11,214 rated or chosen profiles from 1,403 respondents, in up to 4 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 5 attributes.

About this table

Description	UK adults (SSI online panel, the week before the 2015 general election) chose between two anonymous parties' policy packages built from the 2015 manifestos (economy, jobs, immigration, EU, education), 4 pairs each. 1,403 respondents, forced choice.
Reference	Matsuo, A., & Lee, S. (2018). Multi-dimensional policy preferences in the 2015 British general election: A conjoint analysis. Electoral Studies, 55, 89-98.
DOI	10.1016/j.electstud.2018.07.005
Licence	CC0 1.0
Source data	https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/CGHY3L

Notes

Conjoint table (irw_conjoint). choice: "Which of these two candidates would you be most likely to vote for?" between candidates of two parties with the displayed policy packages; forced choice, no opt-out. Levels drawn uniformly and independently; attribute order randomized per respondent (not recorded); profile position inferred from row order. Unanswered tasks and one respondent ID holding two complete sessions dropped: 1,403 respondents against 1,394 in the paper. Platform IDs re-keyed; party ID, education and nation kept as undocumented codes.

These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.

Size and shape

Respondents	1,403
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)	11,214
Tasks per respondent (most)	4
Profiles per task	2
Attributes	5
Tasks with no profile chosen	0

Design

Topic	parties platforms
A profile represents	policy
Country	GB
Language shown	en
Language of stored levels	en
Task order	recorded in the deposit
Profile position	inferred from row order

Task order or profile position was rebuilt from row order; analyses of position or task order should leave it out.

Outcomes:

choice	Suppose that two parties with the issue positions described below had nominated candidates in the general election. Which of these two candidates would you be most likely to vote for? Even if you are not entirely sure, please choose the one that you most prefer. Which candidate would you support? [choice, forced]

Columns

attr_economyattr_educationattr_euattr_immigrationattr_jobschoicecov_country_codecov_education_codecov_pid1_codecov_vote_intentionidprofiletasktrial_time_spend

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.

Get the data

Download CSVno account needed Browse on Redivisexplore and query Croissant metadataHugging Face, Kaggle, OpenML

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("matsuo_2018_uk_policy_packages", source = "conj")

# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("matsuo_2018_uk_policy_packages", source="conj")

How to cite

@article{Matsuo_2018, title={Multi-dimensional policy preferences in the 2015 British general election: A conjoint analysis}, volume={55}, ISSN={0261-3794}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2018.07.005}, DOI={10.1016/j.electstud.2018.07.005}, journal={Electoral Studies}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Matsuo, Akitaka and Lee, Seonghui}, year={2018}, month=Oct, pages={89–98} }

Version and provenance

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