4,892 rated or chosen profiles from 1,223 respondents, in up to 4 tasks of 1 profile varying on 8 attributes.
| Description | 1,223 Black and white US adults (Lucid, March 2022, Black oversample) each rated four single hypothetical Supreme Court nominee profiles varying sex, age, race, religion, ideology, judicial philosophy, law school and appointing party; outcomes are 6-point nominee support, trust and qualification and 5-point Court approval, legalism and agreement ratings. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Armaly, M. T., Krewson, C. N., & Lane, E. A. (2024). The influence of descriptive representation on support for judicial nominees and the US Supreme Court. Political Behavior, 47(2), 661-687. |
| DOI | 10.1007/s11109-024-09966-2 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/H8RIBF |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 1,223 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 4,892 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 4 |
| Profiles per task | 1 |
| Attributes | 8 |
| Topic | candidate choice |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | person |
| Country | US |
| Language shown | en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | unknown |
| Task order | recorded in the deposit |
| Profile position | inferred from row order |
Task order or profile position was rebuilt from row order; analyses of position or task order should leave it out.
Outcomes:
| rating | Support for the nominee (paraphrase) [rating, 1 (weak) to 6 (strong)] |
|---|---|
| rating_court_agree | If the nominee became a member, I would perceive the Court as more likely to make decisions I agree with (paraphrase) [rating, 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)] |
| rating_court_approval | Level of approval for the Supreme Court if the hypothetical nominee became a member (paraphrase) [rating, 1 (strongly disapprove) to 5 (strongly approve)] |
| rating_court_legal | If the nominee became a member, I would perceive the Court as more of a legal institution (paraphrase) [rating, 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)] |
| rating_quality | The nominee's qualifications to be a US Supreme Court justice (paraphrase) [rating, 1 (weak) to 6 (strong)] |
| rating_trust | Trust in the nominee to reach impartial decisions (paraphrase) [rating, 1 (weak) to 6 (strong)] |
attr_ageattr_appointing_partyattr_ideologyattr_legal_educationattr_philosophyattr_raceattr_religionattr_sexattrpos_ageattrpos_appointing_partyattrpos_ideologyattrpos_legal_educationattrpos_philosophyattrpos_raceattrpos_religionattrpos_sexcov_gendercov_party_idcov_raceidprofileratingrating_court_agreerating_court_approvalrating_court_legalrating_qualityrating_trusttask
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("armaly_2024_scotus_nominees", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("armaly_2024_scotus_nominees", source="conj")
@article{Armaly_2024, title={The Influence of Descriptive Representation on Support for Judicial Nominees and the US Supreme Court}, volume={47}, ISSN={1573-6687}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-024-09966-2}, DOI={10.1007/s11109-024-09966-2}, number={2}, journal={Political Behavior}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Armaly, Miles T. and Krewson, Christopher N. and Lane, Elizabeth A.}, year={2024}, month=Aug, pages={661–687} }
| 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 |