13,152 rated or chosen profiles from 1,316 respondents, in up to 5 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 6 attributes.

One of 3 tables from the same source; this one is the s2 table. The others are listed under Related tables.

About this table

Description	Study 2 (2022): 1,316 US adults compared 5 pairs of polling locations varying partisan poll watchers (Democratic / Republican / both, with or without badges), voter ID, voting method, campaigning limits, wait time and registration rules; outcomes are which location would have fairer results and a 1-5 fairness intensity rating of each.
Reference	Cohen, M. J., & Sheagley, G. (2024). Partisan poll watchers and Americans' perceptions of electoral fairness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 88(SI), 536-560.
DOI	10.1093/poq/nfae024
Licence	CC0 1.0
Source data	https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/MDQS4H

Notes

Conjoint table (irw_conjoint). Pairs of hypothetical polling locations; choice = which location would conduct the election more fairly (paraphrase of the pre-registration; forced choice, no opt-out, unanswered tasks NA or omitted); rating = five-point intensity of that belief for each location, 1-5 raw, higher = fairer inferred, anchors unknown. Attributes randomized independently per the pre-registration. Respondents with empty attribute fields dropped (as the authors do); exact question wording not in the deposit.

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	1,316
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)	13,152
Tasks per respondent (most)	5
Profiles per task	2
Attributes	6
Tasks with no profile chosen	0

Design

Topic	democracy institutions
A profile represents	place
Country	US
Language shown	en
Language of stored levels	en
Task order	recorded in the deposit
Profile position	recorded in the deposit

Outcomes:

choice	Which of these two polling locations would have fairer results? (paraphrase of the pre-registration) [choice, forced]
rating	A five-point measure of the intensity of this belief [that the location would conduct the election more fairly] for each polling location (paraphrase of the pre-registration) [rating, 1 (unknown) to 5 (unknown)]

Columns

attr_campaigningattr_poll_watchersattr_registrationattr_vote_methodattr_voter_idattr_wait_timechoicecov_pid3_leanidprofileratingtask

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("cohen_2024_poll_watchers_s2", source = "conj")

# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("cohen_2024_poll_watchers_s2", source="conj")

How to cite

@article{Cohen_2024, title={Partisan Poll Watchers and Americans’ Perceptions of Electoral Fairness}, volume={88}, ISSN={1537-5331}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfae024}, DOI={10.1093/poq/nfae024}, number={SI}, journal={Public Opinion Quarterly}, publisher={Oxford University Press (OUP)}, author={Cohen, Mollie J and Sheagley, Geoffrey}, year={2024}, pages={536–560} }

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