48,976 rated or chosen profiles from 2,078 respondents, in up to 12 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 6 attributes.
| Description | US respondents (n = 2,078 answering; survey-weighted sample) each chose between 12 pairs of hypothetical military strikes varying strike type (nuclear or conventional), chance of success, military casualties, allied approval, civilian casualties and environmental damage; half the pairs used restricted 'realistic' randomization. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Bowen, T., Goldfien, M. A., & Graham, M. H. (2023). Public opinion and nuclear use: Evidence from factorial experiments. The Journal of Politics, 85(1), 345-350. |
| DOI | 10.1086/720329 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/JZ4WG4 |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 2,078 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 48,976 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 12 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 6 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | foreign policy security |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | policy |
| Country | US |
| Language shown | en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | yes (stated by the source): tasks with trial_randomization = Realistic: Option 1 always nuclear and Option 2 conventional, with the number of nuclear military advantages (success, casualties, both, neither) and disadvantages (0-3) fixed by design; Conjoint tasks fully randomized |
| 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 | which option you think would be a better choice (paraphrase) [choice, forced] |
|---|
attr_allies_approveattr_chance_of_successattr_civilian_casualtiesattr_environmental_damageattr_military_casualtiesattr_strike_typechoicecov_agecov_educationcov_employmentcov_force_democracycov_force_help_uncov_force_oilcov_force_protect_alliescov_force_stop_genocidecov_force_terrorist_campcov_gendercov_goal_defend_alliescov_goal_energy_supplycov_goal_free_tradecov_goal_help_uncov_goal_prevent_nukescov_goal_prevent_terrorcov_goal_promote_democracycov_goal_promote_human_rightscov_hispaniccov_incomecov_mobilecov_party_id7cov_pol_advicecov_pol_discusscov_pol_interestcov_racecov_regioncov_survey_weightcov_vignette_destruct_treatcov_vignette_success_treatidprofiletasktrial_randomization
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("bowen_2023_nuclear_strikes", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("bowen_2023_nuclear_strikes", source="conj")
@article{Bowen_2023, title={Public Opinion and Nuclear Use: Evidence from Factorial Experiments}, volume={85}, ISSN={1468-2508}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/720329}, DOI={10.1086/720329}, number={1}, journal={The Journal of Politics}, publisher={University of Chicago Press}, author={Bowen, Tyler and Goldfien, Michael A. and Graham, Matthew H.}, year={2023}, month=Jan, pages={345–350} }
| 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 |