19,576 rated or chosen profiles from 2,447 respondents, in up to 4 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 9 attributes.

About this table

Description	Respondents in Italy, Hungary and France compared pairs of hypothetical countries described by nine political-system features (electoral system, ballot, coalition, majority, ideology, corruption, economy, fragmentation, local engagement of legislators) and chose where they would be more satisfied with democracy, plus a 0-10 satisfaction rating of each. 2,447 respondents, 4 tasks of 2 profiles.
Reference	Papp, Z., Navarro, J., Russo, F., & Nagy, L. E. (2024). Patterns of democracy and democratic satisfaction: Results from a comparative conjoint experiment. European Journal of Political Research, 63(4).
DOI	10.1111/1475-6765.12674
Licence	CC BY 4.0
Source data	https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22316692

Notes

Conjoint table (irw_conjoint_2). Paired conjoint of hypothetical political systems fielded identically in Italy, Hungary and France (pooled, cov_country). choice = in which of the two countries the respondent would be more satisfied with the way democracy works (forced, no opt-out); rating = 0-10 satisfaction with democracy in each country (higher = more satisfied), stored raw. Randomization restrictions and attribute-order randomization are not documented; the deposit has no questionnaire, so the rating wording is a paraphrase.

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	2,447
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)	19,576
Tasks per respondent (most)	4
Profiles per task	2
Attributes	9
Tasks with no profile chosen	0

Design

Topic	democracy institutions
A profile represents	place
Country	IT, HU, FR
Language shown	it, hu, fr
Language of stored levels	en
Randomization restrictions	unknown
Task order	recorded in the deposit
Profile position	recorded in the deposit

Outcomes:

choice	On the whole, in which country would you say you would be more satisfied with the way democracy works? (journal abstract page; country A or B) [choice, forced]
rating	satisfaction with the way democracy works in this country, 0-10 (paraphrase) [rating, 0 (least satisfied) to 10 (most satisfied)]

Columns

attr_ballotattr_coalitionattr_corruptionattr_economyattr_fragmentationattr_ideologyattr_legislatorsattr_majorityattr_proportionalchoicecov_agecov_countrycov_demsupportcov_educationcov_gendercov_lrscalecov_polintcov_stfdemcov_stflifeidprofileratingtask

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("papp_2024_democracy_satisfaction", source = "conj")

# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("papp_2024_democracy_satisfaction", source="conj")

How to cite

@article{Papp_2024, title={Patterns of democracy and democratic satisfaction: Results from a comparative conjoint experiment}, volume={63}, ISSN={1475-6765}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12674}, DOI={10.1111/1475-6765.12674}, number={4}, journal={European Journal of Political Research}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Papp, Zsófia and Navarro, Julien and Russo, Federico and Nagy, Laura Emőke}, year={2024}, month=Nov, pages={1445–1470} }

Version and provenance

IRW version	v584
Redivis dataset	irw_conjoint_2 v1.4
Redivis dataset DOI	10.57761/hk97-wv30
Manifest pin for this IRW version	v1.4
Metadata source	irw_meta v44.0