4,099 rated or chosen profiles from 4,099 respondents, in up to 1 tasks of 1 profile varying on 2 attributes.
| Description | Danish respondents (n = 4,099 with an outcome of 4,423) each read about one fictitious party whose ideological position (centre, centre-left, centre-right, left-wing, right-wing) and democratic stance (pro- or anti-democratic) were randomized, plus a control with neither; they rated how much the party should be granted the same rights, have its proposals discussed and its decisions accepted, and gave perception ratings. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Kölln, A.-K. (2024). When do citizens consider political parties legitimate? British Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 110-128. |
| DOI | 10.1017/S0007123423000364 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/Y7EIEC |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 4,099 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 4,099 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 1 |
| Profiles per task | 1 |
| Attributes | 2 |
| Topic | parties platforms, democracy institutions |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | organisation |
| Country | DK |
| Language shown | unknown |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| 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_accept_decisions | Need to accept the party's decisions (legitimacy item; wording not in the deposit, paraphrase) [rating, 0 (unknown) to 1 (unknown)] |
|---|---|
| rating_democratic_practices | Perceived level of the party's endorsement of democratic practices (paraphrase) [rating, 1 (challenges current democratic practices) to 7 (endorses current democratic practices)] |
| rating_discuss_proposals | Need to discuss the party's proposals (legitimacy item; wording not in the deposit, paraphrase) [rating, 0 (unknown) to 1 (unknown)] |
| rating_ideology | Perceived ideological position of the party (paraphrase) [rating, 1 (right wing) to 5 (left wing)] |
| rating_same_rights | Need to grant the party the same rights (legitimacy item; wording not in the deposit, paraphrase) [rating, 0 (unknown) to 1 (unknown)] |
| rating_threat | Whether the party will pose a threat to democracy if in power (paraphrase) [rating, 1 (it will pose a real threat to democracy if in power) to 7 (it will definitely not pose a threat to democracy if in power)] |
attr_democratic_stanceattr_ideologyidprofilerating_accept_decisionsrating_democratic_practicesrating_discuss_proposalsrating_ideologyrating_same_rightsrating_threattask
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("koelln_2023_party_legitimacy", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("koelln_2023_party_legitimacy", source="conj")
@article{K_lln_2023, title={When Do Citizens Consider Political Parties Legitimate?}, volume={54}, ISSN={1469-2112}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123423000364}, DOI={10.1017/s0007123423000364}, number={1}, journal={British Journal of Political Science}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Kölln, Ann-Kristin}, year={2023}, month=Oct, pages={110–128} }
| 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 |