83,580 rated or chosen profiles from 2,786 respondents, in up to 15 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 39 attributes.
One of 2 tables from the same source; this one is the candidates_ssi table. The others are listed under Related tables.
| Description | US adults (SSI, Nov-Dec 2016, n=2,786) compared two hypothetical US Senate candidates on 4 core attributes (age, party, health care, same-sex marriage) plus a randomly assigned number (0-35) of irrelevant filler attributes; 15 pairs each, forced choice plus a 1-7 vote rating. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Bansak, K., Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2019). Beyond the breaking point? Survey satisficing in conjoint experiments. Political Science Research and Methods, 9(1), 53-71. |
| DOI | 10.1017/psrm.2019.13 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/JYC2TH |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 2,786 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 83,580 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 15 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 39 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | candidate choice |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | person |
| Country | US |
| Language shown | en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Task order | recorded in the deposit |
| Profile position | recorded in the deposit |
Outcomes:
| choice | Which candidate would you prefer to vote for? [choice, forced] |
|---|---|
| rating | On a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 indicates that you definitely would NOT vote for the candidate and 7 indicates that you definitely would vote for the candidate, how would you rate each of the candidates described above? [rating, 1 (Definitely NOT vote for) to 7 (Definitely vote for)] |
attr_addressattr_ageattr_baseballattr_beverageattr_birthdayattr_carcolorattr_classattr_classroomattr_composerattr_daybornattr_dinosaurattr_dogattr_doorattr_electionattr_email_time_of_dayattr_favcolorattr_foodattr_grandattr_health_careattr_highwayattr_icecreamattr_maritalattr_nameattr_partyattr_relativeattr_reportattr_same_sex_marriageattr_schoolattr_seasonattr_shopattr_stoneattr_teamattr_trainattr_treeattr_tripattr_vacationattr_voteattr_warattr_yearbornchoicecov_agecov_educationcov_gendercov_incomecov_leancov_party_idcov_party_strengthidprofileratingtasktrial_n_fillers
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("bansak_2019_satisficing_candidates_ssi", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("bansak_2019_satisficing_candidates_ssi", source="conj")
@article{Bansak_2019, title={Beyond the breaking point? Survey satisficing in conjoint experiments}, volume={9}, ISSN={2049-8489}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2019.13}, DOI={10.1017/psrm.2019.13}, number={1}, journal={Political Science Research and Methods}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Bansak, Kirk and Hainmueller, Jens and Hopkins, Daniel J. and Yamamoto, Teppei}, year={2019}, month=May, pages={53–71} }
| 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 |