Work as a Means of Securing One’s Livelihood Scale

1. Abstract

The Work as a Means of Securing One’s Livelihood Scale (German: Skala „Arbeit als Mittel zur Existenzsicherung“) is a 9-item psychometric instrument developed by Arthur Fischer and Heinz-Ulrich Kohr in 1980 at the Social Science Institute of the German Armed Forces (Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut der Bundeswehr, SOWI). Designed within a comprehensive research program examining central work perceptions of employed individuals (Zentrale Arbeitsperzeptionen Berufstätiger), the scale quantifies the extent to which an individual conceptualizes gainful employment predominantly as an instrumental vehicle for financial compensation, material subsistence, and economic security, rather than as an intrinsic source of personal fulfillment, social status, or self-actualization. Developed in conjunction with scales assessing socio-political attitudes—most notably workplace authority and decision-making power (Verfügungsgewalt)—the scale captures an instrumental orientation toward labor that theoretically emerges from occupational subordination, lack of autonomy, and perceived external determination.

The scale comprises nine items evaluated on a 5-point Likert response format ranging from 1 („unzutreffend“ / not applicable) to 5 („zutreffend“ / applicable), with three negatively worded (reverse-scored) statements and a documented 6-item short-form version for survey research. Psychometric evaluations conducted on a representative nationwide adult sample of the Federal Republic of Germany (N = 2,505; surveyed in March 1976) demonstrated acceptable internal consistency, with a reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of α = .75. Corrected item-total correlations range from .15 to .58. Simultaneous exploratory factor analyses across the broader battery of work perception dimensions revealed moderate factor complexity, reflecting empirical cross-loadings with related constructs such as subordinate workplace status and work alienation. The instrument provides normative distribution quartiles and item-level central tendencies for occupational, organizational, and sociological inquiries into worker motivation, extrinsic incentive structures, socioeconomic precarity, and the subjective meaning of work.

2. Keywords

Work as a Means of Securing One’s Livelihood Scale, Existenzsicherung, instrumental work orientation, work values, extrinsic work motivation, employee perceptions, German Armed Forces Social Science Institute, Arthur Fischer, Heinz-Ulrich Kohr, workplace subordination, industrial sociology, psychometrics.

3. Authors

The Work as a Means of Securing One’s Livelihood Scale was conceptualized and authored by Arthur Fischer and Dr. Heinz-Ulrich Kohr (1980). The scale was developed within a broader empirical collaborative project involving social scientists Ekkehart Lippert, Roland Wakenhut, Fritz-Felix Zelinka, and Ralf Zoll, who collectively investigated the interface between work experiences, occupational hierarchies, and socio-political attitudes in West Germany.

Primary Institutional Affiliation:
Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut der Bundeswehr (SOWI)
[Social Science Institute of the German Armed Forces]
Winzererstraße 52, 80797 München, Federal Republic of Germany.

Contact Information for Scientific Inquiries:
Historical inquiries and documentation requests regarding the institutional research program may be directed to the successor institution, the Zentrum für Militärgeschichte und Sozialwissenschaften der Bundeswehr (ZMSBw), or through academic archives housing the SOWI research monographs.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Work as a Means of Securing One’s Livelihood Scale is to provide a standardized, psychometrically grounded measurement of an employee’s instrumental orientation toward labor. In organizational psychology and industrial sociology, scholars have long debated whether work functions primarily as a psychological anchor for identity and self-realization or as an extrinsic utility function designed solely to extract financial capital required for physical survival, material consumption, and personal life outside the workplace. This scale was explicitly engineered to assess the latter orientation: the psychological framing of employment under the singular lens of monetary acquisition (Gelderwerb) and economic safeguarding (Existenzsicherung).

Understanding this construct is critical for both basic social science and applied industrial contexts. From a theoretical perspective, Fischer and Kohr (1980) argued that adult socio-political attitudes, democratic participation, ideological stances, and institutional trust cannot be adequately conceptualized or modeled without understanding the day-to-day realities of the occupational sphere. Because gainful employment occupies the majority of an adult’s waking life, the structural conditions of the workplace—specifically hierarchical dependence, the division of labor, and the presence or absence of self-direction—serve as a primary socialization arena. When individuals experience substantial workplace subordination, external determination (Fremdbestimmtheit), and lack of substantive influence over production processes, they are hypothesized to detach their psychological identity from the task itself. Under such sociostructural constraints, the subjective justification for enduring daily labor collapses into economic necessity: work is tolerated solely because it secures one’s material existence.

In applied research, the instrument serves several diagnostic and analytical purposes:

• Occupational Health and Well-Being Research: The scale enables researchers to assess how an exclusively instrumental orientation interacts with psychological strain, job burnout, and somatic complaints. Workers who perceive their work merely as a monetary necessity often exhibit lower affective organizational commitment and heightened vulnerability to stress when economic compensation is perceived as inequitable.
• Industrial Relations and Compensation Studies: Organizations and labor economists use the scale to explore the relative efficacy of financial incentives versus non-monetary motivators (e.g., job enrichment, task autonomy, supportive leadership). For cohorts scoring exceptionally high on this scale, financial remuneration represents the primary vehicle of perceived fairness and professional recognition.
• Sociological Analyses of Social Stratification: Sociologists deploy the instrument to study differences across socio-economic strata, contrasting blue-collar assembly workers, service-sector personnel, and white-collar professionals. It provides empirical verification for classic sociological hypotheses regarding the „affluent worker“ and proletarian instrumentalism.
• Longitudinal Studies of Occupational Transitions: Applied psychologists utilize the tool to evaluate how macro-economic precarity, high inflation, or structural labor market changes shift personal value orientations from intrinsic self-actualization toward subsistence-focused instrumentality.

5. Psychological Construct

The focal construct captured by this instrument is Existenzsicherung (safeguarding one’s livelihood), specifically operationalized as an instrumental work orientation centered on financial remuneration and monetary compensation. In the taxonomy of occupational psychology, work orientations reflect an individual’s generalized cognitive schema and normative expectations regarding the purpose, meaning, and subjective value of labor.

The construct encompasses several interrelated psychological facets:

• Primacy of Monetary Acquisition over Task Content: At the core of the construct is the cognitive prioritization of wage earning over the intrinsic qualities of the work itself. Individuals with high levels of this construct endorse beliefs such as working solely for the paycheck and state that task characteristics, occupational prestige, or intellectual challenge are secondary or negligible factors. For instance, Item 9 („Mich interessiert bei meiner Arbeit eigentlich nur, wie viel Geld ich verdiene“ / „In my work, I am really only interested in how much money I earn“) embodies this total reduction of work to monetary extraction.
• Remuneration as the Definitive Metric of Recognition: The construct taps the psychological equating of self-worth and occupational validation with financial reward. Rather than seeking praise from peers, social impact, or mastery milestones, the individual views the size of the paycheck as the sole genuine acknowledgment of effort, as measured by Item 3 („Eine gute Bezahlung ist die beste Anerkennung für meine Arbeit“ / „Good pay is the best recognition for my work“).
• Willingness to Perform Undesirable Labor for Financial Compensation: A behavioral component of the construct involves the expressed willingness to perform almost any type of task provided the remuneration meets personal expectations. Item 2 („Für gute Bezahlung arbeite ich fast alles“ / „For good pay, I would do almost any kind of work“) directly gauges the degree to which financial incentives override intrinsic task aversion or vocational preferences.
• Subordination of Workplace Working Conditions to Financial Return: The construct entails an explicit trade-off calculation where physical, temporal, or social working conditions are deemed subordinate to pecuniary gain. High scorers reject the notion that a comfortable, collaborative, or safe work environment can compensate for lower pay, as reflected in the reverse-scored Item 8 („Meine Arbeitsbedingungen sind mir wichtiger als die Bezahlung“ / „My working conditions are more important to me than the pay“).
• Direct Linear Linkage Between Earnings and Subjective Well-Being: The construct operationalizes a psychological model of job satisfaction that is strictly dependent on earnings. As expressed in Item 5 („Je mehr Geld ich mit meiner Arbeit verdiene, desto zufriedener bin ich“ / „The more money I earn with my work, the more satisfied I am“), satisfaction is not derived from achievement, affiliation, or autonomy, but from the magnitude of financial input into the worker’s private life.

Crucially, the construct is not conceptualized as a characterological flaw or innate personality trait; rather, Fischer and Kohr (1980) formulated it as a reactive cognitive adaptation to the structural realities of modern employment. When an employee operates in an environment characterized by low complexity, high standardization, strict hierarchical supervision, and an absence of decision-making authority, seeking intrinsic fulfillment within the workplace becomes psychologically maladaptive or impossible. Consequently, the worker reorients expectations: the workplace is cognitively categorized as a purely instrumental zone, and emotional energy is reserved for the private, non-work sphere sustained by the wage.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework underpinning the Work as a Means of Securing One’s Livelihood Scale synthesizes several foundational traditions across industrial and organizational psychology, critical sociology, and motivational theory.

The SOWI Socio-Political Socialization Model

Fischer and Kohr (1980), alongside colleagues Lippert, Wakenhut, Zelinka, and Zoll, developed this instrument as part of a larger theoretical model examining the connection between structural workplace experiences and socio-political consciousness. They posited that societal attitudes—such as democratic engagement, authoritarianism, and political cynicism—cannot be studied in isolation from the workplace. The authors established a battery of five central work perception dimensions:

1. Perception of Subordinate Function (Untergebenenfunktion): The degree to which workers perceive themselves as subject to external directives, administrative authority, and structural powerlessness.
2. Perception of Superior/Supervisory Function (Vorgesetztenfunktion): The extent to which workers hold managerial, directive, or evaluative authority over others.
3. Internalization of Work Norms (Internalisierung von Arbeitsnormen): The moral adoption of traditional work ethics, including dutifulness, conscientiousness, and organizational loyalty as intrinsic societal goods.
4. Work as a Means of Securing One’s Livelihood (Arbeit als Mittel zur Existenzsicherung): The reduction of work to an instrumental vehicle for monetary survival and economic consumption.
5. Alienation from Work (Entfremdung von der Arbeit): The perceived meaninglessness of daily tasks and the subjective disconnect between personal values and occupational activities.

A central theoretical hypothesis formulated by Fischer and Kohr (1980, p. 123) is that an instrumental orientation is functionally correlated with the perception of working in a subordinate role. Structural dependence, strict adherence to orders (Weisungsgebundenheit), and heteronomy (Fremdbestimmtheit) serve as direct antecedents. Deprived of agency, subordinate employees adopt an instrumental mindset as a psychological coping mechanism to maintain cognitive consistency and protect self-esteem.

Sociological Instrumentalism: The Affluent Worker Paradigm

The scale directly operationalizes the sociological concept of instrumental work orientation famously described by British industrial sociologists John Goldthorpe, David Lockwood, Frank Bechhofer, and Jennifer Platt (1968) in their seminal study The Affluent Worker: Industrial Attitudes and Behaviour. Goldthorpe and colleagues challenged the assumption that manual workers necessarily experienced subjective alienation as psychological despair. Instead, they demonstrated that modern manufacturing workers frequently adopt a calculated, pragmatic stance: work is viewed neither as an arena for social solidarity nor as an avenue for intrinsic self-expression, but as an „instrument“ to fund a comfortable, domestic, family-centered lifestyle. Fischer and Kohr’s operationalization translates this sociological typology into a quantitative psychometric scale suited for general population surveys.

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory and Self-Determination Theory

From the vantage point of psychological motivation theory, the construct aligns with Frederick Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory (1959). In Herzberg’s terminology, salary and working conditions represent „hygiene factors“—extrinsic elements that prevent dissatisfaction but do not inherently provide positive, self-sustaining motivation or self-actualization. High scores on the Existenzsicherung scale reflect a profile where hygiene factors have completely superseded „motivators“ (such as achievement, recognition for mastery, and personal growth) in guiding the individual’s cognitive appraisal of employment.

Similarly, through the lens of modern Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000), the scale captures extreme external regulation—the lowest point on the self-determination continuum within extrinsic motivation. Activities are performed entirely to satisfy an external demand or obtain an externally mediated contingent reward (money), accompanied by low perceived autonomy and an external perceived locus of causality.

7. Validity

In the primary publication documenting the instrument (Fischer & Kohr, 1980), explicit criterion-related or predictive validation studies with external behavioral metrics were not formally reported by the authors. Nonetheless, the development program and the underlying representative survey dataset provide substantial evidence regarding structural, convergent, and content validity.

Content and Face Validity

Content validity was established through systematic conceptual derivation from the socio-political attitude battery developed by SOWI researchers, specifically mirroring and complementing the items from the „Disposal and Authority Power“ (Verfügungsgewalt) scale. The item pool was reviewed by a multidisciplinary team of sociologists, political scientists, and psychometricians (Lippert, Wakenhut, Zelinka, and Zoll) to ensure comprehensive coverage of the monetary acquisition facet of work. The nine items exhibit high face validity, as each item directly probes personal attitudes toward earnings, working conditions versus remuneration, and the willingness to accept undesirable jobs for high wages.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is primarily substantiated by the pattern of intercorrelations observed among the five subscales of the central work perception battery:

• Association with Subordinate Role Perception: Consistent with theoretical deductions, the Existenzsicherung scale correlates significantly and positively with the Perception of Subordinate Function (Untergebenenfunktion). Individuals who perceive their workplace daily life as dictated by superiors and devoid of personal authority display markedly elevated scores on the livelihood-securing scale.
• Inverse Association with Work Norm Internalization: The scale displays negative to negligible correlations with the Internalization of Work Norms scale. Workers who view labor purely as a mechanism for monetary extraction tend not to endorse societal ideologies celebrating work as an intrinsically moral or patriotic duty.
• Relationship with Alienation from Work: Moderate positive associations were observed with the Alienation from Work (Entfremdung von der Arbeit) scale. Individuals who perceive their daily tasks as devoid of broader social or existential purpose simultaneously report that financial compensation is the only remaining reason for continued employment.

Discriminant and Dimensional Validity

While the scale captures a distinct ideological facet of labor, empirical analyses revealed that the items do not behave in complete statistical independence from the neighboring dimensions. In a simultaneous factor analysis conducted across the short-form versions of all five work perception scales, items designed for the Existenzsicherung dimension demonstrated minor to moderate cross-loadings on factors representing subordinate status and general work alienation. This finding reflects the real-world sociological confounding of occupational precarity: workers who occupy lower rungs of corporate hierarchies simultaneously experience high subordination, high alienation, and strong instrumental monetary dependence.

8. Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Work as a Means of Securing One’s Livelihood Scale was rigorously evaluated within the original representative adult population survey of West Germany conducted in March 1976 (N = 2,505).

Internal Consistency

The scale demonstrates solid internal consistency across its 9 items. The global internal consistency coefficient, calculated using Cronbach’s alpha, was established at:

α = .75

In classical test theory, an alpha coefficient of .75 for a 9-item scale administered within a broad, heterogeneous general population sample represents a satisfactory level of reliability for group-level sociological comparisons, exploratory research, and organizational diagnostic assessments. It confirms that despite the diverse linguistic formulations (including reverse-scored items), the items share substantial common variance attributable to the underlying construct of instrumental livelihood securing.

Item Discrimination and Corrected Item-Total Correlations

Item discrimination indices were evaluated using corrected item-total correlations (part-whole corrected correlation of each item with the total scale score excluding that item). Across the nine items, the discrimination coefficients ranged from .15 to .58:

• Item 1: r_it-c = .32 (Negatively keyed; moderate discrimination)
• Item 2: r_it-c = .52 (Positively keyed; high discrimination; retained in short form)
• Item 3: r_it-c = .46 (Positively keyed; strong discrimination; retained in short form)
• Item 4: r_it-c = .47 (Positively keyed; strong discrimination; retained in short form)
• Item 5: r_it-c = .54 (Positively keyed; high discrimination; retained in short form)
• Item 6: r_it-c = .15 (Negatively keyed; low discrimination; omitted from short form)
• Item 7: r_it-c = .54 (Positively keyed; high discrimination; retained in short form)
• Item 8: r_it-c = .27 (Negatively keyed; weak-to-moderate discrimination; omitted from short form)
• Item 9: r_it-c = .58 (Positively keyed; highest discrimination; retained in short form)

The item discrimination analysis clearly demonstrates that the positively formulated items (Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9) possess the strongest psychometric properties, with discrimination coefficients consistently exceeding .45. These six items formed the empirically selected short form. Conversely, the three negatively keyed items (Items 1, 6, and 8) exhibited weaker discrimination coefficients, with Item 6 demonstrating an especially poor item-total correlation (.15), likely reflecting method variance associated with negative item wording and normative rejection of extreme willingness to perform repulsive work.

9. Factor Analysis

The dimensional structure of the scale was scrutinized as part of the broader factor-analytic examination of Fischer and Kohr’s five work perception scales. In the initial psychometric reporting, single-scale unidimensionality was not tested via independent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); instead, the authors performed a simultaneous exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on the short-form versions of all five work perception constructs.

Simultaneous Factor Structure

The simultaneous factor extraction across the entire battery was designed to evaluate whether the theoretically postulated five dimensions could be empirically separated into distinct latent factors. The analysis revealed that while a dominant latent dimension corresponding to „Work as a Means of Securing One’s Livelihood“ emerged, the empirical structure exhibited notable factor complexity:

• Target Loadings: All six short-form items (Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9) loaded substantially on their intended primary factor, confirming that the core concept of monetary acquisition forms a coherent statistical entity.
• Cross-Loadings: Almost all items exhibited non-negligible secondary loadings on foreign dimensions (Fremddimensionen). In particular, items such as Item 7 („Im Grunde arbeite ich nur, um Geld zu verdienen“) and Item 9 („Mich interessiert bei meiner Arbeit eigentlich nur, wie viel Geld ich verdiene“) showed secondary associations with the latent factor of Alienation from Work (Entfremdung von der Arbeit).
• Theoretical Co-Variation: Rather than indicating measurement failure, these empirical cross-loadings underscore the ecological interconnectedness of the constructs. In a real-world labor market, viewing work purely as a means to secure an income is sociologically bound to feelings of alienation and hierarchical disempowerment. When an employee experiences severe workplace alienation, monetary remuneration becomes the single functional rationale for remaining in the position, causing the latent indicators of livelihood securing and alienation to covary.

Item Selection for the Short Form

To optimize structural clarity and psychometric efficiency, Fischer and Kohr selected the six highest-loading and highest-discriminating items to constitute the official 6-item short scale (Kurzskala). By removing the three negatively keyed items (Items 1, 6, and 8), the short form achieved higher internal homogeneity and reduced method artifacts related to reverse-scored response styles, making it particularly well suited for large-scale multi-topic demographic surveys where interview time is constrained.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Work as a Means of Securing One’s Livelihood Scale is designed as a standardized, self-report paper-and-pencil or computerized questionnaire. Below is a structured summary of its structural and administration parameters:

• Instrument Type: Standardized psychological self-report questionnaire / sociological rating scale.
• Target Population: Employed adults, wage earners, salaried employees, and civil servants across diverse economic sectors.
• Administration Format: Individual or group testing; self-administered questionnaire or structured face-to-face standardized interview.
• Item Inventory:
  • Full Scale: 9 items (6 positively formulated, 3 negatively formulated).
  • Short Scale (Kurzskala): 6 items (Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9; all positively formulated).
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type rating scale:
  • 1 = zutreffend [applicable / true]
  • 2 = eher zutreffend [somewhat applicable / rather true]
  • 3 = weder/noch [neither / neutral / undecided]
  • 4 = eher unzutreffend [somewhat inapplicable / rather untrue]
  • 5 = unzutreffend [inapplicable / untrue]
• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • Direct Item Scoring: In the original coding protocol of Fischer and Kohr, response categories were assigned numeric point values such that higher numerical scores reflect higher levels of the construct: zutreffend = 5 points, eher zutreffend = 4 points, weder/noch = 3 points, eher unzutreffend = 2 points, and unzutreffend = 1 point.
  • Reverse Scoring for Negatively Keyed Items: Items 1, 6, and 8 are formulated negatively relative to the construct („negativ im Sinne der Skala formuliert“). These items must be reversed prior to computing the total composite score (i.e., a raw score of 1 becomes 5, 2 becomes 4, 3 remains 3, 4 becomes 2, and 5 becomes 1).
  • Total Score Calculation (Full Scale): Summation of all 9 items (after reversing Items 1, 6, and 8). Theoretical score range: 9 to 45. Higher scores indicate a pronounced instrumental, livelihood-securing orientation toward work.
  • Total Score Calculation (Short Form): Summation of Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9. Theoretical score range: 6 to 30. No item reversal is required for the short form.

Normative Data and Distribution Parameters

Normative benchmarks were established based on the representative population sample of the Federal Republic of Germany (N = 2,505; surveyed in March 1976). The empirical distribution of the 9-item total scale score demonstrates balanced quartiles across the German workforce:

• 1st Quartile (Lowest Instrumentalism): Scale scores 9 to 24 (~25% of respondents)
• 2nd Quartile (Moderate-Low Instrumentalism): Scale scores 25 to 28 (~24% of respondents)
• 3rd Quartile (Moderate-High Instrumentalism): Scale scores 29 to 32 (~25% of respondents)
• 4th Quartile (Highest Instrumentalism): Scale scores 33 to 45 (~26% of respondents)

Item-level means (M) and standard deviations (SD) on the recoded 1-to-5 metric are summarized below:

• Item 1: M = 2.78, SD = 1.28
• Item 2: M = 2.88, SD = 1.40
• Item 3: M = 3.95, SD = 1.15
• Item 4: M = 3.60, SD = 1.31
• Item 5: M = 3.84, SD = 1.15
• Item 6: M = 2.15, SD = 1.27
• Item 7: M = 3.35, SD = 1.31
• Item 8: M = 2.92, SD = 1.20
• Item 9: M = 2.82, SD = 1.22

These values demonstrate that items emphasizing financial compensation as professional recognition (Item 3: M = 3.95) and earnings as a determinant of satisfaction (Item 5: M = 3.84) elicited the highest levels of endorsement in the general population, whereas extreme statements suggesting that an individual would perform virtually any distasteful task for money (Item 6: M = 2.15) were widely rejected.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Publication Year: The instrument was formally published in 1980, based on nationwide empirical survey data collected in March 1976.

Copyright and Licensing: The scale was developed under the auspices of the Social Science Institute of the German Armed Forces (Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut der Bundeswehr, SOWI) as part of publicly funded academic research in the Federal Republic of Germany. The scale items, scoring rules, and psychometric documentation are published in the open scientific literature for academic, non-commercial research and educational applications. Researchers may utilize the instrument in scientific surveys without payment of licensing fees, provided that appropriate academic attribution is accorded to Arthur Fischer and Heinz-Ulrich Kohr (1980).

Commercial Use: Any commercial deployment, inclusion within proprietary assessment software batteries, or commercial consulting application should be cleared through institutional copyright channels or successor defense social science institutes in Germany.

12. References

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Fischer, A., & Kohr, H.-U. (1980). Zentrale Arbeitsperzeptionen Berufstätiger. In E. Lippert, R. Wakenhut, & R. Zoll (Eds.), Arbeitsplatz Bundeswehr: Forschungsergebnisse des Sozialwissenschaftlichen Instituts der Bundeswehr (pp. 119–138). Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut der Bundeswehr.

Goldthorpe, J. H., Lockwood, D., Bechhofer, F., & Platt, J. (1968). The affluent worker: Industrial attitudes and behaviour. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511557989

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Kohr, H.-U. (1977). Zur Messung sozio-politischer Einstellungen: Skalenhandbuch zur empirischen Erfassung politischer Einstellungen in der Bundeswehr. SOWI-Arbeitsbericht, Nr. 12. Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut der Bundeswehr.

Lippert, E., Wakenhut, R., Zelinka, F.-F., & Zoll, R. (1978). Sozio-politische Einstellungen von Jugendlichen und jungen Erwachsenen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut der Bundeswehr.

Zoll, R., Lippert, E., & Rössler, T. (1981). Bundeswehr und Gesellschaft: Ein Wörterbuch. Westdeutscher Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-83594-9

13. Items of the Scale