21,280 rated or chosen profiles from 2,128 respondents, in up to 5 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 5 attributes.
One of 3 tables from the same source; this one is the uk table. The others are listed under Related tables.
| Description | British adults (bilendi online panel, 2023; n = 2,128) chose between and rated (1-7) 5 pairs of hypothetical trade agreements varying in personal gains (small/medium/large), the average citizen's gains relative to the respondent, partner size, current trade volume and implementation year. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Dür, A., Hee, S., & Huber, R. A. (2025). A fair deal: Inequity aversion and individual attitudes toward trade agreements. The Review of International Organizations. |
| DOI | 10.1007/s11558-025-09597-0 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/TBTCPB |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 2,128 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 21,280 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 5 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 5 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | international economy |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | policy |
| Country | GB |
| Language shown | en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | yes (stated by the source): A profile was redrawn if it matched the other profile of the pair on both payoff attributes (personal gains, average citizen's relative gains); article p. 15. |
| 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 two trade agreements do you prefer? (paraphrase; the article: respondents were asked 'to choose between and to rate (on a scale from 1 to 7) two hypothetical trade agreements') [choice, forced] |
|---|---|
| rating | Rating of each agreement on a scale from 1 to 7 (paraphrase; article Sec. 4.1) [rating, 1 (strongly oppose) to 7 (strongly favour)] |
attr_gain_citizen_relativeattr_gain_personalattr_implementationattr_partner_sizeattr_trade_volumechoicecov_egotropiccov_equalcov_faircov_income_improvecov_income_worsencov_sociotropicidprofileratingtask
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("dur_2025_trade_uk", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("dur_2025_trade_uk", source="conj")
@article{Dur2025,
author = {Dür, Andreas and Hee, Sang and Huber, Rosalind A.},
year = {2025},
title = {A fair deal: {I}nequity aversion and individual attitudes toward trade agreements},
journal = {The Review of International Organizations},
doi = {10.7910/DVN/TBTCPB}
}
| 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 |