10,080 rated or chosen profiles from 2,527 respondents, in up to 2 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 4 attributes.

About this table

Description	Market vendors in Malawi (face-to-face survey in 128 markets, n=2,527 with answers) compared 2 pairs of hypothetical civil society organizations varying where they were founded, the leader's former profession, funding source and party affiliation; they chose whose meetings they would attend and answered a second (scandal) question about the same pairs.
Reference	Hoellerbauer, S. (2023). Why join? How civil society organizations' attributes signal congruence and impact community engagement. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 10(1), 88-99.
DOI	10.1017/XPS.2021.27
Licence	CC0 1.0
Source data	https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/O6NMGE

Notes

Conjoint table (irw_conjoint). choice_meeting = which of two organizations (A/B) the respondent would rather attend meetings of (paraphrase of the abstract), choice_scandal = organization picked in the scandal question (wording not deposited; picking is unfavourable, the author reverses it), both forced A/B, no opt-out. Level text from the codebook in English, display language undocumented; restrictions and attribute order undocumented. 13 profiles with an unsaved attribute value have their task dropped.

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

Design

Topic	other
A profile represents	organisation
Country	MW
Language shown	unknown
Language of stored levels	en
Randomization restrictions	unknown
Task order	recorded in the deposit
Profile position	recorded in the deposit

Outcomes:

choice_meeting	Which organization's meetings would you be more willing to attend? (paraphrase) [choice, forced]
choice_scandal	Response to scandal question: Organization A or Organization B (paraphrase; wording unknown) [choice, forced]

Columns

attr_foundedattr_fundingattr_leader_former_professionattr_partychoice_meetingchoice_scandalcov_agecov_community_org_membercov_districtcov_educationcov_enumeratorcov_gendercov_hh_incomecov_intend_votecov_literatecov_marketcov_ngo_apathycov_registeredcov_sells_dailycov_servicecov_years_in_marketidprofiletask

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 needed Browse on Redivisexplore and query Croissant 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("hoellerbauer_2023_civil_society_orgs", source = "conj")

# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("hoellerbauer_2023_civil_society_orgs", source="conj")

How to cite

@article{Hoellerbauer_2021, title={Why Join? How Civil Society Organizations’ Attributes Signal Congruence and Impact Community Engagement}, volume={10}, ISSN={2052-2649}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2021.27}, DOI={10.1017/xps.2021.27}, number={1}, journal={Journal of Experimental Political Science}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Hoellerbauer, Simon}, year={2021}, month=Oct, pages={88–99} }

Respondents	2,527
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)	10,080
Tasks per respondent (most)	2
Profiles per task	2
Attributes	4

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

hoellerbauer_2023_civil_society_orgs