437 rated or chosen profiles from 437 respondents, in up to 1 tasks of 1 profile varying on 3 attributes.
| Description | US congressional staffers in the 2017 Congressional Capacity Survey (n = 437) each read one vignette about a request whose requester (constituent, campaign donor, business or consumer-group lobbyist), aim (propose or stop a bill) and supporting evidence (think-tank left/right, own analysis, constituency polling) were randomized; four 5-point likelihood ratings (take the meeting, use the information, recommend, representative of constituents). |
|---|---|
| Reference | Furnas, A. C., LaPira, T. M., Hertel-Fernandez, A., Drutman, L., & Kosar, K. R. (2023). More than mere access: An experiment on moneyed interests, information provision, and legislative action in Congress. Political Research Quarterly, 76(1), 348-364. |
| DOI | 10.1177/10659129221098743 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/R693MD |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 437 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 437 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 1 |
| Profiles per task | 1 |
| Attributes | 3 |
| Topic | public administration |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | scenario |
| Country | US |
| Language shown | en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | unknown |
| Task order | inferred from row order |
| Profile position | inferred from row order |
Task order or profile position was rebuilt from row order; analyses of position or task order should leave it out.
Outcomes:
| rating | How likely would you be to take the meeting? (paraphrase) [rating, 1 (Very unlikely) to 5 (Very likely)] |
|---|---|
| rating_recommend | How likely would you be to recommend to your boss the position requested? (paraphrase) [rating, 1 (Very unlikely) to 5 (Very likely)] |
| rating_representative | How likely is it that the request represents your constituents' views? (paraphrase) [rating, 1 (Very unlikely) to 5 (Very likely)] |
| rating_use_info | How likely would you be to use the information offered? (paraphrase) [rating, 1 (Very unlikely) to 5 (Very likely)] |
attr_actionattr_identattr_infocov_chamber_codecov_office_type_codecov_partyid_codecov_survey_weightidprofileratingrating_recommendrating_representativerating_use_infotask
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("furnas_2023_staff_access", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("furnas_2023_staff_access", source="conj")
@article{Furnas_2022, title={More than Mere Access: An Experiment on Moneyed Interests, Information Provision, and Legislative Action in Congress}, volume={76}, ISSN={1938-274X}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10659129221098743}, DOI={10.1177/10659129221098743}, number={1}, journal={Political Research Quarterly}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Furnas, Alexander C. and LaPira, Timothy M and Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander and Drutman, Lee and Kosar, Kevin}, year={2022}, month=May, pages={348–364} }
| 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 |