32,048 rated or chosen profiles from 2,003 respondents, in up to 8 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 7 attributes.
| Description | Paired conjoint on judging resolve in international disputes: 2,003 US adults (January 2015) compared 8 pairs of countries described by regime type, military capabilities, stakes, leader background (tenure, military service, gender), relation to the US, previous and current crisis behaviour; outcomes are which country is more likely to stand firm and a 0-100 likelihood that each will. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Kertzer, J. D., Renshon, J., & Yarhi-Milo, K. (2021). How do observers assess resolve? British Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 308-330. |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0007123418000595 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VSVMY7 |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 2,003 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 32,048 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 8 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 7 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | foreign policy security |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | place |
| Country | US |
| Language shown | en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | observed in the data (not documented by the source): no source documents rules; in the data a profile that 'is the United States' is always 'a democracy' and 'has a very powerful military', and at most one profile per task is the United States. Shares are unequal as a result: democracy 0.50 vs 0.25/0.25, powerful military 0.62, foreign relations ally/adversary 0.38 each and US 0.25 |
| Task order | recorded in the deposit |
| Profile position | recorded in the deposit |
Because the attribute levels were not randomized independently, an estimator has to account for the restriction; a plain difference in means across levels can mislead.
Outcomes:
| choice | Which of the two countries do you think is more likely to stand firm? (paraphrase) [choice, forced] |
|---|---|
| rating | How likely is it that this country will stand firm? (paraphrase) [rating, 0 (unknown) to 100 (unknown)] |
attr_current_behaviorattr_foreign_relationsattr_government_typeattr_interestsattr_leader_backgroundattr_military_capabilitiesattr_previous_behaviorattrpos_current_behaviorattrpos_foreign_relationsattrpos_government_typeattrpos_interestsattrpos_leader_backgroundattrpos_military_capabilitiesattrpos_previous_behaviorchoicecov_agecov_birth_yearcov_duration_seccov_education_codecov_gendercov_party_id7cov_survey_weightidprofileratingtasktrial_response_sec
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("kertzer_2021_resolve", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("kertzer_2021_resolve", source="conj")
@article{Kertzer_2019, title={How Do Observers Assess Resolve?}, volume={51}, ISSN={1469-2112}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0007123418000595}, DOI={10.1017/s0007123418000595}, number={1}, journal={British Journal of Political Science}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Kertzer, Joshua D and Renshon, Jonathan and Yarhi-Milo, Keren}, year={2019}, month=June, pages={308–330} }
| 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 |