4,501 rated or chosen profiles from 4,501 respondents, in up to 1 tasks of 1 profile varying on 2 attributes.
| Description | Phone-survey audio vignette in Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia (n = 4,501; 2021-2022): each respondent heard one radio excerpt about a legislative committee that was all-male or gender-balanced and that supported or rejected a proposal to increase penalties for domestic violence (2 x 2, between-subject); outcomes are 1-4 ratings of the decision, trust, process fairness and public acceptance. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Kao, K., Lust, E., Shalaby, M., & Weiss, C. M. (2024). Female representation and legitimacy: Evidence from a harmonized experiment in Jordan, Morocco, and Tunisia. American Political Science Review, 118(1), 495-503. |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0003055423000357 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/5GP5SI |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 4,501 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 4,501 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 1 |
| Profiles per task | 1 |
| Attributes | 2 |
| Topic | democracy institutions |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | organisation |
| Country | JO, MA, TN |
| Language shown | ar |
| 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:
| rating_fair | Still thinking about the radio story you just heard, how fair was the decision making process? [rating, 1 (Very unfair) to 4 (Very fair)] |
|---|---|
| rating_public_accept | How likely is the general public to accept the committee's decision to <decision>? [rating, 1 (Not at all likely) to 4 (Very likely)] |
| rating_right_all | Now I am going to ask you some questions about how you feel about this committee ... The committee made the right decision for all citizens? [rating, 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree)] |
| rating_right_men | The committee made the right decision for men? [rating, 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree)] |
| rating_right_women | The committee made the right decision for women? [rating, 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree)] |
| rating_trust | The committee can be trusted to make future decisions that are right for all citizens? [rating, 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree)] |
attr_committee_genderattr_decisioncov_agecov_countrycov_educationcov_enumerator_malecov_gendercov_household_incomecov_marital_statusidprofilerating_fairrating_public_acceptrating_right_allrating_right_menrating_right_womenrating_trusttask
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("kao_2023_committee_gender", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("kao_2023_committee_gender", source="conj")
@article{KAO_2023, title={Female Representation and Legitimacy: Evidence from a Harmonized Experiment in Jordan, Morocco, and Tunisia}, volume={118}, ISSN={1537-5943}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0003055423000357}, DOI={10.1017/s0003055423000357}, number={1}, journal={American Political Science Review}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={KAO, KRISTEN and LUST, ELLEN and SHALABY, MARWA and WEISS, CHAGAI M.}, year={2023}, month=Apr, pages={495–503} }
| 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 |