26,866 rated or chosen profiles from 5,374 respondents, in up to 5 tasks of 1 profile varying on 9 attributes.
| Description | 5,374 German adults (Dynata, March 2024) each read five randomly generated, plausible Bundestag election outcomes (seat shares of seven parties, the governing coalition, the Chancellor's party) and rated how acceptable they would find each (0-10) and, if below 5, how likely they would be to protest it (0-10). |
|---|---|
| Reference | Blais, A., Bol, D., & Plescia, C. (2026). Does support for democracy increase losers' consent? Political Studies. |
| DOI | 10.1177/00323217261463105 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/JFJSSP |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 5,374 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 26,866 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 5 |
| Profiles per task | 1 |
| Attributes | 9 |
| Topic | democracy institutions |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | scenario |
| Country | DE |
| Language shown | de |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | yes (stated by the source): Seat shares drawn around the average of the last five national polls +/- 10 points, summing to 100%, never 1-4% (5% threshold); the coalition is a random set of parties holding at least 51% of seats with unnecessary parties excluded; the Chancellor is the largest coalition party (random on ties). Seat-share levels therefore have poll-centred, unequal probabilities; AfD holds the Chancellorship in ~40% and CDU/CSU in ~49% of outcomes. |
| 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:
| rating | How (un)acceptable would you personally find this electoral outcome? (paraphrase) [rating, 0 (not acceptable at all) to 10 (completely acceptable)] |
|---|---|
| rating_protest | How likely would you be to participate in a protest contesting this electoral outcome? (paraphrase; asked only if acceptance < 5) [rating, 0 (very unlikely) to 10 (very likely)] |
attr_chancellorattr_coalitionattr_seats_afdattr_seats_bswattr_seats_cdu_csuattr_seats_fdpattr_seats_greensattr_seats_spdattr_seats_the_leftcov_agecov_democracy_support_a_codecov_democracy_support_b_codecov_democracy_support_c_codecov_democracy_support_d_codecov_democracy_support_e_codecov_democracy_support_f_codecov_democracy_support_g_codecov_duration_seccov_education_codecov_gender_codecov_like_afdcov_like_bswcov_like_cdu_csucov_like_fdpcov_like_greenscov_like_spdcov_like_the_leftcov_region_codeidprofileratingrating_protesttasktrial_flag_bug
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("blais_2026_losers_consent", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("blais_2026_losers_consent", source="conj")
@article{Blais_2026, title={Does support for democracy increase losers’ consent?}, ISSN={1467-9248}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00323217261463105}, DOI={10.1177/00323217261463105}, journal={Political Studies}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Blais, André and Bol, Damien and Plescia, Carolina}, year={2026}, month=July }
| 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 |