2,649 rated or chosen profiles from 670 respondents, in up to 2 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 9 attributes.
| Description | US lobbyists sampled from Lobbying Disclosure Act reports (n = 670) chose which of two members of Congress was the more attractive target for access and rated interest in meeting each (1-5), in 2 policy scenarios, with randomized party, district support, seniority, position, committee membership and leadership, margin of victory, PAC donation and cosponsorship. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Miller, D. R. (2022). On whose door to knock? Organized interests' strategic pursuit of access to members of Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 47(1), 157-192. |
| DOI | 10.1111/lsq.12328 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/YWTALO |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 670 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 2,649 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 2 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 9 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | democracy institutions |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | person |
| Country | US |
| Language shown | en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | yes (stated by the source): design.dat: cmte No excludes cmteldr Subcommittee chair and Subcommittee ranking member; pty Democrat excludes Subcommittee ranking member; pty Republican excludes Subcommittee chair; position Oppose or Undeclared excludes cosponsor Yes. The restrictions make the level shares unequal (cosponsor Yes 25%, position Support about half, cmte Yes about two thirds) |
| 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 | Which member is the more attractive target? (paraphrase of codebook: whether respondent chose member as more attractive target) [choice, forced] |
|---|---|
| rating | Level of interest in meeting with the member (paraphrase of codebook: respondent's five-point ordinal level of interest in meeting with the member) [rating, 1 (unknown) to 5 (unknown)] |
attr_cmteattr_cmteldrattr_cosponsorattr_movattr_num_constattr_pacattr_positionattr_ptyattr_senioritychoicecov_age_groupcov_educationcov_gendercov_ideologycov_incomecov_party_idcov_party_id7cov_positioncov_prev_civil_servantcov_prev_cong_staffcov_prev_eopcov_prev_member_congresscov_prev_nonecov_prev_othercov_prev_pres_appointeecov_racecov_years_experienceidprofileratingtasktrial_issuetrial_stage
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("miller_2022_lobbyist_access", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("miller_2022_lobbyist_access", source="conj")
@article{Miller_2021, title={On Whose Door to Knock? Organized Interests’ Strategic Pursuit of Access to Members of Congress}, volume={47}, ISSN={1939-9162}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12328}, DOI={10.1111/lsq.12328}, number={1}, journal={Legislative Studies Quarterly}, publisher={Wiley}, author={Miller, David R.}, year={2021}, month=Jan, pages={157–192} }
| 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 |