18,000 rated or chosen profiles from 1,500 respondents, in up to 6 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 7 attributes.
One of 2 tables from the same source; this one is the us table. The others are listed under Related tables.
| Description | US adults (n=1,500, YouGov matched sample, Oct 2013) chose between two North-South climate funding proposals in 6 tasks, each proposal described by 7 attributes (damage, income and carbon emissions of recipient countries relative to U.S., efficiency, who decides on funding, what the funds are used for, and the U.S. contribution versus other countries); outcome is the chosen proposal (forced choice). |
|---|---|
| Reference | Gampfer, R., Bernauer, T., & Kachi, A. (2014). Obtaining public support for North-South climate funding: Evidence from conjoint experiments in donor countries. Global Environmental Change, 29, 118-126. |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.08.006 |
| Licence | CC BY 4.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17969439 |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 1,500 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 18,000 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 6 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 7 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | climate energy environment, international economy |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | policy |
| Country | US |
| Language shown | en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | observed in the data (not documented by the source): Carbon-emission levels 'Similar to' and 'Somewhat lower than' the home country occur only with income levels 'Similar' or 'Somewhat lower' (4 of 16 income x carbon cells are empty), so the carbon shares are unequal (about 3:1); not documented in the deposit. |
| 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 proposal do you prefer: Proposal 1 or Proposal 2? (paraphrase: the deposit has only the variable label 'Conjoint Experiment - Table t' and the values Proposal 1 / Proposal 2) [choice, forced] |
|---|
attr_carbonattr_contributionattr_damageattr_efficiencyattr_funding_decisionsattr_funding_useattr_incomechoicecov_birth_yearcov_educationcov_gendercov_party_idcov_survey_weightidprofiletask
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("gampfer_2014_climate_funding_us", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("gampfer_2014_climate_funding_us", source="conj")
@article{Gampfer_2014, title={Obtaining public support for North-South climate funding: Evidence from conjoint experiments in donor countries}, volume={29}, ISSN={0959-3780}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.08.006}, DOI={10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.08.006}, journal={Global Environmental Change}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Gampfer, Robert and Bernauer, Thomas and Kachi, Aya}, year={2014}, month=Nov, pages={118–126} }
| 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 |