5,136 rated or chosen profiles from 865 respondents, in up to 3 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 5 attributes.
One of 2 tables from the same source; this one is the us table. The others are listed under Related tables.
| Description | US respondents (Lucid online sample, October 2021, n=865) chose between two hypothetical candidates in their party's congressional primary in 3 tasks, varying gender, age, education, former occupation (working-class vs white-collar) and years in politics; 15 forced-choice questions per pair (support, relatability, which better represents five groups, which better advocates on seven issues and on the respondent's top issue). |
|---|---|
| Reference | Kim, J. H., & Kweon, Y. (2024). Double penalty? How candidate class and gender influence voter evaluations. Research & Politics, 11(1). |
| DOI | 10.1177/20531680241226511 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/EWQKH3 |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 865 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 5,136 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 3 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 5 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | candidate choice |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | person |
| Country | US |
| Language shown | en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | unknown |
| Task order | recorded in the deposit |
| Profile position | recorded in the deposit |
Outcomes:
| choice | Based on the profiles above, which of the two candidates would you be more likely to support in this [Democratic/Republican] Party's congressional primary? [choice, forced] |
|---|---|
| choice_advocate_economy | Based on the profiles above, which of the two candidates do you think will do a better job advocating for the following issues? - Economy [choice, forced] |
| choice_advocate_education | Based on the profiles above, which of the two candidates do you think will do a better job advocating for the following issues? - Education [choice, forced] |
| choice_advocate_family | Based on the profiles above, which of the two candidates do you think will do a better job advocating for the following issues? - Child/ Family [choice, forced] |
| choice_advocate_gender_equality | Based on the profiles above, which of the two candidates do you think will do a better job advocating for the following issues? - Gender Equality [choice, forced] |
| choice_advocate_health | Based on the profiles above, which of the two candidates do you think will do a better job advocating for the following issues? - Health [choice, forced] |
| choice_advocate_racial_equality | Based on the profiles above, which of the two candidates do you think will do a better job advocating for the following issues? - Racial Equality [choice, forced] |
| choice_advocate_welfare | Based on the profiles above, which of the two candidates do you think will do a better job advocating for the following issues? - Social Welfare [choice, forced] |
| choice_relate | Based on the profiles above, which of the two candidates can you relate to more? [choice, forced] |
| choice_represent_immigrants | Based on the profiles above, which of the two candidates do you think will better represent the following constituents? - Immigrants [choice, forced] |
| choice_represent_low_income | Based on the profiles above, which of the two candidates do you think will better represent the following constituents? - Low income group [choice, forced] |
| choice_represent_minorities | Based on the profiles above, which of the two candidates do you think will better represent the following constituents? - Racial minorities [choice, forced] |
| choice_represent_whites | Based on the profiles above, which of the two candidates do you think will better represent the following constituents? - Whites [choice, forced] |
| choice_represent_women | Based on the profiles above, which of the two candidates do you think will better represent the following constituents? - Women [choice, forced] |
| choice_top_issue | You chose [most important issue] as the most important policy issue to you. Based on the profiles above, which of the two candidates do you think will do a better job advocating for that issue? [choice, forced] |
attr_ageattr_educationattr_genderattr_occupationattr_years_in_politicsattrpos_ageattrpos_educationattrpos_genderattrpos_occupationattrpos_years_in_politicschoicechoice_advocate_economychoice_advocate_educationchoice_advocate_familychoice_advocate_gender_equalitychoice_advocate_healthchoice_advocate_racial_equalitychoice_advocate_welfarechoice_relatechoice_represent_immigrantschoice_represent_low_incomechoice_represent_minoritieschoice_represent_whiteschoice_represent_womenchoice_top_issuecov_agecov_educationcov_gender_codecov_interestcov_party_id_codecov_party_lean_codecov_top_issue_codeidprofiletasktrial_primary
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("kim_2024_class_gender_us", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("kim_2024_class_gender_us", source="conj")
@article{Kim_2024, title={Double penalty? How candidate class and gender influence voter evaluations}, volume={11}, ISSN={2053-1680}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20531680241226511}, DOI={10.1177/20531680241226511}, number={1}, journal={Research & Politics}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Kim, Jeong Hyun and Kweon, Yesola}, year={2024}, month=Jan }
| 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 |