4,297 rated or chosen profiles from 745 respondents, in up to 3 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 5 attributes.
| Description | US state and local officials and staff (CivicPulse elite survey, Feb-Apr 2017, n = 745) rated 3 pairs of hypothetical state-legislative election scenarios varying salary, fundraising required, and the opponent's experience, advertising and ideology; outcomes are interest in running (1-5) and perceived chance of winning (1-5). |
|---|---|
| Reference | Marble, W., Lee, N., & Bram, C. (2025). Stepping up the political ladder: How the burden of fundraising limits candidate entry. Political Behavior. |
| DOI | 10.1007/s11109-025-10108-5 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/J3WJMB |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 745 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 4,297 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 3 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 5 |
| Topic | democracy institutions |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | scenario |
| Country | US |
| Language shown | en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | yes (stated by the source): opponent ideology drawn only from the side opposed to the respondent's self-placed ideology (liberals: moderate/somewhat/very conservative; conservatives: moderate/somewhat/very liberal; moderates: all five), so Moderate is ~29% of profiles; analyse ideology within respondent ideology (preanalysis plan p. 3) |
| Task order | recorded in the deposit |
| 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.
Outcomes:
| rating | How interested would you be in running in each election? [rating, 1 (Not interested) to 5 (Very interested)] |
|---|---|
| rating_winprob | If you were to run, how likely is it that you would win in each election? [rating, 1 (Very unlikely) to 5 (Very likely)] |
attr_fundraisingattr_opp_advertisingattr_opp_experienceattr_opp_ideologyattr_salaryattrpos_fundraisingattrpos_opp_advertisingattrpos_opp_experienceattrpos_opp_ideologyattrpos_salarycov_answer_ordercov_birth_yearcov_educationcov_electedcov_gendercov_ideo5cov_levelcov_party_idcov_question_ordercov_statecov_typeidprofileratingrating_winprobtasktrial_seat
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("marble_2025_run_for_office", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("marble_2025_run_for_office", source="conj")
@article{Marble_2025, title={Stepping Up the Political Ladder: How the Burden of Fundraising Limits Candidate Entry}, ISSN={1573-6687}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-025-10108-5}, DOI={10.1007/s11109-025-10108-5}, journal={Political Behavior}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Marble, William and Lee, Nathan and Bram, Curtis}, year={2025}, month=Nov }
| 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 |