7,997 rated or chosen profiles from 2,000 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 party_guess table. The others are listed under Related tables.
| Description | US CCES team-module respondents (n=2,000) each saw 4 single hypothetical candidates varying in gender, family, religion, military service, occupation and three issue priorities, guessed each candidate's party, 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 | 2,000 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 7,997 |
| 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 | 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:
| rating_favorability | How favorable or unfavorable is your view of this candidate? (paraphrase) [rating, 0 (Very Unfavorable) to 10 (Very Favorable)] |
|---|---|
| rating_republican | Which party do you think this candidate belongs to? (paraphrase) [rating, 0 (Democrat) to 1 (Republican)] |
| 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_favorabilityrating_republicanrating_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_party_guess", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("goggin_2020_party_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 |