84,196 rated or chosen profiles from 6,014 respondents, in up to 7 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 6 attributes.
| Description | Paired conjoint of hypothetical societies: 6,014 online-panel respondents in Brazil, France and the US (about 2,000 each) chose between and rated two societies seven times, varying own income, average income, free elections, public health system, effort vs connections and inequality; outcomes are a forced choice and a rating of each society. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Adserà, A., Arenas, A., & Boix, C. (2023). Estimating the value of democracy relative to other institutional and economic outcomes among citizens in Brazil, France, and the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(48), e2306168120. |
| DOI | 10.1073/pnas.2306168120 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/RTUFHH |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 6,014 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 84,196 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 7 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 6 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | democracy institutions |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | place |
| Country | BR, FR, US |
| Language shown | pt, fr, en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | unknown |
| Task order | recorded in the deposit |
| Profile position | recorded in the deposit |
Outcomes:
| choice | We ask you to choose which society you consider to be the best one for you; that is, the society in which you will be most content. It is important that you focus your answer solely on this; that is: which society is the best for you? You should not consider which society is best on the whole. [choice, forced] |
|---|---|
| rating | We will also ask you to rate each society separately on a range from 0 (very bad) to 10 (very good) [rating, 1 (unknown) to 10 (very good)] |
attr_getting_aheadattr_health_systemattr_income_societyattr_income_youattr_inequalityattr_political_institutionschoicecov_agecov_countrycov_durationcov_gendercov_pro_immigrationcov_pro_techcov_pro_tradecov_right_wingcov_wealth_householdcov_wealth_parentsidprofileratingtask
The layout (one row per respondent, task and profile; choice/rating outcomes; attr_ columns holding each attribute level as displayed) is defined in the IRW conjoint standard. What the outcomes asked is under Design above.
Or load it directly in R or Python (both need a free Redivis account; the first call opens a browser to sign in):
# R
install.packages("remotes")
remotes::install_github("itemresponsewarehouse/Rpkg")
library(irw)
df <- irw_fetch("adsera_2023_value_of_democracy", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("adsera_2023_value_of_democracy", source="conj")
@article{Adser__2023, title={Estimating the value of democracy relative to other institutional and economic outcomes among citizens in Brazil, France, and the United States}, volume={120}, ISSN={1091-6490}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2306168120}, DOI={10.1073/pnas.2306168120}, number={48}, journal={Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, publisher={National Academy of Sciences}, author={Adserà, Alicia and Arenas, Andreu and Boix, Carles}, year={2023}, month=Nov }
| IRW version | v584 |
|---|---|
| Redivis dataset | irw_conjoint v4.2 |
| Redivis dataset DOI | 10.57761/qkye-q530 |
| Manifest pin for this IRW version | v4.2 |
| Metadata source | irw_meta v44.0 |