16,000 rated or chosen profiles from 2,000 respondents, in up to 4 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 6 attributes.
One of 4 tables from the same source; this one is the uk table. The others are listed under Related tables.
| Description | Climate-agreement conjoint: 2,000 adults in United Kingdom (YouGov internet sample, summer 2012) each compared 4 pairs of hypothetical global climate agreements varying household cost, cost distribution, participating countries, emissions covered, sanctions and monitoring body; outcomes are a forced choice and a 1-10 referendum vote rating. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Bechtel, M. M., & Scheve, K. F. (2013). Mass support for global climate agreements depends on institutional design. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(34), 13763-13768. |
| DOI | 10.1073/pnas.1306374110 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/UGZ2BY |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 2,000 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 16,000 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 4 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 6 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | climate energy environment |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | policy |
| Country | GB |
| Language shown | en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| 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:
| choice | For each comparison we would like to know which of the two agreements you prefer. You may like both alternatives similarly or may not like either of them at all. Regardless of your overall evaluation, please indicate which alternative you prefer over the other. [choice, forced] |
|---|---|
| rating | If you could vote on each of these agreements in a referendum, how likely is it that you would vote in favor or against each of the agreements? Please give your answer on the following scale from definitely against (1) to definitely in favor (10). [rating, 1 (definitely against) to 10 (definitely in favor)] |
attr_costattr_cost_distributionattr_emissions_coveredattr_monitoringattr_participating_countriesattr_sanctionschoicecov_agecov_attention_passcov_educationcov_gendercov_ideologycov_incomecov_know_defensecov_know_termcov_survey_weightidprofileratingtask
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("bechtel_2013_climate_agreements_uk", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("bechtel_2013_climate_agreements_uk", source="conj")
@article{Bechtel_2013, title={Mass support for global climate agreements depends on institutional design}, volume={110}, ISSN={1091-6490}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306374110}, DOI={10.1073/pnas.1306374110}, number={34}, journal={Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, publisher={National Academy of Sciences}, author={Bechtel, Michael M. and Scheve, Kenneth F.}, year={2013}, month=July, pages={13763–13768} }
| 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 |