Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Trust in Politicians—Understanding and Measuring the Perceived Trustworthiness of Specific Politicians and Politicians in General as Multidimensional Constructs

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Wahrnehmung – Persönlichkeit – Einstellungen

Part of the book series: Wahlen und politische Einstellungen ((WAPOEIN))

Abstract

Our chapter introduces theory-based measures for the assessment of trust in specific politicians and politicians in general. In Study 1 (N = 317), the dimensionality, reliability, and relatedness to other concepts of trustworthiness of specific German politicians and politicians in general are investigated. In Study 2 (N = 248), the prediction of our scales for voting behavior in the 2013 German national election is examined. The empirical results provide evidence that trustworthiness of a specific politician and all politicians, respectively, can be understood and measured as three-dimensional concepts comprising benevolence, integrity, and competence. Our results furthermore suggest that both scales are useful in the prediction of citizens’ voting decisions and electoral participation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 34.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aalberg, T. & Jenssen, A. T. (2007). Gender steoreotyping of political candidates. Nordicom Review, 28, 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2017-0198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alsamydai, M. J. & Al Khasawneh, M. H. (2013). Basic criteria for the success of the electoral candidates and their influence on voters’ selection decision. Advances in Management & Applied Economics, 3(3), 105–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumert, A., Halmburger, A., Rothmund, T., & Schemer, C. (2017). Everyday dynamics in generalized social and political trust. Journal of Research in Personality, 69, 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.04.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bélanger, E., & Nadeau, R. (2005). Political trust and the vote in multiparty elections: The canadian case. European Journal of Political Research, 44, 121–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2005.00221.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, W. L. (2001). News: The politics of illusion (4th ed.). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bente, G., Baptist, O., & Leuschner, H. (2012). To buy or not to buy: Influence of seller photos and reputation on buyer trust and purchase behavior. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 19, 762–777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.08.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishin, B. G., Stevens, D., & Wilson, C. (2006). Character counts? Honesty and fairness in election 2000. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfj016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bittner, A. (2011). Platform or Personality? The role of party leaders in elections. Oxford: Comparative Politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199595365.001.0001

  • Bligh, M. C., Schlehofer, M. M., Casad, B. J., & Gaffney, A. M. (2011). Competent enough, but would you vote for her? Gender stereotypes and media influences on perceptions of women politicians. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 560–597. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00781.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brambilla, M., & Leach, C. W. (2014). On the importance of being moral: The distinctive role of morality in social judgment. Social Cognition, 32, 397–408. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2014.32.4.397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brettschneider, F., Neller, K., & Anderson, C. (2006). Candidate images in the 2005 German national election. German Politics, 15(4), 481–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B. (1981). Ethnocentrism and its role in interpersonal trust. In M. G. Brewer & B. Collins (Eds.), Scientific inquiry in the social sciences (pp. 214–231). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundeswahlleiter (2013). Wahl zum 18. Deutschen Bundestag am 22. September 2013, Heft 3. Wiesbaden: Bundeswahlleiter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, S., & Hadi, A. S. (2012). Regression Analysis by Example (5th edition). Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk-taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa Lobo, M. (2014). Party dealingnment and leader effects. In M. Costa Lobo & J. Curtice (Eds.), Personality Politics? The role of leader evaluations in democratic elections (p. 148–167). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90177-d

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. C., Niemi, R. G., Silver, G. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12, 289–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00992337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the bias map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 62–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, B. A., & Elfring, T. (2010). How does Trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 535–549. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delli Carpini, M. X. & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, K. M. & Gimpel, J. G. (1997). Candidate character vs. the economy in the 1992 election. Political Behavior, 19(3), 177–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eder, C., & Katsanidou, A. (2015). When citizens lose faith: Political trust and political participation. In C. Eder (Ed.), Political trust and disenchantment with politics (pp. 83–108). Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: On predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1097. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.7.1097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, A. M., & Revelle, W. (2008). Survey and behavioral measurements of interpersonal trust. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1585–1593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.07.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Statistical Office of Germany (2015). Statistical Yearbook. Wiesbaden: Federal Statistical Office of Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Statistical Office of Germany (2014). Statistical Yearbook. Wiesbaden: Federal Statistical Office of Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Statistical Office of Germany (2012). Statistical Yearbook. Wiesbaden: Federal Statistical Office of Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funk, C. L. (1996). The impact of scandal on candidate evaluations: An experimental test of the role of candidate traits. Political Behavior, 18(1):1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funk, C. L. (1999). Bringing the candidate into models of candidate evaluation. The Journal of Politics, 61(3), 700–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GfK (2014). Trust in Professions 2014. Retrieved from http://www.gfk.com/Documents/Press-Releases/2014/GfK_Trust%20in%20Professions_e.pdf

  • Gleich, U. (1997). Parasoziale Interaktionen und Beziehungen von Fernsehzuschauern mit Personen auf dem Bildschirm. Ein theoretischer und empirischer Beitrag zum Konzept des Aktiven Rezipienten. Landau: VEP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent sexism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 115–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Halmburger, A., Rothmund, T., & Baumert, A. (2017, October 14). Supplementary material: Trust in politicians – Understanding and measuring the perceived trustworthiness of specific politicians and politicians in general as multidimensional constructs. Retrieved from osf.io/2gfpt

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, D. (2010). Trait voting in U.S. senate elections. American Politics Research, 38, 1102–1129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x10371298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, D. (2005). Candidate qualities trough a partisan lens: A theory of trait ownership. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 908–923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hetherington, M. J. (1998). The political relevance of political trust. The American Political Science Review, 92, 791–808. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffrichter, U. (2005). Parasoziale Beziehungen zu Politikern. Darmstadt: VDM Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, M. (2011). Why there is basically only one form of political trust. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 13, 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856x.2010.00447.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, K., McGrimmon, T., & Simpson, B. (2008). Sympathy and social order. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71, 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250807100406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J., Liviatan, I., van der Toorn, J., Ledgerwood, A., Mandisodza, A., & Nosek, B. (2011). System Justification: How do we know it’s motivated? In D. R. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 173–204). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, D. R. (1986). Presidential characteristics revisited. In R. R. Lau & D. O. Sears (Eds.), Political Cognition: The 19th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, A., Imhoff, R., Dotsch, R., Unkelbach, C., & Alves, H. (2016). The ABC of stereotypes about groups: Agency/socio-economic success, conservative-progressive Beliefs, and Communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 675–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A., & Kinder, D. R. (1990). Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review, 84, 497–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, R. R. (1986). Political schemata, candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. In R. R. Lau & D. O. Sears (Eds.), Political Cognition: The 19th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (p. 95–126). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B. & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people’s choice. How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leidecker, M., & Wilke, J. (2015). Langweilig? Wieso langweilig? Die Presseberichterstattung zur Bundestagswahl 2013 im Langzeitvergleich. In C. Holtz-Bacha (Ed.), Die Massenmedien im Wahlkampf (pp. 145–173). Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer, & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundmark, S., Gilljam, M., & Dahlberg, S. (2016). Measuring generalized trust. An examination of question wording and the number of scale points. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80, 26–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfv042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marien, S., & Hooghe, M. (2011). Does political trust matter? An empirical investigation into the relation between political trust and support for law compliance. European Journal of Political Research, 50(2), 267–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. H., Wattenberg, M. P., & Malanchuk, O. (1986). Schematic assessment of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review, 80, 521–540. https://doi.org/10.2307/1958272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondak, J. J. (1995). Competence, integrity, and the electoral success of congressional incumbents. The Journal of Politics, 57, 1043–1069. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondak, J. J., & Halperin, K. D. (2008). A framework for the study of personality in political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 335–362. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123408000173

  • Peterson, G., & Wrighton, J. M. (1998). Expression of distrust – Third party voting and cynicism in government. Political Behavior, 20, 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024891016072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platow, M. J., Foddy, M., Yamagishi, T., Lim, L., & Chow, A. (2012). Two experimental tests of trust in in-group strangers: The moderating role of common knowledge of group membership. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, T., & Aida, M. (2012). What does “Intending to vote” mean? HKS faculty research working paper series RWP12-056, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothmund, T., Baumert, A., & Zinkernagel, A. (2014). The German “Wutbürger” – How justice sensitivity accounts for individual differences in political engagement. Social Justice Research, 27, 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-014-0202-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American Psychologist, 26, 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32, 344–354. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24348410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sigelman, L., Sigelman, C. K., & Walkosz, B. (1992). The public and the paradox of leadership: An experimental analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 366–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern (2013). Peer Steinbrücks unaufhaltsamer Abstieg. Retrieved from http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/politikerranking-peer-steinbruecks-unaufhaltsamer-abstieg-3662292.html

  • Tanis, M., & Postmes, T. (2005). A social identity approach to trust: Interpersonal perception, group membership and trusting behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623–1626. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1110589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullrich, J. & Cohrs, J. C. (2007). Terrorism salience increases system justification: Experimental evidence. Social Justice Research, 20, 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0035-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vetter, A. & Maier, J. (2005). Mittendrin statt nur dabei? Politisches Wissen, politisches Interesse und politisches Kompetenzgefühl in Deutschland, 1994–2002. In O. W. Gabriel, J. W. Falter & H. Rattinger (Eds.), Wächst zusammen, was zusammengehört? Stabilität und Wandel politischer Einstellungen im wiedervereinigten Deutschland (p. 51–90). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wen, Z., Hau, K. T., & Marsh, H. W. (2004). Structural equation model testing: Cutoff criteria for goodness of fit indices and chi-square test. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 36, 186–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wojciszke, B., & Klusek, B. (1996). Moral and competence-related traits in political perception. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 27(4), 319–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 129–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02249397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zmerli, S., & Newton, K. (2008). Social trust and attitudes toward democracy. Public Opinion Quartlery, 72, 706–724. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn054

    Article  Google Scholar 

References for measures used in Studies 1 and 2

  • Baumert, A., Beierlein, C., Schmitt, M., Kemper, C. J., Kovaleva, A., Liebig, S., & Rammstedt, B. (2014). Measuring four perspectives of justice sensitivity with two items each. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 380–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.836526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohrs, J. C. & Asbrock, F. (2009). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and ethnic prejudice against threatening and competitive groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 270–289. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.545

  • Funke, F. (2005). The dimensionality of right-wing authoritarianism: Lessons from the dilemma between theory and measurement. Political Psychology, 26, 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00415.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffrichter, U. (2005). Parasoziale Beziehungen zu Politikern. Darmstadt: VDM Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J., Liviatan, I., van der Toorn, J., Ledgerwood, A., Mandisodza, A., & Nosek, B. (2011). System Justification: How do we know it’s motivated? In D. R. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 173–204). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto, L. & Bacherle, P. (2011). Politisches Interesse Kurzskala (PIKS) – Entwicklung und Validierung. Politische Psychologie, 1(1), 19−35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullrich, J. & Cohrs, J. C. (2007). Terrorism Salience increases System Justification: Experimental Evidence. Social Justice Research, 20, 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0035-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 129–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02249397

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany

    Anna Halmburger & Jürgen Maier

  2. Max-Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn, Germany

    Anna Baumert

  3. Friedrich-Schiller University, Jena, Germany

    Tobias Rothmund

Authors
  1. Anna Halmburger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tobias Rothmund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna Baumert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jürgen Maier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Halmburger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Abteilung Politikwissenschaft, Universität Koblenz-Landau, Campus Landau, Landau, Germany

    Evelyn Bytzek

  2. Forschungsbereich Militärsoziologie, Zentrum für Militärgeschichte und Sozialwissenschaften der Bundeswehr, Potsdam, Germany

    Markus Steinbrecher

  3. Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Ulrich Rosar

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material

See Table 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.

Table 9 List of variables assessed in Study 1. (References: Own content)
Full size table
Table 10 Correlations and Fisher z values for Perceived Trustworthiness of Specific Politicians (sToP), Perceived Trustworthiness of Politicians in General (gToP), and Sympathy with Specific Politicians in Study 1. (References: Own content)
Full size table
Table 11 Correlations and Fisher z values for Perceived Trustworthiness of Specific Politicians (sToP), Perceived Trustworthiness of Politicians in General (gToP), and Identification with Respective Parties in Study 1. (References: Own content)
Full size table
Table 12 Correlations and Fisher z values for Perceived Trustworthiness of Specific Politicians (sToP), Perceived Trustworthiness of Politicians in General (gToP), Generalized Trust in Others, Big Five Agreeableness, and Trust in the Political System in Study 1. (References: Own content)
Full size table
Table 13 List of variables assessed in Study 2. (References: Own content)
Full size table
Table 14 T-Tests between Drop-outs and Final Sample for Perceived Trustworthiness of Specific Politicians (sToP) and Perceived Trustworthiness of Politicians in General (gToP) in Study 2. (References: Own content)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Halmburger, A., Rothmund, T., Baumert, A., Maier, J. (2019). Trust in Politicians—Understanding and Measuring the Perceived Trustworthiness of Specific Politicians and Politicians in General as Multidimensional Constructs. In: Bytzek, E., Steinbrecher, M., Rosar, U. (eds) Wahrnehmung – Persönlichkeit – Einstellungen. Wahlen und politische Einstellungen. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21216-2_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21216-2_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-21215-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-21216-2

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation