13,960 rated or chosen profiles from 1,396 respondents, in up to 5 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 9 attributes.
One of 2 tables from the same source; this one is the immigrant table. The others are listed under Related tables.
| Description | Immigration conjoint: 1,396 U.S. respondents (GfK, 2012) each compared 5 pairs of hypothetical immigrant applicants varying on 9 attributes (education, gender, origin, reason for applying, profession, job experience, job plans, prior trips, language); forced choice of which to admit and a 1-7 rating of each. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1-30. |
| DOI | 10.1093/pan/mpt024 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/THJYQR |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 1,396 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 13,960 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 5 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 9 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | immigration asylum |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | person |
| Country | US |
| Language shown | unknown |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | yes (stated by the source): Some jobs (doctor, computer programmer, financial analyst, research scientist) only with some education levels; persecution reason only with some countries (22 combinations never occur in the data) |
| 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 | If you had to choose between them, which of these two immigrants should be given priority to come to the United States to live? [choice, forced] |
|---|---|
| rating | On a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 indicates that the United States should absolutely not admit the immigrant and 7 indicates that the United States should definitely admit the immigrant, how would you rate Immigrant 1? (Immigrant 2: 'Using the same scale, how would you rate Immigrant 2?') [rating, 1 (Absolutely Not Admit) to 7 (Definitely Admit)] |
attr_application_reasonattr_educationattr_genderattr_job_experienceattr_job_plansattr_languageattr_originattr_prior_tripsattr_professionattrpos_languageattrpos_prior_tripschoicecov_agecov_educationcov_ethnocentrismcov_gendercov_ideologycov_incomecov_party_id7cov_racecov_survey_weightidprofileratingtask
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("hainmueller_2014_immigrant", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("hainmueller_2014_immigrant", source="conj")
@article{Hainmueller_2014, title={Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments}, volume={22}, ISSN={1476-4989}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpt024}, DOI={10.1093/pan/mpt024}, number={1}, journal={Political Analysis}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Hainmueller, Jens and Hopkins, Daniel J. and Yamamoto, Teppei}, year={2014}, pages={1–30} }
| 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 |