37,160 rated or chosen profiles from 3,716 respondents, in up to 5 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 6 attributes.
| Description | 3,716 voters in Germany, Italy and the UK (Qualtrics panels) each chose between two zero-sum fiscal packages in 5 tasks, where spending on six social policies (training for the unemployed, childcare, education, unemployment benefits, child benefits, pensions) is decreased, unchanged or increased; choice and a 0-10 support rating of each package. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Bremer, B., & Bürgisser, R. (2022). Public opinion on welfare state recalibration in times of austerity: Evidence from survey experiments. Political Science Research and Methods, 11(1), 34-52. |
| DOI | 10.1017/psrm.2021.78 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/7ERIFH |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 3,716 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 37,160 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 5 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 6 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | tax welfare economy |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | policy |
| Country | DE, IT, GB |
| Language shown | de, it, en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | yes (stated by the source): zero-sum packages: the number of attributes set to Increase equals the number set to Decrease; 588 of 729 combinations excluded, 141 remain with equal probability (article Section 3.2); verified in the data |
| 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 | Choose between the two fiscal packages (paraphrase; Appendix C instructions not available) [choice, forced] |
|---|---|
| rating | How likely are you to support each of the packages (paraphrase) [rating, 0 (unknown) to 10 (unknown)] |
attr_child_benefitsattr_childcare_servicesattr_educationattr_old_age_pensionsattr_training_for_unemployedattr_unemployment_benefitschoicecov_children_u10cov_countrycov_education_codecov_ideology_codecov_income_tercile_codecov_retiredcov_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("bremer_2022_social_spending", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("bremer_2022_social_spending", source="conj")
@article{Bremer_2022, title={Public opinion on welfare state recalibration in times of austerity: evidence from survey experiments}, volume={11}, ISSN={2049-8489}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2021.78}, DOI={10.1017/psrm.2021.78}, number={1}, journal={Political Science Research and Methods}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Bremer, Björn and Bürgisser, Reto}, year={2022}, month=Feb, pages={34–52} }
| 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 |