7,914 rated or chosen profiles from 2,038 respondents, in up to 4 tasks of 1 profile varying on 7 attributes.
One of 3 tables from the same source; this one is the uk table. The others are listed under Related tables.
| Description | 2,038 Britain adults (YouGov GB, Dec 2018) each judged 4 political statements whose timing, sender (Conservatives, Labour, UKIP, Liberal Democrats, Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn), commitment wording, numeric goal, policy content, time horizon and condition were randomized; outcomes: is it an election pledge (yes/no), should the sender be held accountable (yes/no), and 1-5 ratings of priority, sender's ability to act, and impossibility of checking. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Krishnarajan, S., & Jensen, C. (2022). When is a pledge a pledge? British Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 1911-1922. |
| DOI | 10.1017/S0007123421000284 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/X73XUM |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 2,038 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 7,914 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 4 |
| Profiles per task | 1 |
| Attributes | 7 |
| Topic | political communication |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | message |
| Country | GB |
| Language shown | en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | unknown |
| Task order | recorded in the deposit |
| Profile position | recorded in the deposit |
Outcomes:
| rating | Would you consider this an election pledge? [rating, 0 (No) to 1 (Yes)] |
|---|---|
| rating_accountable | Should [sender] be held accountable for whether this is implemented? [rating, 0 (No) to 1 (Yes)] |
| rating_can_act | Is this something [sender] can do something about if [sender] really wants to? [rating, 1 (Definitely not) to 5 (Definitely)] |
| rating_cannot_check | How much do you agree with the following statement? In reality, it is impossible for people like me to check whether [sender] actually implements this. [rating, 1 (Disagree completely) to 5 (Agree completely)] |
| rating_priority | How much do you agree with the following statement? This is a high priority for [sender]. [rating, 1 (Disagree completely) to 5 (Agree completely)] |
attr_commitmentattr_conditionattr_numeric_goalattr_policyattr_senderattr_time_horizonattr_timingcov_age_groupcov_attention_passcov_duration_seccov_educationcov_gendercov_left_rightcov_regioncov_survey_weightcov_vote_2017cov_vote_intentionidprofileratingrating_accountablerating_can_actrating_cannot_checkrating_prioritytask
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("krishnarajan_2022_pledges_uk", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("krishnarajan_2022_pledges_uk", source="conj")
@article{Krishnarajan_2021, title={When Is A Pledge A Pledge?}, volume={52}, ISSN={1469-2112}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123421000284}, DOI={10.1017/s0007123421000284}, number={4}, journal={British Journal of Political Science}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Krishnarajan, Suthan and Jensen, Carsten}, year={2021}, month=Oct, pages={1911–1922} }
| 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 |