34,248 rated or chosen profiles from 2,854 respondents, in up to 6 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 6 attributes.
One of 2 tables from the same source; this one is the us table. The others are listed under Related tables.
| Description | US adults (IPSOS online panel, November 2017, n = 2,854) chose between two agricultural-subsidy proposals in each of 6 tasks, each proposal allocating direct payments to six goals (environmentally friendly farming, small farms, food security, countryside, animal welfare, food quality) at None/Moderate/Large; outcomes are the forced choice and a 1-7 rating of each proposal. Half the sample first saw a cost prime (trial_cost_frame). |
|---|---|
| Reference | Nguyen, Q., Spilker, G., & Bernauer, T. (2021). The (still) mysterious case of agricultural protectionism. International Interactions, 47(3), 391-416. |
| DOI | 10.1080/03050629.2021.1898957 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/APJPKV |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 2,854 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 34,248 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 6 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 6 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | climate energy environment |
|---|---|
| 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 proposal do you prefer? [choice, forced] |
|---|---|
| rating | Rating of each proposal on a seven-point scale (paraphrase) [rating, 1 (not like) to 7 (unknown)] |
attr_animal_welfareattr_countrysideattr_environment_friendly_farmingattr_food_qualityattr_food_securityattr_small_farmschoicecov_agecov_climate_concerncov_climate_vs_growthcov_climate_whencov_econ_insecuritycov_education_groupcov_employedcov_equalitycov_food_self_sufficiencycov_gendercov_ideologycov_incomecov_knows_farmercov_nationalism_1cov_nationalism_2cov_nationalism_3cov_nationalism_4cov_nationalism_5cov_subsidies_too_lowcov_tradition_1cov_tradition_2cov_tradition_3cov_tradition_4cov_worked_on_farmidprofileratingtasktrial_cost_frame
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("nguyen_2021_farm_subsidies_us", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("nguyen_2021_farm_subsidies_us", source="conj")
@article{Nguyen_2021, title={The (still) mysterious case of agricultural protectionism}, volume={47}, ISSN={1547-7444}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2021.1898957}, DOI={10.1080/03050629.2021.1898957}, number={3}, journal={International Interactions}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Nguyen, Quynh and Spilker, Gabriele and Bernauer, Thomas}, year={2021}, month=Apr, pages={391–416} }
| 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 |