25,786 rated or chosen profiles from 12,893 respondents, in up to 1 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 7 attributes.
| Description | Vietnamese adults in the 2016 PAPI national face-to-face survey (n=12,893) chose which of two hypothetical National Assembly candidates they would vote for; candidates varied in age, gender, home province (respondent's own or Hanoi), nomination route, Communist Party membership, career and policy priority. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Malesky, E., & Schuler, P. (2020). Single-party incumbency advantage in Vietnam: A conjoint survey analysis of public electoral support. Journal of East Asian Studies, 20(1), 25-52. |
| DOI | 10.1017/jea.2019.40 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/Z8ALJA |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 12,893 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 25,786 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 1 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 7 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | candidate choice |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | person |
| Country | VN |
| Language shown | vi |
| Language of stored levels | vi, en |
| Randomization restrictions | yes (stated by the source): candidate home province is either the respondent's own province or Hanoi (article Table 3 '[home province/Hanoi]'); 3 rows of 2 respondents deviate |
| Task order | inferred from row order |
| Profile position | recorded in the deposit |
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 | Now imagine two candidates for the National Assembly. The first candidate is a [age] year old [gender] candidate from [province] ... This candidate is a [nomination] [party] with a career background [career]. [policy]. The second candidate ... Which candidate would you vote for? Please feel free to look at the candidate's profile on the screen. (translated) [choice, forced] |
|---|
attr_ageattr_genderattr_jobattr_nominationattr_partyattr_policyattr_provincechoicecov_agecov_areacov_economic_situationcov_educationcov_ethnicitycov_gendercov_party_membercov_provincecov_province_populationcov_psucov_stratacov_survey_weightcov_voted_2016idprofiletask
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("malesky_2020_vietnam_na_2016", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("malesky_2020_vietnam_na_2016", source="conj")
@article{Malesky_2020, title={SINGLE-PARTY INCUMBENCY ADVANTAGE IN VIETNAM: A CONJOINT SURVEY ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC ELECTORAL SUPPORT}, volume={20}, ISSN={2234-6643}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jea.2019.40}, DOI={10.1017/jea.2019.40}, number={1}, journal={Journal of East Asian Studies}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Malesky, Edmund and Schuler, Paul}, year={2020}, month=Feb, pages={25–52} }
| 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 |