1,150 rated or chosen profiles from 194 respondents, in up to 3 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 6 attributes.

About this table

Description	Candidates and staff of 2020 US congressional and statewide campaigns (194 survey responses with an answer) chose which of two volunteer profiles, varying gender, age, race, ideology, dedication and reliability, they would prefer to work on their campaign, in 3 pairs.
Reference	Chewning, T. K., Green, J., Hassell, H. J. G., & Miles, M. R. (2024). Campaign principal-agent problems: Volunteers as faithful and representative agents. Political Behavior, 46(1), 405-426.
DOI	10.1007/s11109-022-09836-9
Licence	CC0 1.0
Source data	https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VNUJM8

Notes

Conjoint table (irw_conjoint). choice = "Which of the following two individuals would you prefer to have work on your campaign as a volunteer?", forced choice between two volunteer profiles, 3 tasks; the strong-ideology level depends on the campaign's party (Strong Conservative for Republican, Strong Progressive for Democratic campaigns). 124 unanswered tasks dropped; 194 of 233 responses answered at least one task; ids are survey responses (3 respondents answered twice, linked by cov_person).

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	194
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)	1,150
Tasks per respondent (most)	3
Profiles per task	2
Attributes	6
Tasks with no profile chosen	0

Design

Topic	labour hiring
A profile represents	person
Country	US
Language shown	en
Language of stored levels	en
Randomization restrictions	yes (stated by the source): ideology level 'Strong Conservative' only in the survey of Republican campaigns and 'Strong Progressive' only in that of Democratic campaigns (codebook notes); other attributes: no source documents randomization
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 of the following two individuals would you prefer to have work on your campaign as a volunteer? [choice, forced]

Columns

attr_ageattr_dedicationattr_genderattr_ideologyattr_raceattr_reliabilitychoicecov_candidate_ideologycov_candidate_partycov_experiencecov_gendercov_ideologycov_incumbentcov_officecov_personcov_racecov_rolecov_volunteersidprofiletask

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("chewning_2024_campaign_volunteers", source = "conj")

# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("chewning_2024_campaign_volunteers", source="conj")

How to cite

@article{Chewning_2022, title={Campaign Principal-Agent Problems: Volunteers as Faithful and Representative Agents}, volume={46}, ISSN={1573-6687}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09836-9}, DOI={10.1007/s11109-022-09836-9}, number={1}, journal={Political Behavior}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Chewning, Taylor Kinsley and Green, Jon and Hassell, Hans J. G. and Miles, Matthew R.}, year={2022}, month=Dec, pages={405–426} }

Version and provenance

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