43,344 rated or chosen profiles from 3,612 respondents, in up to 6 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 7 attributes.

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

About this table

Description	3,612 US respondents each completed six paired candidate conjoints, one per ethical issue (death penalty, lying, bribery, cheating on a spouse, homosexuality, suicide), with candidates varying in age, gender, party, race, profession, government experience and their stated acceptability of that issue; they chose one candidate and rated both 0-100.
Reference	Islam, M. M., & Loewen, P. (2026). Ethical distance and electoral accountability: Voters punish politicians whose ethical views diverge from societal consensus.
Licence	CC0 1.0
Source data	https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/O2RSXG

Notes

Conjoint table (irw_conjoint). Six candidate pairs per respondent, one per ethical issue (trial_issue); the issue position is attr_ethical_position. choice: "If you had to choose between them, which of these two candidates would you vote for?" (forced, no opt-out); rating: 0-100 rating of each candidate, wording not deposited, stored raw. Task numbers follow the deposit's column order, not a recorded display order. Panel IDs re-keyed; free-text answers dropped.

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

Design

Topic	candidate choice
A profile represents	person
Country	US
Language shown	en
Language of stored levels	en
Randomization restrictions	unknown
Task order	unknown
Profile position	recorded in the deposit

Outcomes:

choice	If you had to choose between them, which of these two candidates would you vote for? [choice, forced]
rating	unknown [rating, 0 (unknown) to 100 (unknown)]

Columns

attr_ageattr_ethical_positionattr_experienceattr_genderattr_partyattr_professionattr_racechoicecov_accept_briberycov_accept_cheatingcov_accept_death_penaltycov_accept_homosexualitycov_accept_lyingcov_accept_suicidecov_agecov_birth_yearcov_census_regioncov_educ_bachelorscov_gendercov_lr_scalecov_racecov_rstatuscov_survey_weightidprofileratingtasktrial_issue

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("islam_2026_ethical_distance_us", source = "conj")

# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("islam_2026_ethical_distance_us", source="conj")

How to cite

@misc{https://doi.org/10.7910/dvn/o2rsxg,
  doi = {10.7910/DVN/O2RSXG},
  url = {https://dataverse.harvard.edu/citation?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/O2RSXG},
  author = {Islam, Md Mujahedul},
  keywords = {Social Sciences, Ethical Distance and Candidate Support; Moral Disagreement and Electoral Accountability; Moral Issues; Conjoint Experiments},
  title = {Replication Data for: Ethical Distance and Electoral Accountability: Voters Punish Politicians Whose Ethical Views Diverge from Societal Consensus},
  publisher = {Harvard Dataverse},
  year = {2026}
}

Respondents	3,612
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)	43,344
Tasks per respondent (most)	6
Profiles per task	2
Attributes	7
Tasks with no profile chosen	0

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

islam_2026_ethical_distance_us