10,000 rated or chosen profiles from 1,000 respondents, in up to 5 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 11 attributes.
| Description | US adults (YouGov, 2018; n=1,000) compared 5 pairs of hypothetical Supreme Court nominees described by judicial philosophy, party, ideology, ABA rating, position, law school, demographics and office history; outcomes are a forced choice and a 1-5 rating of each nominee. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Krewson, C. N., & Owens, R. J. (2021). Public support for judicial philosophies: Evidence from a conjoint experiment. Journal of Law and Courts, 9(1), 89-110. |
| DOI | 10.1086/712649 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/RLVSNF |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 1,000 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 10,000 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 5 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 11 |
| 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 | yes (stated by the source): Party x Ideology dependence (Democratic: Liberal/Moderate; Republican: Conservative/Moderate) per cjoint design object design_adj$dependence. Level weights (design_adj$J marginals): race White .38, Black .25, Hispanic/Native American/Asian .12 each; law school Yale .200, Stanford .167, Harvard .133, Chicago .100, Columbia .067, ten others .033; held office Yes .33 / No .67; ideology Moderate .50, Liberal .25, Conservative .25 (via the party rule); the object's ABA rating .50/.33/.17 is not borne out by the data (about 1/3 each) |
| Task order | inferred from row order |
| Profile position | inferred from row order |
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. Task order or profile position was rebuilt from row order; analyses of position or task order should leave it out.
Outcomes:
| choice | unknown [choice, forced] |
|---|---|
| rating | unknown [rating, 1 (unknown) to 5 (unknown)] |
attr_aba_ratingattr_ageattr_held_officeattr_ideologyattr_legal_educationattr_partyattr_philosophyattr_positionattr_raceattr_religionattr_sexchoicecov_ideo5cov_party_idcov_party_id7_codecov_survey_weightidprofileratingtask
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("krewson_2021_judicial_philosophy", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("krewson_2021_judicial_philosophy", source="conj")
@article{Krewson_2021, title={Public Support for Judicial Philosophies: Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment}, volume={9}, ISSN={2164-6589}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/712649}, DOI={10.1086/712649}, number={1}, journal={Journal of Law and Courts}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Krewson, Christopher N. and Owens, Ryan J.}, year={2021}, pages={89–110} }
| 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 |