higashijima_2025_election_timing_2022

41,232 rated or chosen profiles from 2,577 respondents, in up to 8 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 8 attributes.

One of 2 tables from the same source; this one is the 2022 table. The others are listed under Related tables.

About this table

DescriptionJapanese respondents (January 2022, n=2,577) compared 8 pairs of hypothetical general-election scenarios varying remaining term, reason, economic policy, how the PM decided, cabinet approval, surprise, economy and opposition coordination, choosing one.
ReferenceHigashijima, M., Shimizu, N., Washida, H., & Yanai, Y. (2025). Partisan reactions to endogenous election timing: Evidence from conjoint experiments in Japan. Political Behavior.
DOI10.1007/s11109-025-10106-7
LicenceCC0 1.0
Source datahttps://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WWKXEU

Notes

These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.

Size and shape

Respondents2,577
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)41,232
Tasks per respondent (most)8
Profiles per task2
Attributes8
Tasks with no profile chosen0

Design

Topicdemocracy institutions
A profile representsscenario
CountryJP
Language shownja
Language of stored levelsja
Randomization restrictionsyes (stated by the source): Remaining term 0 occurs only with how-decided 'term expired' (任期満了のため) and vice versa; reason 'full term' only with remaining term 0. The authors' code also forbids term 0 with other reasons, but 2,179 such profiles occur in the data (flagged). Level shares: remaining term 0 is 6.1% of profiles (2,508/41,232) vs about 15.8% for each other level; reason 'full term' 329 profiles vs about 5,900; how 'term expired' rare.
Task orderrecorded in the deposit
Profile positionrecorded 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:

choiceWhich election do you think is held at a more desirable timing? Please choose the one with the more desirable election timing. Even if you are not entirely sure, please indicate which of the two you would prefer. (translated) [choice, forced]

Columns

attr_econ_policyattr_growthattr_howattr_newspaperattr_oppositionattr_popularityattr_reasonattr_remainchoicecov_agecov_party_groupidprofiletask

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.

Get the data

Download CSVno account neededBrowse on Redivisexplore and queryCroissant metadataHugging Face, Kaggle, OpenML

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("higashijima_2025_election_timing_2022", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("higashijima_2025_election_timing_2022", source="conj")

How to cite

@article{Higashijima_2025, title={Partisan Reactions to Endogenous Election Timing: Evidence from Conjoint Experiments in Japan}, ISSN={1573-6687}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-025-10106-7}, DOI={10.1007/s11109-025-10106-7}, journal={Political Behavior}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Higashijima, Masaaki and Shimizu, Naoki and Washida, Hidekuni and Yanai, Yuki}, year={2025}, month=Nov }

Version and provenance

IRW versionv584
Redivis datasetirw_conjoint v4.2
Redivis dataset DOI10.57761/qkye-q530
Manifest pin for this IRW versionv4.2
Metadata sourceirw_meta v44.0