9,232 rated or chosen profiles from 1,154 respondents, in up to 4 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 4 attributes.
| Description | US adults (n=1,154) chose between and rated (0-100) pairs of hypothetical school energy-saving programs varying in who makes decisions, who gets implementation information, CO2 reduction and cost savings, after a randomized low-trust prime. Forced choice plus a rating of each program. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Liu, Y., Lee, H., & Berry, F. (2023). How and when democratic values matter: Challenging the effectiveness-centric framework in program evaluation. Public Performance & Management Review, 46(4), 820-845. |
| DOI | 10.1080/15309576.2023.2184839 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/FJ82VU |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 1,154 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 9,232 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 4 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 4 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | climate energy environment |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | policy |
| Country | US |
| Language shown | unknown |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | unknown |
| Task order | recorded in the deposit |
| Profile position | recorded in the deposit |
Outcomes:
| choice | Please indicate which project you prefer: [choice, forced] |
|---|---|
| rating | One a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 indicates that you do not like the project at all and 100 indicates that you are totally in favor of your government adopting the project, how would you rate each project? [rating, 0 (Totally dislike) to 100 (Totally favor)] |
attr_co2_reductionattr_decision_making_involvesattr_implementation_info_available_toattr_school_savingsattrpos_co2_reductionattrpos_decision_making_involvesattrpos_implementation_info_available_toattrpos_school_savingschoicecov_agecov_attention_passcov_duration_seccov_education_codecov_gendercov_ideologycov_incomecov_manip_checkcov_manip_check_passcov_racecov_trustcov_usidprofileratingtasktrial_low_trust_prime
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("liu_2023_program_evaluation", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("liu_2023_program_evaluation", source="conj")
@article{Liu_2023, title={How and When Democratic Values Matter: Challenging the Effectiveness-Centric Framework in Program Evaluation}, volume={46}, ISSN={1557-9271}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2023.2184839}, DOI={10.1080/15309576.2023.2184839}, number={4}, journal={Public Performance & Management Review}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Liu, Yixin and Lee, Heewon and Berry, Frances}, year={2023}, month=Mar, pages={820–845} }
| 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 |