelocusofcontrol,positive/negativereciprocity,andtheBigFivepersonalitytraits.Thelocusofcontrolmaybeunderstoodas\ageneralizedattitude,belief,orexpectancyregardingthenatureofthecausalrelationshipbetweenone'sownbehavioranditsconsequences"(Rotter1966:2).Fromaneconomicpointofview,itisimportantthatpeoplewithaninternallocusofcontrolperceivefutureoutcomesasbeingcontingentontheirowndecisionsandbehavior,whereaspeoplewithanexternallocusofcontrolbelievethatmosteventsintheirlifearebeyondtheircontrol.FollowingCaliendoetal.(2015),weconstructastandardizedcontinuousmeasureoflocusofcontrolwherehighvaluesindicateamoreinternallocusofcontrol.Turningtoreciprocityasanindividualtrait,wenotethatpeoplearepositivelyreciprocalwhentheyrewardkindactionsbyothersandnegativelyreciprocalwhentheypunishothersforunkindactions.Dohmenetal.(2009),forexample,haveemphasizedthatitisimportanttodistinguishpositivefromnegativereciprocityastheyrepresentdistincttraits.TheBig5approachcomprisesthetraitsneuroticism,conscientiousness,openness,agreeableness,andextraversion.Table1presentsadenitionandcorrelatedtraitadjectivesoftheBig5traitsfollowingBeckeretal.(2012)andHeckmanandKautz(2012)toprovideforabetterunderstanding.Likethelocusofcontrolandreciprocity,theBig5personalitytraitscoresuserespondents'self-assessmentsintermsofagreementwithhowspecicstatementsdescribetheirpersonality(e.g.,CostaandMcCrae1992)onascalefrom1(notatalltrue)to7(completelytrue).7Allmeasuresofpersonalityaregeneratedbystandardizingthesumofthescoresofthedimension-specicquestions.Notethatahighervalueofthederivedvariablerepresentsastrongerintensityofthattrait(e.g.,beingmoreconscientious).InformationontheBigFiveiscontainedinthesurveyyears2005and2009,whereasinformationonthelocusofcontrolandreciprocityscoresisavailablein2005and2010.Thecovariateofkeyinterestintherstpartofourempiricalanalysisisadummyvariablethatisequaltoone(zero)whentherespondentwasaresidentoftheGDR(FRG)in1989.Weincludeahostoffurthercovariatesinordertoisolatethecausalimpactofthesocialistregime(seeTable2).SincetheinformationoftheSOEPallowsustotracksubjects,weincludeadummyvariableequaltooneshouldasubjecthavemovedwestwards.Theageoftherespondentisincludedsinceitin uencespersonality.Evenduringtheperiodinwhichpersonalitytraitsarerelativelystable,ithasgenerallybeenestablishedthat,forexample,conscientiousnesstendstoincreasewithage(Borghansetal.2008).Genderisincludedasadummyvariableequaltoonewhentherespondentismaleandzerootherwise.Sincepersonalityisverymuchshapedby 7GerlitzandSchupp(2005)describetheimplementationoftheBigFiveinventoryintotheSOEPandthereliabilityofmeasurements.Cobb-ClarkandSchurer(2012)provideevidencethatthesemeasuredtraitsarestableovertimeandthatintra-individualchangesarenoteconomicallymeaningful.Therefore,theyconcludethattheBigFivemeasuresmaybeconsideredstableinputintoeconomicdecisions.Spechtetal.(2011)testthestabilityofpersonalitytraitsintermsofmean-levelandrank-orderconsistencyusingtheSOEP.9 Table1:BigFivePersonalityTraits(Beckeretal.2012,HeckmanandKautz2012). DescriptionoftraitCorrelatedtraitadjectives Openness IndividualdierencesinthetendencyImaginative,artistic,tobeopentonewaesthetic,cultural,excitable,wideinterests,andintellectualexperiencescurious,unconventional Conscientiousness ThetendencytoberesponsibleEcient,organized,andhardworking;locatedatoneendnotcareless,ambitious,ofadimensionofindividualdierencesnotlazy,notimpulsive(conscientiousnessversuslackofdirection) Extraversion Anorientationofone'sinterestsFriendly,sociable,andenergiestowardtheouterworldofpeopleandthingsself-condent,energetic,ratherthantheinnerworldofsubjectiveexperienceadventurous,enthusiastic Agreeableness Thetendencytoactinacooperative,Forgiving,notdemanding,unselshmanner;locatedatoneendofawarm,notstubborn,dimensionofindividualdierences(agreeablenessversusdisagreeableness)notshow-o,sympathetic Neuroticism AchroniclevelofemotionalinstabilityWorrying,irritable,notcontended,andpronenesstopsychologicaldistressshy,moody,notself-condent theparentsandtheenvironmentduringchildhood,wealsoincludeinformationaboutwhetherornottherespondentwasraisedinasmall,medium-sizedoralargecommunityandabouttheeducationalbackgroundoftheparents(forwhichweusedummyvariablesforthehighestdegreeobtainedbythefatherandthemother).8ThelatterinclusionisalsointendedtoaddresspotentialselectioneectsduetothemigrationaftertheimpositionoftheGDR'ssocialistregimebutbeforetheerectionoftheBerlinWall.Withrespecttothefamilystatus,wedierentiatemarried,divorced,andwidowed,sothatsingleisthereferencecategory.Intermsofworkstatus,itmaybethattherespondentworksfulltimeorparttime,orthatatrainingorunemploymentstatusdescribesthesituationatthetimeofthesurvey(seethevariablesempfull-time,part-time,vocationalorunemployed).Furthermore,weincludeinformationabouttheemploymenthistoryoftherespondent(i.e.,weconsideryearsinfullorparttimeemployment,andunemployment;seethevariablesexpfull-time,part-time,andunemp).Thisisimportantbecauseadverseevents,suchaslongunemploymentspells,mayin uencepersonalitytraits.Inaddition,potentialeectsfrombeingapensioner,abluecollarworkeroracivilservantwillbetakenintoaccountinourempiricalmodel.Thelogarithmofnetincomealsoenterssomeregressions.Abadhealthstatussimilarlybelongsintothegroupofadverseevents,whichiswhythereisadummyvariabletocontrolforitsin uence(Spechtetal.2013).Thisdummyvariableisequaltoonewhentherespondent 8WedierentiatethethreeschooltracksinGermany,namelyHaupt,Real,andAbi,whereHauptwouldbeconsideredlowerlevel,Realmiddlelevel,andAbitoplevelofschooling.10 reportsthatcurrenthealthiseither\notgood"or\bad"(i.e.,eithera4ora5fromave-pointscale).Inourempiricalanalysis,werunspecicationsinwhichonlyarguablyexogenousvariablesentertheequation(theupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest)andotherswiththefullsetofcontrolvariables.Employingthefullsetofcovariatesleadstosmallerworkingsamplesizesbecausesomeofthepresumablyendogenousvariableshavehigherratesofitemnon-response.Itemnon-responsemightitselfbeinformativewithrespecttopersonality.Table2presentssummarystatisticsbytreatmentstatusforallvariablesusedinourempiricalanalysis.TestresultsinColumn(3)indicatethatformerGDRandFRGresidentsdierwithrespecttocovariateslikeage,maritalstatus,andlabormarketexperience,suggestingadjustmentforcovariatedierencesinourlinearregressionframework.ImbensandWooldrigde(2009)pointoutthatdierencesintheobservablecharacteristicsofthetreatmentandthecontrolgroupmightleadtosensitiveestimationresultsinalinearregressionframework.Theyproposetoassesstheimbalanceofthecovariatedistributionsbytestingwhetherornotanormalizeddierenceofthetreatmentandcontrolgroupmeansexceeds0.25(asaruleofthumb).Thenormalizeddierencesinourdataarelessthan0.25forallbutthreecovariatesinTable2,andareinthesethreecasesverycloseto0.25.AfterwehaveestablishedtherelationshipbetweenGDRresidenceandpersonality,weconsideroneaspectoftheGDR'ssocialistregimeinmoredetail.Tothisend,weexploitvariationinthenumberofunocialcollaboratorsacrosscounties.Unocialcollaboratorswerecriticalintryingtokeepallcitizensinlinewiththeexpectationsofthesocialistunityparty(SED)andresponsibleforseedingdistrustamongthepeople.Tothisend,theyprimarilycollectedinformationandhelpedwithlogisticalneeds.Unocialcollaboratorswereusuallymotivatedonideological,non-materialgrounds(althoughsomewereblackmailedintocollaboration)andrecruitedmainlyusingtheselectioncriteriaqualicationforthetasksathandandtrustworthiness(Muller-Enbergs2008a).WecollectedinformationonthenumberofunocialinformersoftheEastGermanstate-securityservicefromMuller-Enbergs(2008b).9Thedataconsistsofthenumberofcollaboratorsintheregionalocesatthecountylevel.10Theministryofstatesecuritydistinguisheddierenttypesofunocialcollaboratorsaccordingtotheirmainduties(e.g.,Muller-Enbergs2008a:15-35).Themajority,forexample,weredenotedunocialcollaboratorforspecictasks(InozielleMitarbeiterzurSicherungdesVerantwortungsbereichs,IMS)andcollectedinformation,interalia,withinthestate-ownedcompaniesandeducationalinstitutions.Otherkindsofcollaborators 9JacobandTyrell(2010)relyonthesamedatasourceinstudyingtheassociationofsurveillanceand(i)electoralparticipation,(ii)sports-clubmembership,and(iii)organdonations.10Inadditiontounocialcollaboratorsatthecountylevel,informantsworkedatthehigherregionallevel(Bezirk).Sincewelackinformationabouthowtoallocatethesecollaboratorstothedierentcounties,wefocusedonthenumberofunocialinformantsatthecountylevel.Fortheendof1988,Muller-Enbergsreports46,857collaboratorsattheBezirklevelwhilemorethan117,000informants(about65%ofthetotal)workedforthestate-securityservicesatthecountylevel.11 Table2:DescriptiveStatisticsbytreatmentstatus (1)(2)(3)(4)FRGGDRt-testabsolutevaluecountmeancountmeanp-valuenormalizeddierence Locusofcontrol223664.87095794.7980.0000.063Neuroticism237143.894101034.0210.0000.071Conscientiousness236255.830100715.8970.0000.048Openness235964.427100664.3630.0080.036Extraversion237114.782100944.7910.7010.005Agreeableness237235.369100915.4000.1070.021PosReciprocity228605.82997225.8420.4630.010NegReciprocity227883.09397233.1370.1470.020movedWest341370145540.164{{age3413751.001455448.800.0000.083male341370.483145540.4770.6240.008largecity341370.225145540.2020.0140.038mediumcity341370.176145540.1820.5640.009smallcity341370.206145540.2290.0180.037motherHaupt341370.678145540.5390.0000.194motherReal341370.153145540.2790.0000.206motherAbi341370.0508145540.05940.1180.025mothernovoc341370.386145540.2120.0000.266mothervoc341370.437145540.5510.0000.155mothertechschool341370.00668145540.04980.0000.169motheruni341370.0283145540.05050.0000.076fatherHaupt341370.643145540.5250.0000.163fatherReal341370.120145540.2410.0000.210fatherAbi341370.106145540.09100.0220.035fathernovoc341370.119145540.06450.0000.130fathervoc341370.670145540.6780.4300.012fathertechschool341370.0168145540.04150.0000.097fatheruni341370.0799145540.08540.3970.013 married341370.551145540.5050.0000.063divorced341370.0946145540.1150.0050.044widowed341370.0934145540.07850.0110.036yearsofeducation3261112.051396112.230.0010.052empfull-time341370.384145540.3940.3390.014emppart-time341370.104145540.08960.0190.032empvocational341370.0170145540.02520.0030.038unemployed341370.0407145540.1080.0000.170pensioner341370.291145540.2730.0610.027self-emp341370.0584145540.05170.1610.020bluecollar341370.138145540.1810.0000.079civilservant341370.0434145540.02180.0000.084netincome320712620.0140182013.20.0000.306expfull-time3409817.731454719.380.0000.076exppart-time340983.273145471.9980.0000.160expunemp340980.679145471.6280.0000.252badhealth340580.194145200.1980.5870.007 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005,2009,2010.SOEP-weightsareapplied.12 providedhousing,phoneconnectionsorsimplypostaladdressesfortheworkofthestate-securityservices.Forourmainvariable(IM),weincludedthesedierenttypesofsecretcollaborators.Wealsouseabroadermeasure(IM&publiccollaborators)inordertoapproximatethesurveillanceintensitywhichadditionallyincludescollaboratorswhosetaskwastoopenlyagitateinfavorofthesocialistpartyandthestate(Kowalczuk2013:220).Attheendof1988,suchpubliclyrecognizablecollaboratorsamountedto18,145individualswhichaccountsfor20%ofallcollaboratorsatthecountylevel.ToassignthenumberofcollaboratorsinthecountyocestothecountiesinexistencearoundtheunicationofGermany,werelyontheexactlocationoftheregionaloces.11Wehaveobservationsforabout90percentofthecounties(relyingonMuller-Enbergs2008b;seeFigures1and2).TodealwiththefactthatthedatainMuller-Enbergsisnotconsistentlyreportedforallcountiesandpointsintime,weuseaveragesacrossthe1980sandscalethenumberofcollaboratorsbythepopulationlivinginthecountiesatthetime.12Table3showsthatthereisnotablevariationinthesecret-servicesurveillanceintensityacrosscounties.Togivejustoneexample,thenumberofunocialcollaboratorsinCottbuswasparticularlyhighinthe1980sandabouttwiceashighasthenumbersinHalleorLeipzig.Table3:Descriptivestatisticsforthenumberofunocialcollaboratorsper1.000inhabitants (1)(2)(3)(4)MeanSDMinMax IM4.191.521.278.46IM&publiccollaborators5.362.041.4110.4 Notes:WecompiledoursecretservicedatausingMuller-Enbergs(2008b).WelinkthisdataonthenumberofunocialcollaboratorswithourSOEPworkingsampledescribedaboveasfollows:Weselectthesubsampleofpeoplefromourmainworkingsamplewho(i)livedinEastGermanyin1989,(ii)participatedintherstwaveoftheSOEPin1990beforetheGermanreunication,and(iii)providedvalidcountyidentierinformationin1990.Thesethreecriteriaensurethatallsamplemembersweretreatedbystate-securitysurveillance.Next,wemergebothdatasetsusingthecountylevelidentier.13ThissecondworkingsampleofformerGDRcitizenscontainsallvariablesofourmainworkingsample.Furthermore,wegeneratesomecovariatesspecictoouranalysisofthewithin-treatmentheterogeneityofformerGDRcitizens.Inspring1990,respondentsofthenewEastGermanSOEPsamplehadtoanswerquestionsabout 11WeusedthecountiesinEastGermanythatexistedbeforethereformsofcountiesinSaxonyin2008,Saxony-Anhaltin2007andMecklenburg-Vorpommernin2011.12Morespecically,weusedtheaveragepopulationreportedtohavebeenlivinginthecountiesoftheGermanDemocraticRepublicduringthe1980sfromtheStatistischesJahrbuchderDDR(seewww.digizeitschriften.de/dms/toc/?PPN=PPN514402644fordetails.)13SincethecountylevelidentieroftheSOEParecondential,thismustbedonebysubmittingSTATAjobsviae-mailtothesecuredSOEPremotesystematDIWBerlin.Fordetailsaboutdataaccess,refertoGoebel(2014).13 whethertheyhaveregularlyreceivedpresentsorallowancesfromrelativesorfriendslivingintheFRGinthelastyears.Weusethisinformationtogenerate(i)adummyvariableindicatingwhetherornotanindividualhasreceivedpresentsorallowanceswhentheindividualstatedthatitisdiculttostatetheirmonetaryequivalentand(ii)acontinuousvariableindicatingthevalueofthesetransfersotherwise.About27%ofourrespondentsreceivedpresentsorallowancesfromFRGcitizensofwhich55%statedtheirvalue.Themean(median)valueofallowancesperannumis419(50)euros.Moreover,wealsoincludethecontemporaneousunemploymentrateatthecountylevelforourwithin-treatmentanalysis.4PersonalityandtheGDR'ssocialistregime:EmpiricalanalysisOurresultsaboutwhetherornotthepoliticalregimeoftheGDRhashadasignicantin uenceonpersonalityarepresentedinthissection.Wewillproceedinseveralsteps.Inthenextsection,wepresentresultsfromourbaselineestimationsaboutthedirecteectoftheGDR'sregimeandpossibleconvergenceeects.Throughoutwewillrelyonordinaryleastsquaresregressionswherethedependentvariablesarethestandardizedpersonalitymeasures,standarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel,andSOEPweightsareused.Aftershowingourbaselineestimates,wewillpresentresultsfordierentagecohorts,asitislikelythattheexposuretothepoliticalregimeisimportantforwhetherornotthepersonalitywasaectedbytheGDRsystem.Inordertoestablishthatwearenotmerelycapturingregionaldierenceswithregardtopersonality,wepresentrobustnesschecksthatconsiderdierentsubsamplesofthedatainSection4.3.4.1MainresultsWerstturntothein uenceofthesocialistregimeonthelocusofcontrol.Thepoliticalregimeseverelyrestrictedthediscretionwithregardtowhatactivitiesmaybeundertaken.Inmanyscenarios,externalcircumstancespredictedthataspecicoutcomewillobtain.Forexample,thepossibilitytoattenduniversitywasbarredformanyyoungadultswhentheirparentsweresomewhatsuspectforocialdecision-makers.14Forotherdomainsoflife,Fulbrook(2005:54,76)notesthatoneofthegreatestsourcesoffrustrationwasthewidespreaddependenceonthestatewithrespecttohousingandholidays,tonamejusttwoexamples.Theclearpredictionwithrespecttothelocusofcontrolthatfollowsfromthesestatementsisconrmedbyourdata,asillustratedinTable4(fordetailedregressionsresults,seeTable8intheappendix).People 14Forexample,thechildrenofthepresentGermanpresidentGauckwerenotallowedtostudy(Fuchs-SchundelnandMasella2014).14 whohavelivedintheGDRhavealowerlocusofcontrolscore,whichimpliesthattheyattributeconsequencesmoretosourcesoutsidetheircontrol.Inquantitativeterms,ourresultsindicatethathavingexperiencedtheGDR'ssocialistregimeleadstoareductioninthelocusofcontrolscoreofaboutatenthofastandarddeviation.Thesignicantcoecientofthe\movedWest"dummyvariableindicatesthatthedierenceinthelocusofcontrolisnotpresentforsubjectswhomovedtoWestGermanyafterthereunication.15WhenweincludetheinteractionofGDRandtheyear2010,wendnoeectforthisvariable.Inotherwords,thereisnosignofconvergencewithregardtothelocusofcontrol(asfortheotherpersonalitytraitstocome).TheGDR'sin uenceonpersonalitiesasmeasuredbytheBig5inventoryofpersonalitytraitsisconsiderednext.Werstturntoneuroticismwhichisabroaddomainofnegativeaect,includingpredispositionstoexperienceanxiety,anger,shame,andotherdistressingemotions.OurempiricalresultsshowthatformerGDRresidentshavehigherlevelsofneuroticism(seeTable4).ThisresultmaybeattributedtodierentaspectsoftheGDR'spoliticalregime.Asexplainedbefore,therelianceofthestate-securityservicesonawidewebofunocialcollaboratorscausedpeopletodistrustagreatnumberofindividualsanddestabilizedthesocialkitofsociety(Kowalczuk2013).Inaddition,peoplerepeatedlyhadtoexperiencebadandoftenunexpectedevents.Forexample,onecriticalremarkinclassmayhaveledtothesuddenex-matriculationofthecommentingstudent(Jahn2014:23)oraninappropriatehairlengthcouldhaveledtobeingtakentoacompulsoryhaircut(Fulbrook2005:71).Therealsowerecircumstancesinwhichthestate-securityservicesfabricatedwrongdoings(Kowalczuk2013:9,Muller-Enbergs2008a:3).Asforthelocusofcontrol,whetherornotaformerGDRresidenthasmovedwestwardsisconsequential(i.e.,theeectsforsubjectswhomovedtoWestGermanycancelout).16Next,weaddressthepersonalitytraitconscientiousness.Famously,theGDRregimeidealizedlaborandtheworkerclass(Fulbrook2005:214).Moreover,thegreaterscarcityofgoodsthatquicklybecameaneverydayrealityintheGDRrequiredthatpeoplegetorganizedandcarefullyplanahead.Theshortagesweresodrasticastomakepeoplestealmaterialsfromtheworkplaceinverynoticeableamounts(Fulbrook2005:57).Theinltrationbyunocialcollaboratorsinducedgreatcarewithregardtowhatcanbetoldandtowhom,andincentivizedcontrollingimpulses.Moregenerally,abidingbyconventionalrulesandnormswasalsorelativelymoreimportantintheGDR,andthewillingnesstodosoiscloselyrelatedtoconscientiousness(CostaandMcCrae1992).Infact,manypeopleintheGDRsimplyfollowedrulesandnormswithoutquestioning,acceptingthemas\thatishowitworks"(e.g.,Jahn2014).AlloftheseaspectsmakeusexpectthatformerGDRresidentsshowagreaterlevelofconscientiousness,whichisexactlywhatwend(seeTable4).Withregardtoconscientiousness,the\movedWest"dummyvariableisinsignicant. 15Resultsfromt-testssupportthisconclusion.16Theothercoecientsareinlinewithpreviousndings(seeTable8intheappendix).Forexample,theresultthatwomenonaveragehavehigherscoresregardingneuroticism(e.g.,Costaetal.2001).15 Table4:PersonalitytraitsandGDRtreatment (1)(2)(3)Specication1Specication2Specication3 Locusofcontrol GDR-0.129-0.0869-0.0668(-6.16)(-3.67)(-2.58)movedWest0.1420.145(2.95)(3.00)N319452879328793 Neuroticism GDR0.1240.1040.113(5.97)(4.60)(4.60)movedWest-0.105-0.104(-2.00)(-1.98)N338173052430524 Conscientiousness GDR0.1040.1000.104(5.10)(4.39)(4.13)movedWest-0.0216-0.0212(-0.41)(-0.40)N336963041930419 Openness GDR-0.0981-0.0770-0.0915(-4.88)(-3.36)(-3.63)movedWest0.04020.0386(0.71)(0.68)N336623039630396 Extraversion GDR-0.00875-0.004860.0119(-0.41)(-0.20)(0.45)movedWest0.1230.125(2.09)(2.12)N338053050630506 Agreeableness GDR0.04460.03700.0473+(2.23)(1.62)(1.83)movedWest0.02580.0270(0.50)(0.52)N338143051430514 Positivereciprocity GDR0.01570.03610.0282(0.77)(1.48)(1.06)movedWest-0.000202-0.000202(-0.00)(-0.00)N325822931629316 Negativereciprocity GDR0.03070.03560.0377(1.46)(1.45)(1.42)movedWest-0.115-0.115(-2.36)(-2.36)N325112926329263 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005,2009,and2010(mainsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableistherespectivestandardizedpersonalitymeasure.Spec1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Spec2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2009or2010.Spec3additionallyincludesaninteractiontermoftheGDRdummyandthedummyforeither2009or2010.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareapplied.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:01.Formoredetailedregressionresults,refertoTables8-14.16 Thepersonalitytraitopennessismeanttocaptureaspectssuchascreativity,originality,andopen-mindednessfornewexperiences.Needlesstosay,thepoliticalregimeoftheGDRseverelyrestrictedtheindividualfreedomwithintheprivateandtheworkdomain.IntheGDRallissueswereinterpretedinpoliticalterms(Fulbrook2005:49),whichnarrowedtheindividualleewayeveninprivatematters.Non-standardwaysofbehaviorusuallydrewtheunwantedattentionofstateauthorities(e.g.,Jahn2014:39).Accordingly,itisintuitivethatwendthatGDRresidentsshowloweropennessratings(seeTable4).Next,westudytheregime'sin uenceonextraversion,whichisanimportantinterpersonaltrait.Extravertsaresaidtobeenthusiastic,talkative,gregarious,andconcernedwithobtaininggraticationfromwhatisoutsidetheself.FortheGDR,ithasbeenarguedthatmanycitizenssoughtrefugeintheprivatedomain.Moreover,thepotentialpresenceofunocialcollaboratorsmadepeoplekeepthingsrathertothemselves.Forexample,althoughmostpeoplewatchedtelevisionfromWestGermanyoratleastdesiredtodoso,itwasimperativenottodisclosethisrealitytoavoidrepression.17TheseargumentssuggestthatGDRresidentsshowalowerextraversionscoreonaverage.Ourempiricalresultsdonotconrmthishypothesis(seeTable4).Agreeablenessisapersonalitytraitthatisusuallyassociatedwithwarmth,friendliness,andkindness.Womenusuallyhavehigherratingsinthisdimension(Costaetal.2001),whichalsoholdstrueforoursample(seeTable13intheappendix).Whenitcomestothein uenceoftheGDR'ssocialistregime,itisnoteasytoarriveatapredictionbecausetherelativelygreaterruthlessnessfacedinthesomewhatanonymousouterworldwiththeconstantthreatofrepressionmighthavebeencompensatedbygreaterwarmthintheinnercircle.Inourbaselineestimations,wendapositivein uenceofhavinglivedintheGDRontheagreeablenessscorethatissignicantonlyatthe10%levelinthemodelincludingallcovariates(seeTable4).Finally,weaddresswhetherornotreciprocityscoresaredierentforGDRresidents.Forexample,CharnessandRabin(2002)haveemphasizedtheimportanceofreciprocityconcernsforsocialpreferences.Withrespecttosocialpreferences,forinstance,HeineckandSussmuth(2013)arguethatGDR'ssocialistregimeproclaimedthedesirabilityofaltruismbutinsteadingrainedselshness.TheresultsofBrosig-Kochetal.(2011)andOckenfelsandWeimann(1999)maybeinterpretedasconsistentinthesensethatsubjectsfromEastGermanybothshowedandexpectedlesssolidarityfromothers,givingaclearindicationofadierentsocialnorminthisregard.Insteadofunconditionalhelpandcooperation,peopleintheGDRmayhavereliedtoagreaterextentonconditionalitytosustaincooperationinsmallandnonanonymousgroupsthatwereimportanttogetbyintheGDR'sregime(forexchangeofgoods,swappingof ats,etc.).Itmaythusbeexpectedthatthelevelsofpositiveandnegativereciprocityshowanimpactofthe 17BursztynandCantoni(forthcoming)presentaveryinterestinganalysisoftherepercussionsofwatchingtele-visionfromWestGermanyonconsumptionpatternsafterthereunication.17 GDR'spoliticalregime.Inourbaselineestimations,thecoecientsarealignedwithintuitionbutare{atconventionallevels{notsignicant(seeTable4).Wesummarizethendingsfromourbaselineanalysisasfollows:Result1IncomparisontoresidentsoftheFRG,wendthatformerGDRresidentswholiveinEastGermanyhave:(i)amoreexternallocusofcontrol,(ii)ahigherneuroticismscore,(iii)ahigherconscientiousnessscore,and(iv)aloweropennessscore.Ourresultsforthetraitagreeablenessindicateonlyaweakpositiverelationship,whereasformerGDRresidents'ratingswithregardtoextraversionandreciprocityarenotsignicantlydierent.4.2TheeectofvariationintheexposuretotheGDR'sregime:Co-hortanalysisWenowconsidertheeectofthenumberofyearsspentundersocialismonpersonalitytraits.Inparticular,wedenefourgroupsaccordingtotheyearofbirth:bornbefore1945,bornbetween1945and1960,bornbetween1960and1975,andbornbetween1975and1989.Wesplitthewholemainsampleandrunordinaryleastsquaresregressionsforeverycohort,usingtheGDRdummyasourvariableofmaininterest.AllestimationsincludethecovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2usedbefore(whereresultsarequalitativelyunaectedbytheconsiderationofthefullsetofcovariates).Table5summarizestheregimecoecients,whereasallregressionresultsareincludedintheappendix(seeTables15-22).Thecohortcomprisingpeoplebornbefore1945havespentmostoftheirlivesintheGDR,makingthemthegroupwiththelongestexposuretotheGDR'ssocialistregime.However,notallindividualsfromthiscohorthavereceivedalloftheirschoolingintheGDR'sregime.Thecohortincludingsubjectsbornbetween1945and1960haveobtainedalloftheireducationandsocializationintheGDR.Forpeoplebornbetween1960and1975,thiswillalsobetrueformostofthesubjects.Incontrast,individualsbornafter1975havenotnecessarilyexperiencedalltheimportantstepsinthesocialistupbringing.Fromthisdescription,onemightassumethatthetwocohortscomprisingpeoplebornbefore1960shouldshowthestrongesteects.WendthatthesignicantnegativeeectoftheGDRdummyvariableonthelocusofcontrolshowsforallcohorts.Importantly,theeectappearstobestrongerforindividualswithalongerregimeexposure.18Thehigherneuroticismscorecanalsobeestablishedforallcohorts.Thelevelofconscientious-nessissignicantlyrelatedtohavinglivedundertheGDR'ssocialistregimeforthreeoutofthe 18Forexample,comparingthelocusofcontrolcoecientsforthecohorts1945-60and1960-75,wecanrejectthenullhypothesisthattheyarethesameat=0:09.TheestimatedGDRcoecientforthecohort1945-60indicatesareductionofthelocusofcontrolscoreduetotheGDRtreatmentofaboutone-fthofastandarddeviation.18 Table5:PersonalitytraitsandGDRtreatment:CohortAnalysis (1)(2)(3)(4)19451945-601960-751975-89 Locusofcontrol GDR-0.153-0.198-0.104-0.126(-4.11)(-4.67)(-2.32)(-2.12)N8737858586515972 Neuroticism GDR0.1350.1380.1540.133(4.06)(3.30)(3.31)(2.33)N9334895591396389 Conscientiousness GDR0.1120.06370.09430.173(3.21)(1.55)(2.20)(2.96)N9238894591386375 Openness GDR-0.0347-0.129-0.1820.00445(-1.00)(-3.22)(-4.22)(0.08)N9236894091126374 Extraversion GDR0.0684-0.0215-0.106-0.0663(2.05)(-0.51)(-2.14)(-1.09)N9324895591406386 Agreeableness GDR0.07900.03230.03750.0414(2.36)(0.79)(0.86)(0.73)N9350895591276382 Positivereciprocity GDR0.01790.008720.0457-0.0177(0.49)(0.18)(1.12)(-0.33)N8999872587756083 Negativereciprocity GDR-0.009060.02650.09870.179(-0.25)(0.53)(2.03)(3.40)N8974872287516064 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005,2009,and2010(mainsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableistherespectivestandardizedpersonalitymeasure.Thespeci-cationincludesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareapplied.tstatisticsinparenthe-ses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:01.Formoredetailedregressionresults,refertoTables15-22.19 fourcohorts,whereastheopennessscoreisaectedforpeoplebornbetween1945and1975whohavebeenraisedandeducatedintheGDR.ThecohortanalysismirrorsourbaselineestimatesinthatpositivereciprocityisnotsignicantlydierentforGDRresidents,whereaswendahighernegativereciprocityforsubjectsbornafter1960.Overall,focusingoncohortssuggeststhatlongerexposuretothepoliticalregimeoftheGDRandhavingobtainedalloftheeducationandsocializationintheGDRmakesthetreatmenteectsomewhatmorepronounced.Theresultthatthelengthoftheexposuretothesocialistregimemattersshowsclearlyforthelocusofcontrol,neuroticismandagreeablenesswhenweuseallcovariatesfromTable2inourcohortregressionexercises.RelatedresultswereobtainedbyAlesinaandFuchs-Schundeln(2007),forinstance.4.3Robustnesschecks:North-south,religiosity,andstate-specicef-fectsTheresultspresentedbeforestemfromordinaryleastsquaresregressions.Findingsarecompara-blewhenweuserandom-eectsspecicationswithatimeinvariantindividualvariancecomponent.Moreover,theresultspresentedqualitativelydonotdependonwhetherwerunregressionssepa-ratelyforeachtraitorsimultaneously.Inthissection,wepresenttheresultsofthreeadditionalrobustnesschecks.Intherstone,wesplitthesampleintoaNorthsubsampleandaSouthernone.WhiletheGDR-FRGsplitisunambiguous,classicationwithrespecttoNorthandSouthissomewhatar-bitrary.ThedenitionweuseforSouthGermanyincludesBavaria,Baden-Wuerttemberg,Hesse,Rhineland-Palatinate,Saarland,Saxony,andThuringiabecausetheygeographicallyrepresentthesouthernhalfofthecountry.Thischeckismeanttoconveythatwearenotmerelymeasuringregionaldierences.Theregressionresultsareincludedintheappendix(seeTables23-30).Whenwerunspecications(usingthesetofcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2),weobtainnd-ingsthatreproduceourbaselineestimateswithregardtothelocusofcontrol,conscientiousness,neuroticism,andopenness.Thepositiveweakin uenceonagreeablenessshowsfortheSouthsample,whereastheNorthsamplehighlightspositiveeectsforreciprocity.Whenweincludethefullsetofcovariates,wendthatconditioningouranalysisoneithertheNorthortheSouthsubsampleismoreorlessinconsequentialforthemajorityofresults.Thendingswithregardtoconscientiousnessandneuroticismaresignicantwiththesignreportedaboveandcoecientsofaboutthesamemagnitudeinbothestimations.Someresultsarenolongersignicantatconven-tionallevels.Forexample,whenanalyzingthelocusofcontrolscore,wendthatthenegativecoecientoftheGDRdummyvariablehasap-valueof.144fortheSouthsubsamplewhilethatfortheNorthsubsampleisstillsignicantlynegative.Similarly,theimpactonopennessisno20 longersignicantfortheSouthsubsample.Incontrast,thereisasignicantpositiveeectofthepoliticalregimeonnegativereciprocityintheNorthsubsample,whichaccordswithresultsfromthecohortandthestate-securityservicesanalyses.Wenowmoveontothesecondadditionalrobustnesscheck.EastandWestGermanyareverydierentwhenitcomestoreligion.ThismaybeconsideredasanoutcomeofthepoliticalregimesinthetwopartsofGermany,sincereligiositywassuppressedintheGDR.Beforetheimpositionofthepoliticalregime,residentswholivedintheareaofwhatbecametheGDRweremostlyprotestant,whereasindividualslivinginWestGermanymaybeeitherprotestantorcatholic(BauernschusterandRainer2012).Inordertoprovideanotherrobustnesscheckthataccountsforthisfact,werestrictoursampletoregionsthatwereunambiguouslyprotestantandleaveoutobservationsfromBavaria,Baden-Wuerttemberg,Northrhine-Westfalia,Rhineland-Palatinate,andSaarland.Assuringly,ourndingsforthein uenceoftheGDR'spoliticalregimearerobusttothisconsideration(seeTable31).Inotherwords,thesameresultsdescribedinourbaselineestimatesectionobtain.Finally,weconsiderthepossibilityofstate-speciceects(asin,forexample,FrieheandMechtel2014).Whilewearguethatwearecapturinganin uenceofGDR'ssocialistregime,itisprincipallypossiblethatitisinfactonlyafewparticularstatesfromtheformerGDRthatdrivethereportedpersonalitydierences,callingourfundamentalargumentintodoubt.Inordertotrytoruleoutthispossibility,weconsiderspecicationsthatcomprisestate-specicinteractioneectsforeachstatefromEastGermany,usingsurveyrespondentswithoutstateinformationasreferencecategory.Assuringly,theresultsdonotrevealsignicantheterogeneityacrossstates(seeTables32-39),suchthatalmostallinteractiontermsareinsignicant.OurmainresultsregardingtheimplicationsoftheGDRregimeasmeasuredbythedirecteectonthelocusofcontrol,neuroticism,conscientiousness,andopennessarerobusttothisextensionoftheempiricalmodel.Moreover,thesmallheterogeneitywendisnotconsistentacrosspersonalityconstructs.Forexample,thecoecientoftheinteractionofGDRandSaxonyAnhaltispositiveandsignicantfornegativereciprocity,butnotsignicantwithrespecttoallotherpersonalitytraitsconsidered.Thesendingsmakeusbelievethatthesignicantdierencesinpersonalitytraitsareduetotheexperiencewiththesocialistregime,whichwassharedbyallEastGermanstates.19 19Ourreportedresultsareinterestinginanotherregardaswell.TheGDRwasdividedwithrespecttowhetherornotpeoplecouldwatchFRGtelevisionprograms.Thisdivisionhasbeenshowntobeimportantwhenitcomestoaspirationsandconsumption(BursztynandCantoniforthcoming,HyllandSchneider2013).Asaresultofthepositioningoftransmitters,theso-called\valleyoftheinnocent"wasverymuchconcentratedinSaxony.OurresultsdonotsuggestthatthereceptionofWesterntelevisionwasanimportantfactorregardinghowtheregimeimpactedpersonalitytraits.21 5Secret-serviceinltrationasadriverofpersonalitydif-ferences?AnempiricalanalysisOuranalysisshowsthattheGDR'spoliticalregimeinfactleftafootprintinthepersonalitiesofthoselivinginreuniedGermanytoday.Tofollowuponapossiblechannel,weexploretheimplicationsofvariationinoneofthemostnoticeableaspectsoftheGDRregime.Mostpeoplethinkofthemassivestate-securityapparatus,thedraconianmethodsappliedbyit,anditsextensiverelianceonunocialcollaboratorsasthemostblatantaspectoftheGDR'ssocialistsystem.TheomnipresenceofstatesecurityinallofitsdarkfacetsbecameclearafterthefalloftheBerlinWall,butwasalreadyanticipatedbyall(andlearnedthehardwaybysome)GDRcitizensbefore(Kowalczuk2013:277-281).Withregardtorepression,state-securityservicesinmanycasessetexamplesandreliedonthefactthat\wordtravelsfast"(Muller-Enbergs2008a:3).Importantly,whereasmanyaspectsofthepoliticalregimeappliedmoreorlessuniformlythroughouttheGDR(e.g.,indoctrinationinschoolandyouthorganizations),thereistrackableregionalvariationinsurveillanceasapproximatedbythenumberofunocialcollaboratorsper1,000inhabitants.Figure1(2)illustratestheregionaldistributionofsurveillanceintensityatthecountylevelforoursecret-servicevariableIM(IM&publiccollaborators). Figure1:SurveillanceintensityacrossGDRcountiesforunocialcollaboratorsNotes:Thecategorylimitsresultfromthe25th,50th,and75thpercentile.ThedatastemsfromMuller-Enbergs(2008b).22 Figure2:SurveillanceintensityacrossGDRcountiesforunocial&publiccollaboratorsNotes:Thecategorylimitsresultfromthe25th,50th,and75thpercentile.ThedatastemsfromMuller-Enbergs(2008b).Regionalsecret-servicesurveillanceintensity,measuredbythenumberofunocialcollabora-torspercapita(ourmeasureIM),variesremarkablyacrosscounties.Figure1indicatesthatthereisnoobvioussystematicregionalpattern.Forexample,countieswithhighsurveillanceintensityareneitherclusteredalongthebordertotheFRGnorissurveillanceintensityalwaysparticularlyhighinlargecities.Moreover,simpleinspectionoftheguresdoesnotleadtotheconclusionthatsurveillanceintensityishigherintheGDR'sindustrialcenterseventhoughitisknownthatcollaboratorsoftenwererecruitedinthemainindustrialcenters(Muller-Enbergs2008a).20Never-theless,onemaybeconcernedaboutthepossibilitythattheallocationofunocialcollaboratorsacrossdierentcountiesisin uencedeitherbysurveillanceintensityrespondingtothepeopleinthecountyorthepeopleinthecountyrespondingtothesurveillanceintensitybymovingelse-where.Suchbehavioralresponsesbythestate-securityservicesorbythetreatedcitizenswouldcallouridenticationstrategyconcerningthewithin-treatmentheterogeneityintoquestion.Withregardtotheconcernthatthenumberofstate-securitycollaboratorsisendogenouslydeterminedbythebehaviorofthelocalpopulation,itshouldbepointedoutthatthenumberofunocialcollaboratorsvariedlittleovertime.Forexample,theregionaloceinEisenhuttenstadthadthesamenumberofcollaboratorsin1980and1989.Inthesamevein,Giesecke(2014),forexample,reportsthatthenumberofunocialcollaboratorswasstablefrom1975onwards.Moreover,itis 20Forexample,surveillanceintensityishighinindustrialcenterslikeEisenhuttenstadtorSchwedt,butmoderateinRostockorBitterfeld.23 nottobeexpectedthatcharacteristicsofthecountypopulationwerecentralfortherecruitmentbecausearequestwasrarelydeclinedduetothefearofadverseconsequences(e.g.,Mueller-Enbergs2008a:45).Withregardtotheconcernthatpeoplemayhaverespondedtosurveillancebymigratingelsewhere,itisimportanttorememberthatspatialmobilitywasseriouslyrestrictedintheGDR.Boththeallocationofpeopleacrossoccupationsandtheallocationofemployeesacrosscountieswascriticallyin uencedbythesocialandeconomicobjectivessetbytheplanningcommittees(see,e.g.,BursztynandCantoniforthcoming).Theinfamoushousingshortagespro-videdanadditionalimpediment.Inthisvein,accordingtoGrundmann(1998:98),onaverageonly2.5outof100GDRcitizenschangedtheirresidenceintheyears1970to1990,implyingarateofspatialmobilitythreetimeslowerthanthecorrespondingvaluefortheFRG.Reassuredbythesepiecesofevidence,wenextpresentresultsfromanempiricalanalysisusinginformationaboutthesecret-servicesurveillanceatthecountylevel.Whenweincludetheintensitymeasureasacontinuousvariableinourempiricalmodel,wendthatpeoplewhohavelivedinGDRcountieswithagreaternumberofunocialcollaboratorshavealocusofcontrolthatismoreexternalfteentotwentyyearslateron(seeTable6andformoredetailsthetablesinourappendix).Whenexternalin uences(measuredbyagreaterpresenceofstatesecurity)haveagreatersay,thenindividualsassociateoutcomesthattheyexpe-riencemorewithaspectsoutsideoftheircontrol.Thisresultisthusinperfectalignmentwiththendingspresentedbeforeandrevealsnotabletreatmentheterogeneitywithinthetreatmentgroup.Inaddition,thereisasignicantpositiverelationshipbetweenthenumberofstate-securitycol-laboratorsandnegativereciprocity.Thisassociationisveryintuitive.Inourbaselineestimations,thein uenceoftheregimeonnegativereciprocitywaspositivebutnotsignicantatconventionallevels,whereasitalsoshowedinthecohortanalysisandtheNorth-Southrobustnesscheck.Thereportedndingsforstate-securitysurveillancealsoresultwhenweuseadummyvariablethatisequaltoonewhenthenumberofcollaboratorsinadistrictexceedsthemediannumberforalldistrictsinsteadofsimplyincludingthenumberdirectlyasacontrolvariable.21WehavearguedinSection4.2thatvariationregardingtheexposuretotheGDR'sregimehelpstounderstandourmainresults.Suchacohortanalysismayalsobeappliedtothequestionathand,thatis,theimpactofvariationinthesurveillanceintensityonpersonality.Doingso,weobtaintheintuitiveresultthatthepersonalityofindividualswhohavenotonlyhadalongexposuretotheregimebutalsoreceivedtheireducationintheGDRarestronglyin uencedbythemeasureofthesurveillanceintensityintheircountyofresidence.Thisappliesinparticulartoindividualsbornbetween1945and1960.Incontrast,thepersonalitytraitsofmembersofthelastcohort(comprisingindividualsbornbetween1975and1989)arenotmuchaectedbysurveillance 21Wedonotincludethetablesfortheotherpersonalitytraitsbecausethesurveillanceleveldoesnotshowasasignicantcovariateintherespectiveregressions.24 Table6:Personalitytraitsandsurveillanceintensity (1)(2)(3)(4)Spec1Spec2Spec1Spec2 Continuousmeasureofsurveillanceintensity Locusofcontrol IM-0.02672+-0.03269(-1.71)(-2.05)IM&publiccollaborators-0.01852-0.02377+(-1.50)(-1.92)N3861356036273357 Negativereciprocity IM0.03390.02369(2.09)(1.46)IM&publiccollaborators0.033780.02785(2.64)(2.19)N3911359936753395 Dummyvariableforsurveillanceintensity Locusofcontrol DummyIM-0.118-0.123(-1.99)(-2.10)DummyIM&publiccollaborators-0.117+-0.0903(-1.83)(-1.45)N3861356036273357 Negativereciprocity DummyIM0.1150.0556(2.05)(1.00)DummyIM&publiccollaborators0.2220.169(3.68)(2.80)N3911359936753395 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005,2009,and2010(EastGermanworkingsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableistherespectivestandardizedpersonalitymeasure.Specication1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2009/2010.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareapplied.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:01.Formoredetailedregressionresults,refertoTables40-43.25 intensity.Thesendingsthusaccordwiththecohortanalysispresentedbefore.Thesurveillanceappearstobearatherin uentialfacetoftheGDR'ssocialistregimewhenitcomestopersonality.Inordertoexploreitsin uencemore,wecombineitwithinformationaboutthepresentsandallowancesGDRresidentsreceivedfromrelativesorfriendslivingintheFRG.WeconsiderpresentsandallowancestobeaproxyofthelinkagesthatGDRresidentshavetopeoplelivingoutsidethesocialistregime,andexpectthatindividualswithgreaterlinkagesperceivethepoliticalregimedierentlyfromindividualswithnoorlittlerelationshiptoFRGresidents.Moreover,itisimportanttoconsidertheinteractionofsurveillanceandallowancesbecausetheparcelssentfromWestGermanywereoftensearchedbyGDR'sstate-securityserviceswithoutseriouseortathidingthesearch,makingthesurveillancemoreprominentandmoreobtrusivefortheseindividuals.Werunregressionsaddingthreevariablestothespecicationsdiscussedabove,namely(i)adummyequaltoonewhenanindividualhasreceivedpresentsorallowancesbutrespondsthatitisdiculttostatetheirmonetaryequivalent,(ii)thevalueofthesetransferswhentheyaregiven,and(iii)aninteractionofthesurveillanceintensityandthevalueofthepresents/allowances.Withregardtothelocusofcontrol,wendthattheinteractiontermhasanegativeandsignicantcoecient,whereasitissignicantandpositivewhenweconsiderconscientiousness(seeTable7).Fornegativereciprocity(liketheotherpersonalitytraits),thecoecientoftheinteractiontermisnotsignicant.However,fornegativereciprocity,theresultsforthemaineecthold.Allinall,thismaybeinterpretedasevidencethathavingcontacttopeoplelivingoutsidethesocialistregimeaggravatesthein uenceofthesurveillanceaspectoftheGDR'spoliticalregime.22Inthepreviousregressionexercises,weclusterstandarderrorsattheindividuallevel,sinceweuseindividualpaneldataandtheestimatedwithin-individualcorrelationoftheerrorsisbetween0.48and0.55.However,ourkeyvariablesofinterestIMandIM&publiccollaboratorsareaveragesforthe1980sattheGDRcountylevel.Hence,althoughweobserveourpersonalitytraitsatleastfteentotwentyyearslater,onemightbeconcernedthatstandarderrorsareclusteredattheregionallevelforagivenyear.Theestimatedwithin-groupcorrelationoftheerrorsatthecountylevelintherelevantyearsisrathersmall(0.01to0.04).Nevertheless,correlatederrorsatthecountylevelmaypossiblyleadtooverstatedestimatorprecision(see,e.g.,Baumetal.2011,CameronandMiller2015).Asarobustnesscheck,weimplementtwo-way-cluster-robustinference(i.e.,weallowforclusteringattheindividualandthecountytimesyearlevel).Whenwecomparetheresultingestimateswiththendingspresentedabove,wendthatourmainresultsareoverallunaected.Specically,thesignicanceoftheresultsfornegativereciprocity 22Insteadofinteractingthecontinuousmeasureofsurveillanceintensitywiththeinformationonthevalueofthetransfers,wecanalsousetheinteractionofthesurveillancedummyvariableandthetransfervaluewithoutchangingtheresults.However,doingthisinthespecicationforthelocusofcontrolyieldsmaineectsofIMsignicantlydierentfromzeroinadditiontotheresultsdescribedabove.26 Table7:PersonalitytraitsandinteractionsofsurveillanceintensityandcontactstoFRGcitizens (1)(2)(3)(4)Spec1Spec2Spec1Spec2 Locusofcontrol IM-0.02095-0.02365(-1.35)(-1.52)IM&publiccollaborators-0.01397-0.01732(-1.13)(-1.41)transferwithoutvaluestated-0.0519-0.03360.01850.000569(-0.63)(-0.42)(0.22)(0.01)valueoftransfers0.000260.000384+0.0001930.000295+(1.37)(1.82)(1.18)(1.70)IMvalueoftransfer-0.0000721+-0.000101(-1.96)(-2.47)IM&publiccollaboratorstransfervalue-0.0000517+-0.0000729(-1.85)(-2.47)N3861356036273357 Conscientiousness IM-0.01670-0.01757(-1.02)(-1.08)IM&publiccollaborators-0.011-0.01228(-0.87)(-0.98)transferwithoutvaluestated-0.142+-0.141+-0.101-0.118(-1.84)(-1.74)(-1.17)(-1.30)valueoftransfers-0.000751-0.000664+-0.000643+-0.00055(-2.00)(-1.83)(-1.80)(-1.60)IMvalueoftransfer0.0001540.000136+(2.13)(1.95)IM&publiccollaboratorstransfervalue0.000116+0.0000988+(1.93)(1.72)N4030373337913523 Negativereciprocity IM0.034250.02248(2.08)(1.37)IM&publiccollaborators0.032870.02590(2.52)(2.00)transferwithoutvaluestated-0.0144-0.0479-0.0545-0.0819(-0.19)(-0.65)(-0.69)(-1.05)valueoftransfers-0.000094-0.0000841-0.000121-0.000119(-0.58)(-0.49)(-0.84)(-0.79)IMvalueoftransfer0.000008830.0000128(0.28)(0.39)IM&publiccollaboratorstransfervalue0.00001220.0000169(0.50)(0.66)N3911359936753395 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom1990,2005,2009,and2010(EastGermanworkingsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableistherespectivestandardizedpersonalitymeasure.Specication1(2)includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest(allcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2009/2010).Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareapplied.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:01.Formoredetailedregressionresults,refertoTables44-46.27 andconscientiousnessdonotchange.Forthelocusofcontrol,weobserveonlyonesignicantcoecientforthelinearIM-variableinsteadofthree(asinthespecicationsdocumentedinTable6),andonlytwosignicantcoecientsinsteadofthreeforthedummyspecication.Inourspecicationswithallowances,thesignicancelevelsforthecoecientsofinterestdonotchangeatall(i.e.,areasinTable7).Insummary,whenconsideringthenumberofunocialcollaborators,wendremarkablewithin-treatmentheterogeneityverymuchinlinewithourmainresults.Ourresultshighlightachannelviawhichtherepressivepoliticalregimehashadaprofoundimpactonthepersonalitiesofitscitizens.TheGDR'ssocialistregimehasindeedleftfootprints,andthismoresowhenonecharacterizingaspectsoftheregimeplayedagreaterrole.Result2ConsideringasampleofformerGDRcitizens,wendthatvariationinsecret-servicesurveillanceacrossGDRcountiesisadriverofpersonalitydierencesparticularlywithrespecttothelocusofcontrolandnegativereciprocity.Moreunocialcollaboratorspercapitainacountyareassociatedwithalowerinternallocusofcontrolandagreaternegativereciprocity.6Implicationsoftheshadowsofthepast:Therelation-shipofpersonalityandlifeoutcomesOurempiricalanalysishasestablishedthatnativeGermanswholivedintheGDRin1989are(still)dierentfromthosewholivedinWestGermanywhenitcomestopersonality.Inthissection,wediscussthepotentialeconomicconsequencesofthislong-lastingimpactoftheGDR'spoliticalregimeonpersonality.Wealsopresentsomeroughquantitativeestimates.Specically,buildingontheresultsoftheexistingliteratureabouttheimplicationsofastandarddeviationinpersonalitytraitsonlifeoutcomes,wemayuseourestimatedimpactoftheGDR'ssocialistregimeonaparticularpersonalitytraittoarriveatapproximationsinconcretedimensions.FormercitizensoftheGDRexhibitamoreexternallocusofcontrol.Beckeretal.(2012),forexample,reportaboutresultsthatamoreinternallocusofcontrolisassociatedwithabetterhealthstatus,moreyearsofeducation,highergrosswages,alowerchanceofunemployment,andoverallahigherlifesatisfaction.Inarecentsurvey,Cobb-Clark(2014)summarizesthatthelocusofcontrolisindeedoneofthecoredeterminantsoflabormarketsuccessbecauseimportantindividualdecisions(e.g.,abouttheacquisitionofhumancapital,seekingoutnewchallengesorworkinghard)haveallbeenlinkedtotheextenttowhichtheybelievethatwhattheydohasconsequences.Takingourresultsatfacevalue,thedierenceinthelocusofcontrolthatisattributabletotheGDRsystemwouldimplyawagepenaltyofabout0.7%(buildingonHeineckandAnger2010),ajobndingratethatislowerbyabout0.4%(Caliendoetal.2015),anda28 probabilityofself-employmentthatislowerbyabout2%(buildingonCaliendoetal.2014).Inaddition,thepoliticalregimeoftheGDRstillshowsinahigherconscientiousnessscore.Beckeretal.(2012),forexample,assertthatahigherconscientiousnessscorecorrelateswithabetterhealthstatus,moreyearsofeducation,alowerchanceofunemployment,andoverallahigherlifesatisfaction.Intuitivesignicantrelationshipsexist,forexample,withrespecttocollegegrades(Borghansetal.2008).TheresultspresentedbyUysalandPohlmeier(2011)suggestthatthedierenceinconscientiousnessduetotheGDRsystemincreasestheprobabilityofndingajobbyabout0.9%andlowersthechanceoflosingemploymentbyabout0.75%.Moreover,ourndingsindicatethattheGDR'ssocialistregimehasmadeEastGermansmoreneurotic.Ahigherneuroticismscoreisclearlydisadvantageous.Beckeretal.(2012),forexample,reportresultsthatlessneuroticindividualsaremorelikelytohaveabetterhealthstatus,moreyearsofeducation,highergrosswages,alowerchanceofunemployment,andoverallahigherlifesatisfaction.Lookingmoreclosely,neuroticismisin uential,forinstance,withrespecttojobsearcheorts(Almlundetal.2011).Finally,theopennessofformerGDRcitizensislower.Beckeretal.(2012),forexample,reportndingsthathigheropennessisassociatedwithabetterhealthstatus,moreyearsofeducation,highergrosswages,alowerchanceofunemployment,andoverallahigherlifesatisfaction.RelyingontheresultsbyCaliendoetal.(2014),thedierenceinopennessduetotheGDRsystemlowerstheprobabilityofself-employmentbyabout2%.Result3ThefootprintsoftheGDR'ssocialistregimeinitscitizens'personalitiesareinsomewaysfavorableforlifeoutcomes(higherconscientiousness),whereasothersareclearlytothedis-advantageofformerGDRresidentslivinginEastGermanytoday(higherneuroticismscore,loweropenness,andamoreexternallocusofcontrol).7ConclusionThispapertakesadvantageofthenaturalexperimentcreatedbythedivisionandreunicationofGermanytoanalyzewhetherpoliticalregimesin uencepersonalities.WendthattheGDR'ssocialistregimeisviaitsfootprintinpersonalities{morethan25yearsafteritsdemolition{stillrelevantinimportantwaystodayandwellintothefuture.Thisfollowsfromthefactthatpersonalitiesarerelativelystableovertimeandtosomeextentpassedontothenextgeneration.OurempiricalanalysisuncoverslastingimplicationsoftheGDRsystemintermsofpersonalities.PeoplewholivedintheGDRin1989are{whencomparedtopeoplefromtheFRG{moreneurotic,lessopen,moreconscientious,andhaveamoreexternallocusofcontrol.Buildingonthewell-establishedrelationshipsofpersonalitytraitsandlifeoutcomes,theshad-owsofthepastareeconomicallysignicant.Repercussionscanbefeltindividuallybutalsoatthe29 regionallevelsinceourndingsmaycontributetoanexplanationoftherelativelydisappointingeconomicdevelopmentofsomeoftheregionsthatformerlymadeuptheGDR.ThendingthatpersonalitiesaretosomeextentmalleablebyinvestmentopensupunconventionalpossibilitiesforeconomicpolicyaimedatnarrowingthegapbetweenEastandWestGermany.AcknowledgementsWegratefullyacknowledgethecommentsreceivedfromAdrianChadi,LaszloGoerke,ClemensHetschko,MarioMechtel,SteenMuller,MatthiasNeuenkirch,andattendantsatpresentationsattheUniversityofTrierandtheHalleInstituteforEconomicResearchonearlierversionsofthepaper.WearethankfultoJanGoebelforhelpingtoaccesssecuredSOEPdataandKarstenZolnaforvaluableresearchassistance.ReferencesAcemoglu,D.,Johnson,S.,andJ.A.Robinson,2001.Thecolonialoriginsofcomparativedevel-opment:Anempiricalinvestigation.AmericanEconomicReview91,1369-1401.Alesina,A.,andN.Fuchs-Schundeln,2007.Good-byeLenin(ornot?):TheeectofCommunismonPeople'sPreferences.AmericanEconomicReview97,1507-1528.Almlund,M.,Duckworth,A.,Heckman,J.,andT.Kautz,2011.Personalitypsychologyandeconomics.In:Hanushek,E.A.,Machin,S.,Woessmann,L.(Eds.),Handbookoftheeconomicsofeducation.NorthHolland,SanDiego,1-181.Ariely,D.,Garcia-Rada,X.,Hornuf,L.,andH.Mann,2014.The(true)legacyoftworeallyexistingeconomicsystems.MunichDiscussionPaper2014-26.Bauernschuster,S.,andH.Rainer,2012.Politicalregimesandthefamily:howsex-roleattitudescontinuetodierinreuniedGermany.JournalofPopulationEconomics25,5-27.Bauernschuster,S.,Falck,O.,Gold,R.,andS.Heblich,2012.Theshadowsofthesocialistpast:Lackofself-reliancehindersentrepreneurship.EuropeanJournalofPoliticalEconomy28,485-497.Baum,C.F.,Nichols,A.,andM.E.Schaer,2011.Evaluatingone-wayandtwo-waycluster-robustcovariancematrixestimates.GermanStataUsersGroupMeetingJuly2011.Becker,A.,Deckers,T.,Dohmen,T.Falk,A.,andF.Kosse,2012.Therelationshipbetweeneconomicpreferencesandpsychologicalpersonalitymeasures.AnnualReviewofEconomics4,453-478.Bisin,A.,andT.Verdier,2011.Theeconomicsofculturaltransmissionandsocialization.In:Benhabib,J.,Bisin,A.,andM.O.Jackson(Eds.).HandbookofSocialEconomics,Vol.1A,30 North-Holland.Borghans,L.,Duckworth,A.L.,Heckman,J.J.,andB.terWeel,2008.Theeconomicsandpsy-chologyofpersonalitytraits.JournalofHumanResources18,972-1059.Boyce,C.J.,andA.M.Wood,2011.Personalityandthemarginalutilityofincome:Personalityinteractswithincreasesinhouseholdincometodeterminelifesatisfaction.JournalofEconomicBehaviorandOrganization78,183-181.Brosig-Koch,J.,Helbach,C.,Ockenfels,A.,andJ.Weimann,2011.Stilldierentafteralltheseyears:SolidaritybehaviorinEastandWestGermany.JournalofPublicEconomics95,1373-1376.Burchardi,K.B.,andT.A.Hassan,2013.Theeconomicimpactofsocialties:EvidencefromGer-manreunication.QuarterlyJournalofEconomics128,1219-1271.Bursztyn,L.,andD.Cantoni,forthcoming.AtearintheIroncurtain:TheimpactofWesterntelevisiononconsumptionbehavior.ReviewofEconomicsandStatistics.Caliendo,M.,Fossen,F.,andA.S.Kritikos,2014.Personalitycharacteristicsandthedecisiontobecomeorstayself-employed.SmallBusinessEconomics42,787-814.Caliendo,M.,Cobb-Clark,D.,andA.Uhlendor,2015.Locusofcontrolandjobsearchstrategies.ReviewofEconomicsandStatistics97,88-103.Cameron,A.C.,andD.L.Miller,2015.Apractitioner'sguidetocluster-robustinference.JournalofHumanResources50,317-372.Charness,G.,andM.Rabin,2002.Understandingsocialpreferenceswithsimpletests.QuarterlyJournalofEconomics117,817-869.Cobb-Clark,D.,2014.Locusofcontrolandthelabormarket.IZADiscussionPaper8678.Cobb-Clark,D.A.,Kassenboehmer,S.C.,andS.Schurer,2014.Healthyhabits:Theconnectionbetweendiet,exercise,andlocusofcontrol.JournalofEconomicBehaviorandOrganization98,1-28.Cobb-Clark,D.,andS.Schurer,2012.Thestabilityofbig-vepersonalitytraits.EconomicsLetters115,11-15.Cobb-Clark,D.,andS.Schurer,2013.Twoeconomists'musingsonthestabilityoflocusofcon-trol.EconomicJournal123,F358-F400.Costa,P.T.,andR.R.McCrae,1992.RevisedNEOPersonalityInventory(NEO-PI-R)andNEOFive-FactorInventory(NEO-FFI)manual.Odessa,FL:PsychologicalAssessmentResources.Costa,P.T.,Terracciano,A.,andR.R.McCrae,2001.Genderdierencesinpersonalitytraitsacrosscultures:Robustandsurprisingndings.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology81,322-331.Dohmen,T.,2014.Behaviorallaboreconomics:Advancesandfuturedirections.LabourEco-nomics30,71-85.Dohmen,T.,Falk,A.,Human,D.,andU.Sunde,2012.Theintergenerationaltransmissionof31 riskandtrustattitudes.ReviewofEconomicStudies79,645-677.Dohmen,T.,Falk,A.,Human,D.,andU.Sunde,2009.Homoreciprocans:Surveyevidenceonbehaviouraloutcomes.EconomicJournal119,592-612.Fletcher,J.M.,2013.Theeectsofpersonalitytraitsonadultlabormarketoutcomes:Evidencefromsiblings.JournalofEconomicBehaviorandOrganization89,122-135.Friehe,T.,andM.Mechtel,2014.ConspicuousConsumptionandPoliticalRegimes:EvidencefromEastandWestGermany.EuropeanEconomicReview67,62-81.Fuchs-Schundeln,N.,andM.Schundeln,2009.Whostays,whogoes,whoreturns?EconomicsofTransition17,703-738.Fuchs-Schundeln,N.,andP.Masella,2014.Long-lastingeectsofsocialisteducation.Mimeo.Fulbrook,M.,2005.Thepeople'sstate:EastGermansocietyfromHitlertoHonecker.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.Fulbrook,M.,2009.HistoryofGermany,1918-2008.3rdedition.Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell.Geissler,R.,2008.DieSozialstrukturDeutschlands:ZurgesellschaftlichenEntwicklungmiteinerBilanzzurVereinigung.VerlagfurSozialwissenschaften,Wiesbaden.Gieseke,J.,2014.ThehistoryoftheStasi:EastGermany'ssecretpolice,1945-1990.NewYork:Berghahn.Goebel,J.,2014.JobSubmissionInstructionsfortheSOEPRemoteSystematDIWBerlinUp-date2014.Grundmann,S.,1998.BevolkerungsentwicklunginOstdeutschland.Opladen:Leske+Budrich.Heckman,J.J.,andT.Kautz,2012.Hardevidenceonsoftskills.LabourEconomics19,451-464.Heidemeyer,H.,1994.FluchtundZuwanderungausderSBZ/DDR1945/1949-1961.Dusseldorf:DrosteVerlag.Heineck,G.,andS.Anger,2010.ThereturnstocognitiveabilitiesandpersonalitytraitsinGer-many.LabourEconomics17,535-546.Heineck,G.,andB.Sussmuth,2013.AdierentlookatLenin'slegacy:SocialcapitalandrisktakinginthetwoGermanies.JournalofComparativeEconomics41,789-803.Hubert,M.,1998.DeutschlandimWandel.GeschichtederdeutschenBevolkerungseit1815.Stuttgart:FranzSteinerVerlag.Hunt,J.,2006.StaunchingemigrationfromEastGermany:Ageandthedeterminantsofmigra-tion.JournaloftheEuropeanEconomicAssociation4,1014-1037.Hyll,W.,andL.Schneider,2013.ThecausaleectofwatchingTVonmaterialaspirations:Evidencefromthe\valleyoftheinnocent".JournalofEconomicBehaviorandOrganization86,37-51.Imbens,G.W.,andJ.M.Wooldridge,2009.Recentdevelopmentsintheeconometricsofprogramevaluation.JournalofEconomicLiterature47,5-86.32 Jacob,M.,andM.Tyrell,2010.Thelegacyofsurveillance:AnexplanationforsocialcapitalerosionandthepersistenteconomicdisparitybetweenEastandWestGermany.Mimeo.Kagel,J.,andP.McGee,2014.Personalityandcooperationinnitelyrepeatedprisoner'sdilemmagames.EconomicsLetters124,274-277.Kautz,T.,Heckman,J.J.,Diris,R.,Weel,B.,andL.Borghans,2014.Fosteringandmeasuringskills:Improvingcognitiveandnon-cognitiveskillstopromotelifetimesuccess.IZADiscussionPaper8696.Kowalczuk,I.S.,2013.Stasikonkret:UberwachungundRepressioninderDDR.Munich:C.H.Beck.KruegerR.F.,andW.Johnson,2008.Behavioralgeneticsandpersonality.In:John,O.P,Robins,R.W.,andL.A.Pervin(Eds.).Handbookofpersonality:Theoryandresearch.NewYork:TheGuilfordPress.Latsch,G.,2015.Rotlichtbestrahlung.SPIEGELGESCHICHTE32015,88-89.Lodi-Smith,J.,andB.W.Roberts,2007.Socialinvestmentandpersonality:Ameta-analysisoftherelationshipofpersonalitytraitstoinvestmentinwork,family,religion,andvolunteerism.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyReview11,68-86.McCrae,R.R.,andP.T.Costa,1999.Ave-factortheoryofpersonality.In:Pervin,L.A.,John,O.P.(Eds.).Handbookofpersonality:Theoryandresearch.2ndedition.NewYork:GuilfordPress.Mueller,G.,andE.Plug,2006.EstimatingtheeectofpersonalityonmaleandfemaleEarnings.IndustrialandLaborRelationsReview60,3-22.Muller-Enbergs,H.,2008a.DieinoziellenMitarbeiter(MfS-Handbuch).BStU.Berlin2008.www.nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0292-97839421302647.Muller-Enbergs,H.,2008b.InozielleMitarbeiterdesMinisteriumsfrStaatssicherheit,Teil3:Statistiken.BStUBerlin2008.www.nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0292-2012012009.Necker,S.,andA.Voskort,2014.Politicsandparents{Intergenerationaltransmissionofvaluesafteraregimeshift.EuropeanJournalofPoliticalEconomy36,177-194.Nunn,N.,andL.Wantchekon,2011.TheslavetradeandtheoriginsofmistrustinAfrica.Amer-icanEconomicReview101,3221-3252.Ockenfels,A.,andJ.Weimann,1999.Typesandpatterns:anexperimentalEastWestcomparisonofcooperationandsolidarity.JournalofPublicEconomics71,275-287.Ozer,D.J.,andV.Benet-Martinez,2006.Personalityandthepredictionofconsequentialout-comes.AnnualReviewofPsychology57,401-421.Proto,E.,andA.Rustichini,2014.Cooperationandpersonality.UniversityofWarwickEconomicResearchPapersNo1045.Rainer,H.,andT.Siedler,2009.Doesdemocracyfostertrust?EvidencefromtheGermanreuni-33 cation.JournalofComparativeEconomics37,251-269.Redding,S.J.,andD.M.Sturm,2008.Thecostsofremoteness:EvidencefromGermandivisionandreunication.AmericanEconomicReview98,1766-1797.Reitz,A.K.,Zimmermann,J.,Hutteman,R.,Specht,J.,andF.J.Neyer,2014.Howpeersmakeadierence:Theroleofpeergroupsandpeerrelationshipsinpersonalitydevelopment.EuropeanJournalofPersonality28,279-288.Riemann,R.,Angleitner,A.,andJ.Strelau,1997.Geneticandenvironmentalin uencesonper-sonality:Astudyoftwinsrearedtogetherusingtheself-andpeerreportNEO-FFIscales.JournalofPersonality65,449-475.Rotter,J.,1966.Generalizedexpectanciesofinternalversusexternalcontrolofreinforcements.PsychologicalMonographs80,1-28.Schafgen,K.,1998.DieVerdoppelungderUngleichheit.SozialstrukturundGeschlechterverhaltnisseinderBundesrepublikundinderDDR.Humboldt-UniversityBerlin,Germany.Schnurr,E.-M.,2015.DenCharakterkorrigieren.SPIEGELGESCHICHTE32015,96-99.Socio-EconomicPanel(SOEP),dataforyears1984-2012,version29,SOEP,2013,doi:10.5684/soep.v29.Specht,J.,Bleidorn,W.,Denissen,J.J.A.,Hennecke,M.,Hutteman,R.,Kandler,C.,Luhmann,M.,Orth,U.,Reitz,A.K.,andJ.Zimmermann,2014.Whatdrivesadultpersonalitydevelop-ment?Acomparisonoftheoreticalperspectivesandempiricalevidence.EuropeanJournalofPersonality28,216-230.Specht,J.,Eglo,B.,andS.C.Schmukle,2013.Everythingundercontrol?Theeectsofage,gender,andeducationontrajectoriesofperceivedcontrolinanationallyrepresentativeGermansample.DevelopmentalPsychology49,353-364.Uysal,S.D.,andW.Pohlmeier,2011.Unemploymentdurationandpersonality.JournalofEco-nomicPsychology32,980-992.Voigtlander,N.,andH.J.Voth,2012.Persecutionperpetuated:Themedievaloriginsofanti-semiticviolenceinNaziGermany.QuarterlyJournalofEconomics127,1339-1392.Volk,S.,Thoni,C.,andW.Ruigrok,2012.Temporalstabilityandpsychologicalfoundationsofcooperationpreferences.JournalofEconomicBehaviorandOrganization81,664-676.Wolf,N.,2009.WasGermanyeverunited?Evidencefromintra-andinternationaltrade,1885-1933.JournalofEconomicHistory69,846-881.34 AppendixMaineectsInthefollowing,wepresenttablesshowingregressionresultsregardingourmaineectswithmoreinformationthanintable4.35 Table8:LocusofControlandGDRtreatment (1)(2)(3) GDR-0.129-0.0869-0.0668(-6.16)(-3.67)(-2.58)movedWest0.1420.145(2.95)(3.00)GDR*2010-0.0414(-1.38)age-0.00209-0.0285-0.0285(-0.74)(-6.37)(-6.37)age20.00003150.0002540.000254(1.17)(6.25)(6.25)male0.0825-0.0000770-0.000159(4.50)(-0.00)(-0.01)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesYesMaritalstatusYesYesDummy2010YesYes N319452879328793R20.0130.0860.086 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2010(mainsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedlocusofcontrolscore.Speci-cation1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2010.Specication3additionallyincludesaninteractiontermoftheGDRdummyandthedummyfor2010.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0136 Table9:NeuroticismandGDRtreatment (1)(2)(3) GDR0.1240.1040.113(5.97)(4.60)(4.60)movedWest-0.105-0.104(-2.00)(-1.98)GDR*2009-0.0183(-0.67)age0.007370.02000.0200(2.66)(4.42)(4.42)age2-0.0000671-0.000210-0.000210(-2.54)(-5.29)(-5.29)male-0.379-0.324-0.324(-20.81)(-14.42)(-14.42)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesYesMaritalstatusYesYesDummy2009YesYes N338173052430524R20.0430.1030.103 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2009(mainsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedneuroticismscore.Specication1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2009.Specication3additionallyincludesaninteractiontermoftheGDRdummyandthedummyfor2009.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0137 Table10:ConscientiousnessandGDRtreatment (1)(2)(3) GDR0.1040.1000.104(5.10)(4.39)(4.13)movedWest-0.0216-0.0212(-0.41)(-0.40)GDR*2009-0.00782(-0.27)age0.04890.01320.0132(15.11)(2.75)(2.75)age2-0.000424-0.0000923-0.0000924(-13.95)(-2.15)(-2.15)male-0.128-0.204-0.204(-6.94)(-8.58)(-8.59)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesYesMaritalstatusYesYesDummy2009YesYes N336963041930419R20.0490.0640.064 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2009(mainsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedconscientiousnessscore.Speci-cation1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2009.Specication3additionallyincludesaninteractiontermoftheGDRdummyandthedummyfor2009.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0138 Table11:OpennessandGDRtreatment (1)(2)(3) GDR-0.0981-0.0770-0.0915(-4.88)(-3.36)(-3.63)movedWest0.04020.0386(0.71)(0.68)GDR*20090.0294(1.02)age0.01300.001730.00171(4.41)(0.36)(0.36)age2-0.000156-0.0000528-0.0000527(-5.49)(-1.23)(-1.22)male-0.102-0.127-0.127(-5.57)(-5.40)(-5.39)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesYesMaritalstatusYesYesDummy2009YesYes N336623039630396R20.0370.0690.069 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2009(mainsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedopennessscore.Specication1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2009.Specication3additionallyincludesaninteractiontermoftheGDRdummyandthedummyfor2009.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0139 Table12:ExtraversionandGDRtreatment (1)(2)(3) GDR-0.00875-0.004860.0119(-0.41)(-0.20)(0.45)movedWest0.1230.125(2.09)(2.12)GDR*2009-0.0340(-1.19)age-0.00541+-0.0204-0.0204(-1.88)(-4.46)(-4.45)age2-0.000003710.0001130.000113(-0.14)(2.77)(2.77)male-0.173-0.189-0.189(-9.20)(-7.77)(-7.78)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesYesMaritalstatusYesYesDummy2009YesYes N338053050630506R20.0230.0400.040 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2009(mainsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedextraversionscore.Specication1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2009.Specication3additionallyincludesaninteractiontermoftheGDRdummyandthedummyfor2009.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0140 Table13:AgreeablenessandGDRtreatment (1)(2)(3) GDR0.04460.03700.0473+(2.23)(1.62)(1.83)movedWest0.02580.0270(0.50)(0.52)GDR*2009-0.0209(-0.74)age-0.0108-0.00530-0.00528(-3.63)(-1.19)(-1.18)age20.0001560.0001200.000120(5.47)(3.01)(3.01)male-0.331-0.272-0.272(-18.00)(-11.77)(-11.77)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesYesMaritalstatusYesYesDummy2009YesYes N338143051430514R20.0420.0610.061 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2009(mainsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedagreeablenessscore.Speci-cation1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2009.Specication3additionallyincludesaninteractiontermoftheGDRdummyandthedummyfor2009.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0141 Table14:ReciprocityandGDRtreatment (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)PosRecPosRecPosRecNegRecNegRecNegRec GDR0.01760.03610.02820.0404+0.03560.0377(0.83)(1.48)(1.06)(1.88)(1.45)(1.42)moveWest0.007590.00652-0.116-0.116(0.14)(0.12)(-2.39)(-2.38)GDR*20100.0162-0.00425(0.47)(-0.13)age0.01280.003400.00340-0.00713-0.000628-0.000627(4.37)(0.72)(0.72)(-2.53)(-0.14)(-0.14)age2-0.000106-0.0000421-0.0000422-0.0000121-0.0000870-0.0000870(-3.84)(-1.01)(-1.01)(-0.46)(-2.16)(-2.16)male0.0231-0.0120-0.01200.2730.2520.252(1.24)(-0.51)(-0.50)(14.80)(10.96)(10.96)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYesYesYesEducation,healthYesYesYesYesstatus,andnetincomeEmploymentstatusYesYesYesYes&historyMaritalstatusYesYesYesYesDummy2010YesYesYesYes N325822931629316325112926329263R20.0040.0110.0110.0420.0630.063 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2010(mainsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedreciprocityscore.Specication1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2010.Specication3additionallyincludesaninteractiontermoftheGDRdummyandthedummyfor2010.RobuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevelSOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0142 CohortanalysisInthefollowing,wepresenttablesshowingregressionresultsregardingourcohortanalysiswithmoreinformationthanintable5.Table15:LocusofControlandGDRtreatment:CohortAnalysis (1)(2)(3)(4)19451945-601960-751975-89 GDR-0.153-0.198-0.104-0.126(-4.11)(-4.67)(-2.32)(-2.12)movedWest-0.002330.1230.2400.162+(-0.01)(1.05)(3.22)(1.85)age0.0347-0.2840.111-0.0270(0.99)(-4.75)(2.69)(-0.64)age2-0.0001990.00265-0.001440.000631(-0.84)(4.82)(-2.78)(0.74)male0.1600.0647+0.0990-0.0167(4.69)(1.76)(2.98)(-0.39)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYes N8737858586515972R20.0240.0250.0150.026 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2010(mainsample),andclustersubjectsaccordingtoyearofbirthintooneoutoffourcohorts.Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedscoreforthepersonalitytraitathand.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0143 Table16:ConscientiousnessandGDRtreatment:CohortAnalysis (1)(2)(3)(4)19451945-601960-751975-89 GDR0.1120.06370.09430.173(3.21)(1.55)(2.20)(2.96)movedWest-0.04120.179-0.00772-0.105(-0.25)(2.00)(-0.09)(-1.10)age0.0146-0.06430.0918+0.158(0.32)(-0.99)(1.77)(2.99)age2-0.0001430.000571-0.00113+-0.00223(-0.46)(0.94)(-1.72)(-2.12)male-0.0653-0.121-0.0801-0.258(-1.99)(-3.49)(-2.37)(-5.43)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYes N9238894591386375R20.0100.0220.0150.072 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2009(mainsample),andclustersubjectsaccordingtoyearofbirthintooneoutoffourcohorts.Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedscoreforthepersonalitytraitathand.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0144 Table17:NeuroticismandGDRtreatment:CohortAnalysis (1)(2)(3)(4)19451945-601960-751975-89 GDR0.1350.1380.1540.133(4.06)(3.30)(3.31)(2.33)movedWest-0.380-0.155-0.2340.0458(-2.20)(-1.25)(-2.86)(0.52)age0.07660.143-0.03120.0749(2.20)(2.13)(-0.59)(1.59)age2-0.000573-0.001310.000370-0.00156(-2.44)(-2.11)(0.55)(-1.62)male-0.376-0.305-0.429-0.429(-12.11)(-8.06)(-12.09)(-10.17)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYes N9334895591396389R20.0480.0340.0570.058 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2009(mainsample),andclustersubjectsaccordingtoyearofbirthintooneoutoffourcohorts.Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedscoreforthepersonalitytraitathand.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0145 Table18:OpennessandGDRtreatment:CohortAnalysis (1)(2)(3)(4)19451945-601960-751975-89 GDR-0.0347-0.129-0.1820.00445(-1.00)(-3.22)(-4.22)(0.08)movedWest0.2780.08980.0138-0.0722(2.10)(0.72)(0.17)(-0.76)age-0.0505-0.0555-0.0163-0.0922+(-1.25)(-0.87)(-0.33)(-1.80)age20.0002390.0004430.0001410.00161(0.87)(0.74)(0.22)(1.53)male-0.0347-0.150-0.0720-0.207(-1.05)(-4.10)(-2.07)(-4.86)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYes N9236894091126374R20.0590.0430.0250.044 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2009(mainsample),andclustersubjectsaccordingtoyearofbirthintooneoutoffourcohorts.Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedscoreforthepersonalitytraitathand.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0146 Table19:AgreeablenessandGDRtreatment:CohortAnalysis (1)(2)(3)(4)19451945-601960-751975-89 GDR0.07900.03230.03750.0414(2.36)(0.79)(0.86)(0.73)movedWest-0.1450.2190.0486-0.0722(-0.84)(2.17)(0.59)(-0.84)age0.0175-0.134-0.0616-0.101(0.37)(-1.96)(-1.19)(-2.19)age2-0.00001970.00124+0.0006380.00185(-0.06)(1.94)(0.97)(1.98)male-0.390-0.356-0.295-0.254(-12.51)(-9.30)(-8.24)(-6.03)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYes N9350895591276382R20.0550.0420.0290.023 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2009(mainsample),andclustersubjectsaccordingtoyearofbirthintooneoutoffourcohorts.Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedscoreforthepersonalitytraitathand.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0147 Table20:ExtraversionandGDRtreatment:CohortAnalysis (1)(2)(3)(4)19451945-601960-751975-89 GDR0.0684-0.0215-0.106-0.0663(2.05)(-0.51)(-2.14)(-1.09)movedWest0.06540.2140.1980.0934(0.38)(1.48)(2.12)(0.99)age-0.0327-0.1060.0852+-0.0580(-0.90)(-1.63)(1.67)(-1.17)age20.0001710.000931-0.00115+0.000962(0.70)(1.53)(-1.77)(0.95)male-0.141-0.159-0.232-0.152(-4.48)(-4.29)(-6.20)(-3.27)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYes N9324895591406386R20.0200.0170.0260.018 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2009(mainsample),andclustersubjectsaccordingtoyearofbirthintooneoutoffourcohorts.Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedscoreforthepersonalitytraitathand.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0148 Table21:PositivereciprocityandGDRtreatment:CohortAnalysis (1)(2)(3)(4)19451945-601960-751975-89 GDR0.01790.008720.0457-0.0177(0.49)(0.18)(1.12)(-0.33)movedWest0.002540.02550.004210.0772(0.02)(0.22)(0.05)(0.90)age0.02630.0206-0.05370.0200(0.71)(0.31)(-1.20)(0.49)age2-0.000209-0.0001890.000595-0.000111(-0.84)(-0.31)(1.05)(-0.14)male0.03040.02470.0676+-0.0549(0.91)(0.65)(1.89)(-1.27)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYes N8999872587756083R20.0100.0080.0070.021 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2010(mainsample),andclustersubjectsaccordingtoyearofbirthintooneoutoffourcohorts.Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedscoreforthepersonalitytraitathand.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0149 Table22:NegativereciprocityandGDRtreatment:CohortAnalysis (1)(2)(3)(4)19451945-601960-751975-89 GDR-0.009060.02650.09870.179(-0.25)(0.53)(2.03)(3.40)movedWest-0.136-0.0955-0.200-0.0696(-0.69)(-0.86)(-2.44)(-0.94)age0.01560.0635-0.0417-0.0991(0.43)(0.98)(-0.94)(-2.42)age2-0.000225-0.0005880.0004060.00160(-0.91)(-0.98)(0.74)(1.97)male0.2580.2880.3020.224(7.88)(7.41)(8.46)(5.66)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYes N8974872287516064R20.0400.0280.0390.054 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2010(mainsample),andclustersubjectsaccordingtoyearofbirthintooneoutoffourcohorts.Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedscoreforthepersonalitytraitathand.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0150 RobustnesschecksInthissection,wepresentmorecomprehensivetablesshowingtheresultsofourthreerobustnesschecks.Table23:LocusofControlandGDRtreatment:North/South (1)(2)(3)(4)NorthSouthNorthSouth GDR-0.136-0.124-0.121-0.0499(-4.52)(-4.24)(-3.68)(-1.46)movedWest0.1480.132(2.09)(2.05)age-0.000974-0.00308-0.0226-0.0345(-0.25)(-0.77)(-3.69)(-5.38)age20.00002830.00003200.0002090.000296(0.77)(0.82)(3.84)(4.96)male0.07550.09020.00751-0.0151(2.93)(3.46)(0.24)(-0.49)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesYesMaritalstatusYesYesDummy2010YesYes N15936160091429214501R20.0110.0190.0800.102 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2010(mainsample),andclustersubjectsaccordingtotheirplaceofresidence.Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedscoreforthepersonalitytraitathand.SouthGermanyincludesBavaria,Baden-Wuerttemberg,Hesse,Rhineland-Palatinate,Saarland,Saxony,andThuringia.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0151 Table24:ConscientiousnessandGDRtreatment:North/South (1)(2)(3)(4)NorthSouthNorthSouth GDR0.1110.09410.09130.108(4.00)(3.14)(2.93)(3.25)movedWest0.0312-0.0849(0.50)(-1.03)age0.05140.04560.0119+0.0136+(11.07)(10.24)(1.86)(1.95)age2-0.000444-0.000400-0.0000752-0.000108+(-10.17)(-9.54)(-1.30)(-1.73)male-0.156-0.0926-0.248-0.154(-6.10)(-3.54)(-7.54)(-4.59)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesYesMaritalstatusYesYesDummy2009YesYes N16834168621509015329R20.0530.0500.0770.062 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2009(mainsample),andclustersubjectsaccordingtotheirplaceofresidence.Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedscoreforthepersonalitytraitathand.SouthGermanyincludesBavaria,Baden-Wuerttemberg,Hesse,Rhineland-Palatinate,Saarland,Saxony,andThuringia.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0152 Table25:NeuroticismandGDRtreatment:North/South (1)(2)(3)(4)NorthSouthNorthSouth GDR0.1190.1340.1240.0920(4.03)(4.56)(3.89)(2.87)movedWest-0.140+-0.0860(-1.85)(-1.19)age0.001790.01340.01480.0247(0.45)(3.52)(2.34)(3.91)age2-0.0000226-0.000115-0.000174-0.000243(-0.59)(-3.14)(-3.10)(-4.38)male-0.372-0.389-0.318-0.333(-14.56)(-15.12)(-10.12)(-10.61)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesYesMaritalstatusYesYesDummy2009YesYes N16882169351513315391R20.0400.0490.1000.115 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2009(mainsample),andclustersubjectsaccordingtotheirplaceofresidence.Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedscoreforthepersonalitytraitathand.SouthGermanyincludesBavaria,Baden-Wuerttemberg,Hesse,Rhineland-Palatinate,Saarland,Saxony,andThuringia.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0153 Table26:OpennessandGDRtreatment:North/South (1)(2)(3)(4)NorthSouthNorthSouth GDR-0.0795-0.112-0.109-0.0316(-2.83)(-3.90)(-3.45)(-0.95)movedWest0.06720.000859(0.84)(0.01)age0.01610.01010.00732-0.00378(3.92)(2.41)(1.07)(-0.58)age2-0.000187-0.000127-0.000112+0.00000358(-4.71)(-3.17)(-1.78)(0.06)male-0.109-0.0934-0.158-0.0996(-4.31)(-3.59)(-4.73)(-3.06)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesYesMaritalstatusYesYesDummy2009YesYes N16806168561507415322R20.0420.0360.0730.073 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2009(mainsample),andclustersubjectsaccordingtotheirplaceofresidence.Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedscoreforthepersonalitytraitathand.SouthGermanyincludesBavaria,Baden-Wuerttemberg,Hesse,Rhineland-Palatinate,Saarland,Saxony,andThuringia.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0154 Table27:AgreeablenessandGDRtreatment:North/South (1)(2)(3)(4)NorthSouthNorthSouth GDR0.03540.0502+0.02790.0372(1.27)(1.74)(0.87)(1.13)movedWest0.02370.0183(0.33)(0.25)age-0.00458-0.01670.00286-0.0128(-1.01)(-4.41)(0.45)(-2.06)age20.00009320.0002170.00003920.000197(2.15)(5.99)(0.69)(3.54)male-0.328-0.333-0.284-0.260(-12.66)(-12.85)(-8.72)(-8.07)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesYesMaritalstatusYesYesDummy2009YesYes N16896169181514115373R20.0400.0480.0610.067 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2009(mainsample),andclustersubjectsaccordingtotheirplaceofresidence.Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedscoreforthepersonalitytraitathand.SouthGermanyincludesBavaria,Baden-Wuerttemberg,Hesse,Rhineland-Palatinate,Saarland,Saxony,andThuringia.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0155 Table28:ExtraversionandGDRtreatment:North/South (1)(2)(3)(4)NorthSouthNorthSouth GDR0.00260-0.0213-0.03210.0268(0.09)(-0.68)(-0.98)(0.75)movedWest0.1760.0717(2.25)(0.85)age0.000810-0.0119-0.0129-0.0276(0.20)(-2.93)(-2.00)(-4.29)age2-0.0000637+0.00005850.00004360.000178(-1.67)(1.51)(0.76)(3.10)male-0.178-0.166-0.222-0.155(-6.83)(-6.18)(-6.56)(-4.48)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesYesMaritalstatusYesYesDummy2009YesYes N16891169141513015376R20.0240.0250.0410.044 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2009(mainsample),andclustersubjectsaccordingtotheirplaceofresidence.Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedscoreforthepersonalitytraitathand.SouthGermanyincludesBavaria,Baden-Wuerttemberg,Hesse,Rhineland-Palatinate,Saarland,Saxony,andThuringia.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0156 Table29:PositiveReciprocityandGDRtreatment:North/South (1)(2)(3)(4)NorthSouthNorthSouth GDR0.0562-0.02200.04950.0247(2.03)(-0.68)(1.58)(0.65)movedWest0.01360.00312(0.19)(0.04)age0.01230.01340.006150.0000535(3.04)(3.16)(1.02)(0.01)age2-0.0000990-0.000113-0.0000585-0.0000203(-2.65)(-2.78)(-1.10)(-0.32)male0.04160.003200.0106-0.0426(1.62)(0.12)(0.34)(-1.22)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesYesMaritalstatusYesYesDummy2010YesYes N16275163071455814758R20.0060.0040.0130.014 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2010(mainsample),andclustersubjectsaccordingtotheirplaceofresidence.Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedscoreforthepersonalitytraitathand.SouthGermanyincludesBavaria,Baden-Wuerttemberg,Hesse,Rhineland-Palatinate,Saarland,Saxony,andThuringia.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0157 Table30:NegativeReciprocityandGDRtreatment:North/South (1)(2)(3)(4)NorthSouthNorthSouth GDR0.0594+0.02230.0672+0.00376(1.90)(0.76)(1.94)(0.11)movedWest-0.110-0.114+(-1.51)(-1.81)age-0.00913-0.005210.00231-0.00403(-2.25)(-1.35)(0.34)(-0.67)age20.0000108-0.0000340-0.0000959-0.0000737(0.28)(-0.94)(-1.61)(-1.38)male0.2820.2650.2580.250(10.78)(10.11)(7.94)(7.78)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesYesMaritalstatusYesYesDummy2010YesYes N16224162871452414739R20.0440.0440.0700.064 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2010(mainsample),andclustersubjectsaccordingtotheirplaceofresidence.Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedscoreforthepersonalitytraitathand.SouthGermanyincludesBavaria,Baden-Wuerttemberg,Hesse,Rhineland-Palatinate,Saarland,Saxony,andThuringia.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0158 Table31:ProtestantStatesonly (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)LOCNeuroticismConscientiousnessOpennessAgreeablenessExtraversionPosRecNegRec GDR-0.1800.1360.115-0.1400.00480-0.0443-0.01050.0682(-6.58)(4.87)(4.25)(-5.26)(0.17)(-1.61)(-0.38)(2.37)movedWestage-0.005110.002190.03650.0202-0.0100-0.00754+0.01030.00133(-1.12)(0.47)(8.14)(4.61)(-2.14)(-1.71)(2.25)(0.29)age20.0000587-0.0000199-0.000305-0.0002170.0001480.0000142-0.0000814+-0.0000832+(1.40)(-0.47)(-7.22)(-5.27)(3.38)(0.35)(-1.91)(-1.92)male0.0717-0.404-0.121-0.106-0.337-0.1620.06720.279(2.66)(-14.73)(-4.62)(-4.07)(-12.43)(-6.04)(2.47)(10.16)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes N1446315355153061530515348153481469114676R20.0170.0510.0350.0470.0450.0230.0050.043 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005,2009,and2010(mainsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedscorefortherespectivepersonality.WedonotincludetheCatholicstates:Bavaria,Baden-Wuerttemberg,Northrhine-Westfalia,Rhineland-Palatinate,andSaarland.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareused.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:01 59 Table32:LocusofControlandGDRtreatment:GDR-statesinteractions (1)(2) GDR-0.123-0.0973(-4.71)(-3.43)GDRBerlin0.197+0.247(1.87)(2.30)GDRBrandenburg-0.0175-0.0111(-0.28)(-0.17)GDRSaxony-0.119-0.0635(-2.54)(-1.33)GDRSaxony-Anhalt-0.002140.0791(-0.03)(1.30)GDRMecklenburgWesternPomerania0.1520.188(2.23)(2.74)GDRThuringia-0.0666-0.00749(-1.03)(-0.11)movedWest0.135(2.77)age-0.00223-0.0285(-0.79)(-6.38)age20.00003300.000254(1.23)(6.26)male0.0826-0.000369(4.50)(-0.02)ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesParentaleducationYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesMaritalstatusYesDummy2010Yes N3194528793R20.0140.087 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2010(mainsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedscoreforlocusofcontrol.Specication1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2010.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareapplied.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0160 Table33:ConscientiousnessandGDRtreatment:GDR-statesinteractions (1)(2) GDR0.1030.102(4.17)(3.82)GDRBerlin-0.02850.00763(-0.32)(0.08)GDRBrandenburg0.02110.0124(0.33)(0.18)GDRSaxony-0.0582-0.0793+(-1.24)(-1.66)GDRSaxony-Anhalt-0.01960.00450(-0.31)(0.07)GDRMecklenburgWesternPomerania0.2050.170(2.80)(2.31)GDRThuringia-0.0000940-0.00323(-0.00)(-0.06)movedWest-0.0285(-0.54)age0.04880.0131(15.10)(2.74)age2-0.000424-0.0000916(-13.94)(-2.13)male-0.127-0.204(-6.92)(-8.58)ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesParentaleducationYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesMaritalstatusYesDummy2009Yes N3369630419R20.0490.065 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2009(mainsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedcon-scientiousnessscore.Specication1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2009.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareapplied.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0161 Table34:NeuroticismandGDRtreatment:GDR-statesinteractions (1)(2) GDR0.09470.0927(3.61)(3.36)GDRBerlin0.1470.0830(1.51)(0.82)GDRBrandenburg0.0982+0.0499(1.74)(0.87)GDRSaxony0.07340.0148(1.61)(0.32)GDRSaxony-Anhalt0.105+0.0265(1.84)(0.47)GDRMecklenburgWesternPomerania0.02290.0351(0.31)(0.47)GDRThuringia0.07070.0230(1.26)(0.40)movedWest-0.101+(-1.92)age0.007430.0200(2.68)(4.42)age2-0.0000681-0.000210(-2.57)(-5.28)male-0.379-0.324(-20.83)(-14.42)ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesParentaleducationYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesMaritalstatusYesDummy2009Yes N3381730524R20.0430.103 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2009(mainsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedneuroticismscore.Specication1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2009.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareapplied.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0162 Table35:OpennessandGDRtreatment:GDR-statesinteractions (1)(2) GDR-0.111-0.0875(-4.54)(-3.24)GDRBerlin0.07800.0459(0.81)(0.55)GDRBrandenburg0.00123-0.0234(0.02)(-0.37)GDRSaxony0.0126-0.000346(0.27)(-0.01)GDRSaxony-Anhalt0.03890.0341(0.61)(0.54)GDRMecklenburgWesternPomerania0.05460.0668(0.78)(0.94)GDRThuringia0.08330.1000+(1.51)(1.80)movedWest0.0421(0.74)age0.01310.00187(4.43)(0.39)age2-0.000156-0.0000540(-5.51)(-1.25)male-0.102-0.127(-5.57)(-5.39)ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesParentaleducationYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesMaritalstatusYesDummy2009Yes N3366230396R20.0370.069 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2009(mainsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedopennessscore.Specication1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2009.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareapplied.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0163 Table36:ExtraversionandGDRtreatment:GDR-statesinteractions (1)(2) GDR-0.0103-0.00735(-0.39)(-0.25)GDRBerlin0.1090.0928(0.98)(0.91)GDRBrandenburg-0.110-0.130(-1.64)(-2.00)GDRSaxony-0.0627-0.0490(-1.26)(-0.94)GDRSaxony-Anhalt0.02880.0406(0.45)(0.61)GDRMecklenburgWesternPomerania0.00557-0.0199(0.07)(-0.23)GDRThuringia0.1740.199(2.84)(3.14)movedWest0.123(2.06)age-0.00535+-0.0201(-1.86)(-4.40)age2-0.000004240.000110(-0.16)(2.71)male-0.173-0.189(-9.20)(-7.78)ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesParentaleducationYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesMaritalstatusYesDummy2009Yes N3380530506R20.0240.041 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2009(mainsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedextraver-sionscore.Specication1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2009.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareapplied.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0164 Table37:AgreeablenessandGDRtreatment:GDR-statesinteractions (1)(2) GDR0.04940.0480+(2.05)(1.77)GDRBerlin0.02560.0484(0.26)(0.53)GDRBrandenburg-0.0466-0.0642(-0.77)(-0.98)GDRSaxony-0.0457-0.0584(-0.97)(-1.18)GDRSaxony-Anhalt0.04140.0413(0.74)(0.70)GDRMecklenburgWesternPomerania0.08580.0444(1.39)(0.68)GDRThuringia-0.0692-0.0974(-1.20)(-1.64)movedWest0.0178(0.34)age-0.0109-0.00542(-3.65)(-1.21)age20.0001570.000121(5.49)(3.03)male-0.330-0.272(-17.99)(-11.76)ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesParentaleducationYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesMaritalstatusYesDummy2009Yes N3381430514R20.0420.061 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2009(mainsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedagree-ablenessscore.Specication1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2009.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareapplied.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0165 Table38:PositivereciprocityandGDRtreatment:GDR-statesinteractions (1)(2) GDR0.03840.0578+(1.46)(1.95)GDRBerlin-0.0567-0.0677(-0.68)(-0.78)GDRBrandenburg-0.122+-0.131+(-1.87)(-1.93)GDRSaxony-0.0132-0.000380(-0.27)(-0.01)GDRSaxony-Anhalt-0.0698-0.0711(-1.15)(-1.13)GDRMecklenburgWesternPomerania-0.00742-0.0271(-0.11)(-0.41)GDRThuringia-0.116+-0.111(-1.66)(-1.52)movedWest-0.000979(-0.02)age0.01270.00336(4.34)(0.72)age2-0.000105-0.0000420(-3.81)(-1.01)male0.0230-0.0124(1.23)(-0.52)ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesParentaleducationYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesMaritalstatusYesDummy2010Yes N3258229316R20.0040.011 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2010(mainsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizedpositivereciprocityscore.Specication1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2010.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareapplied.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0166 Table39:NegativereciprocityandGDRtreatment:GDR-statesinteractions (1)(2) GDR0.02200.0201(0.81)(0.66)GDRBerlin-0.185-0.167+(-2.10)(-1.81)GDRBrandenburg0.05090.0625(0.84)(1.00)GDRSaxony0.02400.0224(0.51)(0.45)GDRSaxony-Anhalt0.2430.196(3.90)(3.17)GDRMecklenburgWesternPomerania-0.0287-0.0796(-0.40)(-1.14)GDRThuringia0.09770.0804(1.63)(1.30)movedWest-0.103(-2.10)age-0.00696-0.000439(-2.48)(-0.10)age2-0.0000140-0.0000883(-0.53)(-2.19)male0.2740.253(14.85)(11.02)ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesParentaleducationYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesMaritalstatusYesDummy2010Yes N3251129263R20.0430.064 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2010(mainsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Thedependentvariableisthestandardizednegativereciprocityscore.Specication1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2010.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareapplied.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0167 Thisconcludesthedetaileddescriptionofourrobustnesschecks.Inthenextsection,wewillpresentthedetailedregressionresultsfortheexplorationofsecret-servicesurveillanceasadriverofdierencesinpersonality.68 SecretserviceinltrationTable40:Locusofcontrolandsurveillanceintensity:Continuousmeasureforintensity (1)(2)(3)(4)Spec1Spec2Spec1Spec2 IM-0.02672+-0.03269(-1.71)(-2.05)IM&publiccollaborators-0.01852-0.02377+(-1.50)(-1.92)movedWest0.2940.305(2.59)(2.66)age0.01080.007590.01160.00677(1.37)(0.57)(1.42)(0.49)age2-0.000133+-0.000128-0.000139+-0.000126(-1.83)(-1.16)(-1.85)(-1.13)male-0.0224-0.01220.00134-0.000572(-0.45)(-0.22)(0.03)(-0.01)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesYesMaritalstatusYesYesDummy2010YesYes N3861356036273357R20.0430.1050.0490.113 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2010(EastGermanworkingsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Specication1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2010.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareapplied.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0169 Table41:Negativereciprocityandsurveillanceintensity:Continuousmeasureforintensity (1)(2)(3)(4)Spec1Spec2Spec1Spec2 IM0.03390.02369(2.09)(1.46)IM&publiccollaborators0.033780.02785(2.64)(2.19)movedWest-0.255-0.274(-2.28)(-2.44)age-0.0133+-0.0135-0.0136-0.0101(-1.67)(-0.90)(-1.62)(-0.65)age20.0000269-0.00001380.0000225-0.0000363(0.36)(-0.12)(0.29)(-0.29)male0.3600.3320.3440.327(7.35)(6.17)(6.77)(5.89)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesYesMaritalstatusYesYesDummy2010YesYes N3911359936753395R20.0770.1060.0820.110 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2010(EastGermanworkingsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Specication1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2010.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareapplied.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0170 Table42:Locusofcontrolandsurveillanceintensity:Dummyvariableforintensity (1)(2)(3)(4)Spec1Spec2Spec1Spec2 DummyIM-0.118-0.123(-1.99)(-2.10)DummyIM&publiccollaborators-0.117+-0.0903(-1.83)(-1.45)movedWest0.2840.285(2.53)(2.52)age0.01020.007570.01130.00665(1.30)(0.56)(1.39)(0.48)age2-0.000129+-0.000128-0.000137+-0.000126(-1.78)(-1.15)(-1.82)(-1.12)male-0.0235-0.0114-0.00195-0.00168(-0.47)(-0.20)(-0.04)(-0.03)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesYesMaritalstatusYesYesDummy2010YesYes N3861356036273357R20.0440.1060.0500.112 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2010(EastGermanworkingsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Specication1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2010.Thekeydummyvariableisequaltoonewhenthenumberofcollaboratorsinadistrictexceedsthemediannumberforalldistricts.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareapplied.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0171 Table43:Negativereciprocityandsurveillanceintensity:Dummyvariableforintensity (1)(2)(3)(4)Spec1Spec2Spec1Spec2 DummyIM0.1150.0556(2.05)(1.00)DummyIM&publiccollaborators0.2220.169(3.68)(2.80)movedWest-0.246-0.252(-2.22)(-2.24)age-0.0127-0.0131-0.0132-0.0101(-1.59)(-0.88)(-1.59)(-0.66)age20.000022-0.0000180.0000202-0.0000325(0.29)(-0.15)(0.26)(-0.26)male0.3610.3320.3500.330(7.38)(6.16)(6.97)(5.99)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesYesMaritalstatusYesYesDummy2010YesYes N3911359936753395R20.0780.1050.0860.113 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom2005and2010(EastGermanworkingsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Specication1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2010.Thekeydummyvariableisequaltoonewhenthenumberofcollaboratorsinadistrictexceedsthemediannumberforalldistricts.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareapplied.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0172 Table44:LocusofcontrolandinteractionsofsurveillanceintensityandcontactstoFRGcitizens (1)(2)(3)(4)Spec1Spec2Spec1Spec2 IM-0.02095-0.02365(-1.35)(-1.52)IM&publiccollaborators-0.01397-0.01732(-1.13)(-1.41)movedWest0.2810.301(2.56)(2.67)age0.009700.005680.01030.00475(1.24)(0.42)(1.27)(0.35)age2-0.00012+-0.000105-0.000123+-0.000101(-1.67)(-0.96)(-1.65)(-0.91)male-0.0214-0.01840.00183-0.00721(-0.43)(-0.33)(0.04)(-0.13)transferwithoutvaluestated-0.0519-0.03360.01850.000569(-0.63)(-0.42)(0.22)(0.01)valueoftransfers0.000260.000384+0.0001930.000295+(1.37)(1.82)(1.18)(1.70)IMvalueoftransfer-0.0000721+-0.000101(-1.96)(-2.47)IM&publiccollaboratorstransfervalue-0.0000517+-0.0000729(-1.85)(-2.47)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesYesMaritalstatusYesYesDummy2010YesYes N3861356036273357R20.0510.1180.0560.125 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom1990,2005,and2010(EastGermanworkingsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Specication1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2010.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareapplied.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0173 Table45:ConscientiousnessandinteractionsofsurveillanceintensityandcontactstoFRGcitizens (1)(2)(3)(4)Spec1Spec2Spec1Spec2 IM-0.0167-0.01757(-1.02)(-1.08)IM&publiccollaborators-0.011-0.01228(-0.87)(-0.98)movedWest0.3510.360(3.59)(3.62)age0.06430.0200.06670.0241(7.61)(1.20)(7.58)(1.41)age2-0.000587-0.000256+-0.000602-0.000280(-7.29)(-1.89)(-7.21)(-2.01)male-0.224-0.324-0.228-0.321(-4.36)(-5.21)(-4.25)(-4.93)transferwithoutvaluestated-0.142+-0.141+-0.101-0.118(-1.84)(-1.74)(-1.17)(-1.30)valueoftransfers-0.000751-0.000664+-0.000643+-0.00055(-2.00)(-1.83)(-1.80)(-1.60)IMvalueoftransfer0.0001540.000136+(2.13)(1.95)IM&publiccollaboratorstransfervalue0.000116+0.0000988+(1.93)(1.72)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesYesMaritalstatusYesYesDummy2009YesYes N4030373337913523R20.0850.1180.0830.116 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom1990,2005,and2009(EastGermanworkingsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Specication1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2009.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareapplied.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0174 Table46:NegativereciprocityandinteractionsofsurveillanceintensityandcontactstoFRGcitizens (1)(2)(3)(4)Spec1Spec2Spec1Spec2 IM0.034250.02248(2.08)(1.37)IM&publiccollaborators0.032870.02590(2.52)(2.00)movedWest-0.257-0.277(-2.29)(-2.45)age-0.0135+-0.0136-0.0136-0.0100(-1.69)(-0.91)(-1.63)(-0.65)age20.0000313-0.00001210.0000252-0.0000358(0.41)(-0.10)(0.32)(-0.29)male0.3620.3330.3470.328(7.39)(6.18)(6.84)(5.91)transferwithoutvaluestated-0.0144-0.0479-0.0545-0.0819(-0.19)(-0.65)(-0.69)(-1.05)valueoftransfers-0.000094-0.0000841-0.000121-0.000119(-0.58)(-0.49)(-0.84)(-0.79)IMvalueoftransfer0.000008830.0000128(0.28)(0.39)IM&publiccollaboratorstransfervalue0.00001220.0000169(0.50)(0.66)Additionalcontrols?ChildhoodtownsizeYesYesYesYesParentaleducationYesYesYesYesEducation,healthstatus,andnetincomeYesYesEmploymentstatus&historyYesYesMaritalstatusYesYesDummy2010YesYes N3911359936753395R20.0790.1070.0840.111 Notes:WeuseSOEPdatafrom1990,2005,and2010(EastGermanworkingsample).Parameterestimatesarefromordinaryleastsquaresspecications.Specication1includesallcovariatesfromtheupperpartofTable2exceptformovedWest.Specication2includesallcovariatesinTable2andadummyfortheyear2010.Robuststandarderrorsareclusteredattheindividuallevel.SOEPweightsareapplied.tstatisticsinparentheses;+p0:10,p0:05,p0:0175

SOEPpaperson Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research - PDF document

SOEPpaperson Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research - PPT Presentation

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Related Contents