640 rated or chosen profiles from 640 respondents, in up to 1 tasks of 1 profile varying on 2 attributes.
| Description | 640 US Prolific respondents each read one vignette of a two-child family (electricity from utility or solar panels; low or high household energy use) and rated it on 16 items (approval, neighbour and friend preference, competence, morality, environmental concern and impact). |
|---|---|
| Reference | Horne, C., & Kennedy, E. H. (2021). Understanding the rebound: Normative evaluations of energy use in the United States. Environmental Sociology, 8(1), 64-72. |
| DOI | 10.1080/23251042.2021.1958545 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/dvn/lx3sam |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 640 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 640 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 1 |
| Profiles per task | 1 |
| Attributes | 2 |
| Topic | climate energy environment |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | person |
| Country | US |
| Language shown | en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Task order | inferred from row order |
| Profile position | inferred from row order |
Task order or profile position was rebuilt from row order; analyses of position or task order should leave it out.
Outcomes:
| rating | How much do you approve of this family? [rating, 1 (Not at all (button labelled 0)) to 11 (Very much (button labelled 10))] |
|---|---|
| rating_caring | How caring is this family? [rating, 1 (Not at all (button labelled 0)) to 11 (Very (button labelled 10))] |
| rating_common_sense | How much common sense does this family have? [rating, 1 (None (button labelled 0)) to 11 (A lot (button labelled 10))] |
| rating_conserving | How much energy is this family conserving? [rating, 1 (None (button labelled 0)) to 11 (A lot (button labelled 10))] |
| rating_env_concern | Generally speaking, how concerned about environmental issues is this family? [rating, 1 (Not at all (button labelled 0)) to 11 (Very (button labelled 10))] |
| rating_env_priority | How much is the environment a high priority for this family? [rating, 1 (Not at all (button labelled 0)) to 11 (Very much (button labelled 10))] |
| rating_env_supporter | To what extent are the people in this family active supporters of environmental protection? [rating, 1 (Not at all (button labelled 0)) to 11 (Very much (button labelled 10))] |
| rating_ethical | How ethical is this family? [rating, 1 (Not at all (button labelled 0)) to 11 (Very (button labelled 10))] |
| rating_friends | If this family moved to your neighborhood, how interested would you be in being friends with them? [rating, 1 (Not at all (button labelled 0)) to 11 (Very (button labelled 10))] |
| rating_harm_env | How much harm to the environment is this family causing? [rating, 1 (None (button labelled 0)) to 11 (A lot (button labelled 10))] |
| rating_helping_env | How much are this family's actions helping the environment? [rating, 1 (Not at all (button labelled 0)) to 11 (A lot (button labelled 10))] |
| rating_knowledgeable | How knowledgeable is this family? [rating, 1 (Not at all (button labelled 0)) to 11 (Very (button labelled 10))] |
| rating_money | How good with money is this family? [rating, 1 (Not at all (button labelled 0)) to 11 (Very (button labelled 10))] |
| rating_pleased_neighbor | How pleased would you feel about this family moving in next door to you? [rating, 1 (Not at all (button labelled 0)) to 11 (Very (button labelled 10))] |
| rating_problem_solving | How good at problem solving is this family? [rating, 1 (Not at all (button labelled 0)) to 11 (Very (button labelled 10))] |
| rating_unselfish | How unselfish is this family? [rating, 1 (Not at all (button labelled 0)) to 11 (Very (button labelled 10))] |
attr_electricity_sourceattr_household_usecov_agecov_educationcov_gendercov_ideology_codecov_incomeidprofileratingrating_caringrating_common_senserating_conservingrating_env_concernrating_env_priorityrating_env_supporterrating_ethicalrating_friendsrating_harm_envrating_helping_envrating_knowledgeablerating_moneyrating_pleased_neighborrating_problem_solvingrating_unselfishtasktrial_question_order
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("horne_2021_energy_rebound", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("horne_2021_energy_rebound", source="conj")
@article{Horne_2021, title={Understanding the rebound: normative evaluations of energy use in the United States}, volume={8}, ISSN={2325-1042}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2021.1958545}, DOI={10.1080/23251042.2021.1958545}, number={1}, journal={Environmental Sociology}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Horne, Christine and Kennedy, Emily Huddart}, year={2021}, month=Aug, pages={64–72} }
| IRW version | v584 |
|---|---|
| Redivis dataset | irw_conjoint_2 v1.4 |
| Redivis dataset DOI | 10.57761/hk97-wv30 |
| Manifest pin for this IRW version | v1.4 |
| Metadata source | irw_meta v44.0 |