2,660 rated or chosen profiles from 333 respondents, in up to 8 tasks of 1 profile varying on 6 attributes.
| Description | Visitors of the 2016 Minnesota State Fair rated how much of a ground beef or spinach package they would discard, shown one product scenario at a time that varied cosmetic deterioration (photo), date label, days to expiration, package size and price. 333 respondents, 8 single-profile scenarios, one rating (0-100). |
|---|---|
| Reference | Dusoruth, V., & Peterson, H. H. (2020). Food waste tendencies: Behavioral response to cosmetic deterioration of food. PLOS ONE, 15(5), e0233287. |
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0233287 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.13020/0m0p-tt02 |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 333 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 2,660 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 8 |
| Profiles per task | 1 |
| Attributes | 6 |
| Topic | consumer products |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | product service |
| Country | US |
| Language shown | en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | observed in the data (not documented by the source): 12 fractional-factorial profiles per product; in the data each price point occurs with only one package size (spinach 1.99-2.99 with 5 oz, 3.99-5.99 with 10 oz; beef likewise), and appearance level 1 occurs about twice as often as level 2 or 3 (1,356 vs 655 and 649 rows). |
| Task order | inferred from row order |
| 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. Task order or profile position was rebuilt from row order; analyses of position or task order should leave it out.
Outcomes:
| rating | What percentage of this product are you and/or your household likely to eat? (stored as percent_discard, the authors' food waste score: 100 minus the percentage; paper wording) [rating, 0 (would discard none) to 100 (would discard all)] |
|---|
attr_appearanceattr_date_labelattr_days_to_expirationattr_package_sizeattr_priceattr_productcov_age_midpointcov_household_sizecov_income_10kidprofileratingtask
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("dusoruth_2020_food_waste", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("dusoruth_2020_food_waste", source="conj")
@article{Dusoruth_2020, title={Food waste tendencies: Behavioral response to cosmetic deterioration of food}, volume={15}, ISSN={1932-6203}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233287}, DOI={10.1371/journal.pone.0233287}, number={5}, journal={PLOS ONE}, publisher={Public Library of Science (PLoS)}, author={Dusoruth, Vaneesha and Peterson, Hikaru Hanawa}, editor={Espinola-Arredondo, Ana}, year={2020}, month=May, pages={e0233287} }
| 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 |