The Digital Social Science Core Facility (DIGSSCORE) is an infrastructure for advanced social science data collection and multi-disciplinary research at the University of Bergen. DIGSSCORE extends the successful probability-based internet-panel which was established at the University of Bergen in 2012, The Norwegian Citizen Panel, and integrates it with a fully equipped on-site social science digital research lab, The Citizen Lab, from August 2016. The facility takes advantage of changes in technology and research methodology that combine to bring computer laboratory research and survey studies ever closer together. The Citizen Lab resides in Rosenbergsgaten 35, at the University of Bergen.

Submit Proposal

We accept proposals for survey experiments to be included in the Norwegian Citizen Panel. If/when your proposal is accepted, we will find a time for your experiment. The Citizen Panel will, as of 2017, have three rounds per year. Click here to submit a proposal or get more information.

Participation in lab experiments


Would you like to participate in social science experiments and contribute to exciting research?

Join the pool of participants for the Citizen lab here.

You will get invitations by email. In addition participants often receive a fee for taking part in the experiments.

Find out more about the lab here.


Recent Publications

Arnesen, Sveinung, Mikael Johannesson, Jonas Linde, and Stefan Dahlberg. “Do Polls Influence Opinions? Testing The Spiral of Silence Using The Dynamic Feedback Algorithm” (Submitted).Abstract
Opinion polls may inadvertently affect public opinion itself as people change attitudes after learning what others think. A disconcerting possibility is that opinion polls have the ability to create information cascades or spirals of silence where the majority opinion becomes increasingly larger over time. Testing this hypothesis on attitudes towards Syrian refugees and mandatory measles vaccination, survey experiments are performed on a population based web panel using a novel automated procedure that measure the influence of an initial poll over subsequent polls. No indications of spiraling opinion gaps over time between the treatment and control groups are identified. The polls do however trigger a cognitive response as the treated respondents become more opinionated and alter their justification for their answers.
Cappelen, Alexander, Cornelius Cappelen, Stein Kuhnle, and Bertil Tungodden. “How to tighten social security: attitudes in the general population” (Submitted).Abstract
In recent years, OECD countries have faced pressure to cut the costs of social security and different strategies have been utilized to achieve this:
  • Stricter eligibility requirements.
  • Reduced level of benefits.
  • Reduced maximum duration of benefits.
In order to better understand the political support for these three strategies, this contribution reports the results from a survey designed to measure which of them that the general population would prefer given the assumption that cost cuts are necessary.             A key difference between them is how they distribute the burden of cost reductions between different benefit recipients: Should the benefit reduction be equally distributed among all recipients (reduce the benefit level) or should it be concentrated on some groups (tighten eligibility)?             The main argument in favour of an equal distribution is that it would minimize the benefit reduction experienced by any particular individual. However, there are several arguments for an unequal distribution as well, for example that some groups could be less deserving (or include more “cheaters”) than others or that there could be larger efficiency gains from reducing benefits to some groups rather than to other groups.             For a given reduction in total costs, there is a trade-off between the desire to avoid large individual benefit reductions and the concern for protecting some groups of benefit recipients more than other groups. Different preferences for how to achieve cost cuts will reflect how individuals trade off these concerns.             We find large heterogeneity in how people make the trade-off and thus which of the strategies for cost reduction that they prefer. Right-wingers typically prefer to tighten the eligibility criteria, while left-wingers typically prefer to reduce the benefit level. Furthermore, we find that this difference does not primarily reflect different attitudes towards income and wealth redistribution, but are likely to reflect views about the deservingness of different groups and the importance of efficiency considerations.
Arnesen, Sveinung, and Yvette Peters. “The Legitimacy of Representation. How Descriptive, Formal, and Responsiveness Representation Affect the Acceptability of Political Decisions.” Comparative Political Studies. Comparative Political Studies (In Press).Abstract
Literature on the topic has proposed that the reflection of society in a representative body in terms of relevant socio-economic characteristics improves the quality of democratic representation. Descriptive representation would help disadvantaged groups in their gaining of equal status, and it has been shown to affect policies positively—especially for those who have been disadvantaged. It is less clear, however, how citizens evaluate descriptive representation. We examine this concept from an individual perspective, and ask whether decisions are more legitimate when they are made by groups that reflect society in certain characteristics. For this purpose, we designed a survey experiment that we ran in Norway in 2014. We find that people are more willing to accept a decision when it is made by a group of people like them, and who are also experts. Moreover, the traditionally less advantaged groups tend to value descriptive representation more than other citizens
More publications

Upcoming Events

May 23

Tuesday lunch seminar


Tuesday, May 23, 2017, 12:00pm to 1:00pm


The Corner Room, DIGSSCORE

Erik Sørensen, professor NHH.

A light lunch will be served.

May 30

Tuesday lunch seminar


Tuesday, May 30, 2017, 12:00pm to 1:00pm


The Corner Room, DIGSSCORE

Gisela Böhm, Rouven Doran and Annika Rødeseike, Faculty of psychology.

Public Perception of energy transition pathways.

A light lunch will be served.


Tuesday lunch seminars

Every Tuesday, we have a lunch seminar. A researcher connected to DIGSSCORE presents something, ongoing research, a course, a method, or an upcoming project, for example.

The lunches are announced at this webpage, and by e-mail. If you wish to be at this list, please write to erla.lovseth@uib.no.