38,394 rated or chosen profiles from 6,399 respondents, in up to 3 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 3 attributes.

One of 2 tables from the same source; this one is the new_party_brand table. The others are listed under Related tables.

About this table

Description	Adults in Austria, Italy and Hungary (n = 6,399) compared, in three tasks of two profiles, hypothetical new political groups described by name (New / Party for a new / Movement for a new [country]), organization and form of action, rating support (1-11) and choosing the one they would be more likely to vote for.
Reference	Borbáth, E., & Hutter, S. (2025). Brand transformation in European politics: The rise and limits of nonclassical names. Perspectives on Politics.
DOI	10.1017/S1537592725103319
Licence	CC0 1.0
Source data	https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WGATQF

Notes

Conjoint table (irw_conjoint_2). Three tasks of two hypothetical new party/movement profiles (name, organization, action form) in Austria, Italy and Hungary; rating of support (stored 1-11, article says 0-10) and forced choice of the one more likely to be voted for. Task and profile inferred from row order (one chosen per consecutive pair); English labels; the German sample is not included (tasks not recoverable).

These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.

Size and shape

Respondents	6,399
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)	38,394
Tasks per respondent (most)	3
Profiles per task	2
Attributes	3
Tasks with no profile chosen	0

Design

Topic	parties platforms
A profile represents	organisation
Country	AT, HU, IT
Language shown	unknown
Language of stored levels	en
Randomization restrictions	unknown
Task order	inferred from row order
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	Which of the two organizations/scenarios would you be more likely to vote for? (article wording; not in the deposit) [choice, forced]
rating	How much do you support the described group/scenario A/B? (article wording; not in the deposit) [rating, 1 (unknown) to 11 (unknown)]

Columns

attr_action_formattr_nameattr_organizationchoicecov_countrycov_left_rightcov_party_ididprofileratingtask

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.

Get the data

Download CSVno account needed Browse on Redivisexplore and query Croissant metadataHugging Face, Kaggle, OpenML

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("borbath_2025_new_party_brand", source = "conj")

# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("borbath_2025_new_party_brand", source="conj")

How to cite

@article{Borb_th_2025, title={Brand Transformation in European Politics: The Rise and Limits of Nonclassical Names}, ISSN={1541-0986}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1537592725103319}, DOI={10.1017/s1537592725103319}, journal={Perspectives on Politics}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Borbáth, Endre and Hutter, Swen}, year={2025}, month=Dec, pages={1–19} }

Version and provenance

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