14,910 rated or chosen profiles from 2,485 respondents, in up to 3 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 6 attributes.
| Description | Face-to-face respondents in three northern Afghan provinces (2016-2017; n=2,485) compared 3 pairs of hypothetical political leaders varying gender, education, age, ethnicity, professional experience and birthplace, choosing one and rating each 1-5 for suitability, after a randomly assigned prime (control, bribery, nepotism or insecurity). |
|---|---|
| Reference | Bhatia, J., & Monroe, S. L. (2025). Candidate qualifications and out-group support: Evidence from Afghanistan. Comparative Political Studies. |
| DOI | 10.1177/00104140241306960 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/KE6VPA |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 2,485 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 14,910 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 3 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 6 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | candidate choice |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | person |
| Country | AF |
| Language shown | prs, ps |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | observed in the data (not documented by the source): no rule documented; combinations never occurring in the data: Female x Military, Madrassa x age 28, Kandahar birthplace x any ethnicity other than Pashto. Level shares unequal: Military about half the share of other careers (1639 vs ~3300 rows), Kandahar about a fifth of other birthplaces (985 vs ~4600), age 28 less frequent |
| 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 | Given a choice between these two profiles, which person would you prefer as a leader? [choice, forced] |
|---|---|
| rating | On a scale of 1-5, where one indicates that you think the person is absolutely unsuitable to represent you as a leader, and where five indicates that the person would be an ideal leader for you, where would you rate the first profile (Profile A)? [rating, 1 (Absolutely unsuitable) to 5 (Absolutely suitable)] |
attr_ageattr_educationattr_ethnicityattr_genderattr_place_of_birthattr_professional_experiencechoicecov_agecov_econ_changecov_educationcov_ethnicitycov_gendercov_incomecov_intl_forces_remaincov_languagecov_maritalcov_provincecov_trust_national_govcov_trust_provincial_govidprofileratingtasktrial_prime
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("bhatia_2025_afghan_leaders", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("bhatia_2025_afghan_leaders", source="conj")
@article{Bhatia_2024, title={Candidate Qualifications and Out-Group Support: Evidence From Afghanistan}, volume={58}, ISSN={1552-3829}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00104140241306960}, DOI={10.1177/00104140241306960}, number={13}, journal={Comparative Political Studies}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Bhatia, Jasmine and Monroe, Steve L.}, year={2024}, month=Dec, pages={2831–2865} }
| 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 |