3,290 rated or chosen profiles from 823 respondents, in up to 4 tasks of 1 profile varying on 8 attributes.
One of 2 tables from the same source; this one is the ideology_guess table. The others are listed under Related tables.
| Description | US CCES team-module respondents (n=823) each saw 4 single hypothetical candidates varying in gender, family, religion, military service, occupation and three issue priorities, guessed each candidate's ideology (liberal or conservative), said how sure they were, and rated the candidate 0-10. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Goggin, S. N., Henderson, J. A., & Theodoridis, A. G. (2020). What goes with red and blue? Mapping partisan and ideological associations in the minds of voters. Political Behavior, 42(4), 985-1013. |
| DOI | 10.1007/s11109-018-09525-6 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/RDQZUM |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 823 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 3,290 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 4 |
| Profiles per task | 1 |
| Attributes | 8 |
| Topic | candidate choice |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | person |
| Country | US |
| Language shown | en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | yes (stated by the source): The three issue priorities are drawn from 17 issues without replacement (appendix Table I), so a profile never repeats an issue; no other rule documented. |
| 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_conservative | Do you think this candidate is a liberal or a conservative? (paraphrase) [rating, 0 (Liberal) to 1 (Conservative)] |
|---|---|
| rating_favorability | How favorable or unfavorable is your view of this candidate? (paraphrase) [rating, 0 (Very Unfavorable) to 10 (Very Favorable)] |
| rating_sure | How sure are you of your guess? (paraphrase) [rating, 1 (Very unsure) to 4 (Very sure)] |
attr_familyattr_genderattr_issue1attr_issue2attr_issue3attr_militaryattr_occupationattr_religioncov_birth_yearcov_cces_modulecov_educationcov_gendercov_hispaniccov_marital_statuscov_party_id7cov_racecov_regioncov_registeredcov_statecov_survey_weightidprofilerating_conservativerating_favorabilityrating_suretask
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("goggin_2020_ideology_guess", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("goggin_2020_ideology_guess", source="conj")
@article{Goggin_2019, title={What Goes with Red and Blue? Mapping Partisan and Ideological Associations in the Minds of Voters}, volume={42}, ISSN={1573-6687}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-09525-6}, DOI={10.1007/s11109-018-09525-6}, number={4}, journal={Political Behavior}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Goggin, Stephen N. and Henderson, John A. and Theodoridis, Alexander G.}, year={2019}, month=Jan, pages={985–1013} }
| 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 |