19,426 rated or chosen profiles from 9,713 respondents, in up to 1 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 4 attributes.
| Description | 9,713 UK adults (YouGov, October 2021) each chose once between two randomly paired revenue-equivalent tax changes (a lever, its status quo and the required change), with the direction (raise/cut), the revenue size (£1bn/£10bn) and pro/con/no arguments randomized per task. Outcome: choice with an opt-out ('equally good or bad', 'don't know'); survey weight included. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Barnes, L., de Romémont, J., & Lauderdale, B. E. (2024). Public preferences over changes to the composition of government tax revenue. British Journal of Political Science, 54(4), 1457-1467. |
| DOI | 10.1017/S0007123424000127 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/FXPEFT |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 9,713 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 19,426 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 1 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 4 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 4,620 |
| Topic | tax welfare economy |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | policy |
| Country | GB |
| Language shown | en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | yes (stated by the source): The two options are always different levers and always share the direction (increase/cut), the revenue size and the argument arm (pro for both / con for both / none). £10 billion changes exist only for the 'big five' taxes (10 of the 56 prompt rows), so revenue size restricts which levers can appear. |
| Task order | recorded in the deposit |
| Profile position | recorded in the deposit |
Because the attribute levels were not randomized independently, an estimator has to account for the restriction; a plain difference in means across levels can mislead.
Outcomes:
| choice | If the government was only going to make one of these changes, which would you prefer? [choice, opt-out allowed] |
|---|
attr_argumentattr_changeattr_descriptionattr_headlinechoicecov_agecov_duration_seccov_educationcov_education_agecov_eu_ref_votecov_gendercov_household_incomecov_marital_statuscov_regioncov_social_gradecov_survey_weightcov_vote_ge_2019cov_voted_ge_2019cov_work_statusidprofiletasktrial_argumentstrial_directiontrial_page_time_sectrial_revenue_size
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("barnes_2024_tax_levers", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("barnes_2024_tax_levers", source="conj")
@article{Barnes_2024, title={Public Preferences Over Changes to the Composition of Government Tax Revenue}, volume={54}, ISSN={1469-2112}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123424000127}, DOI={10.1017/s0007123424000127}, number={4}, journal={British Journal of Political Science}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Barnes, Lucy and de Romémont, Julia and Lauderdale, Benjamin E.}, year={2024}, month=May, pages={1457–1467} }
| IRW version | v584 |
|---|---|
| Redivis dataset | irw_conjoint_2 v1.4 |
| Redivis dataset DOI | 10.57761/hk97-wv30 |
| Manifest pin for this IRW version | v1.4 |
| Metadata source | irw_meta v44.0 |