12,129 rated or chosen profiles from 1,213 respondents, in up to 5 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 7 attributes.

About this table

Description	Conjoint experiment in which 1,213 US online respondents compared five pairs of hypothetical US military interventions differing in security and humanitarian outcomes, casualties, costs, durability of peace and target regime. Outcomes: which intervention was more successful, and a 1-4 success rating of each.
Reference	Maxey, S. (2025). Good enough? Public perceptions of success in military interventions. International Studies Quarterly, 69(3), sqaf051.
DOI	10.1093/isq/sqaf051
Licence	CC0 1.0
Source data	https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/RB08VT

Notes

Conjoint table (irw_conjoint). choice: "Which intervention was the MOST successful?" (forced, no opt-out; 43 pairs unanswered); rating: "How successful were each of the interventions?" 1 = Very Unsuccessful .. 4 = Very Successful. Task and profile inferred from row order. Level text is the deposit's value labels (may abbreviate the displayed wording); restrictions undocumented. cov_attention_pass flags the pre-treatment attention check used in the authors' robustness check.

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	1,213
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)	12,129
Tasks per respondent (most)	5
Profiles per task	2
Attributes	7
Tasks with no profile chosen	0

Design

Topic	foreign policy security
A profile represents	policy
Country	US
Language shown	en
Language of stored levels	en
Randomization restrictions	unknown
Task order	inferred from row order
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	Which intervention was the MOST successful? [choice, forced]
rating	How successful were each of the interventions? [rating, 1 (Very Unsuccessful) to 4 (Very Successful)]

Columns

attr_civilians_killedattr_financial_costsattr_humanitarian_outcomeattr_peace_lastsattr_security_outcomeattr_soldiers_killedattr_target_regimechoicecov_age_group_codecov_attention_passcov_education_codecov_gender_codecov_hispaniccov_party_id7_codecov_raceidprofileratingtask

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("maxey_2025_intervention_success", source = "conj")

# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("maxey_2025_intervention_success", source="conj")

How to cite

@article{Maxey_2025, title={Good Enough? Public Perceptions of Success in Military Interventions}, volume={69}, ISSN={1468-2478}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf051}, DOI={10.1093/isq/sqaf051}, number={3}, journal={International Studies Quarterly}, publisher={Oxford University Press (OUP)}, author={Maxey, Sarah}, year={2025}, month=June }

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