3,564 rated or chosen profiles from 913 respondents, in up to 2 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 6 attributes.
| Description | Spanish mayors (elite sample, 2018-19, n=913) chose which of two hypothetical party leaders they would form a coalition with, varying gender, age, education, council terms, ideology and seats, 2 tasks; forced choice plus four 1-5 agreement ratings on the second task. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Huidobro, A. (2026). Partners in government: Politicians' gender preferences in coalition formation. Political Science Research and Methods. |
| DOI | 10.1017/psrm.2025.10077 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ZQIFHG |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 913 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 3,564 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 2 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 6 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | candidate choice |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | person |
| Country | ES |
| Language shown | es |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | unknown |
| 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:
| choice | If you could choose between two partners to form a government coalition with the following two leaders, which one would you choose? (translated) [choice, forced] |
|---|---|
| rating_capacity_to_govern | agreement that this leader has the capacity to govern (paraphrase) [rating, 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)] |
| rating_easy_communication | agreement that it would be easy to communicate with this leader (paraphrase) [rating, 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)] |
| rating_similar_preferences | agreement that this leader has political preferences similar to the respondent's own (paraphrase) [rating, 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)] |
| rating_trustworthy | agreement that this leader is trustworthy (paraphrase) [rating, 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)] |
attr_ageattr_educationattr_genderattr_ideologyattr_seatsattr_termschoicecov_age_groupcov_education_codecov_gendercov_ideologyidprofilerating_capacity_to_governrating_easy_communicationrating_similar_preferencesrating_trustworthytask
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("huidobro_2026_coalition_partner", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("huidobro_2026_coalition_partner", source="conj")
@article{Huidobro_2026, title={Partners in government: politicians’ gender preferences in coalition formation}, ISSN={2049-8489}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2025.10077}, DOI={10.1017/psrm.2025.10077}, journal={Political Science Research and Methods}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Huidobro, Alba}, year={2026}, month=Feb, pages={1–19} }
| 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 |