27,386 rated or chosen profiles from 16,808 respondents, in up to 2 tasks of 1 profile varying on 3 attributes.
| Description | Online respondents in the UK, the US and Germany (Qualtrics, 2019; 16,808 respondents, 9,317 passing the authors' checks) read up to two vignettes (hybrid-car tax cut, sugar restrictions) about a legislative decision after an interest-group consultation, randomizing group representation, whose positions the decision matched, and public support. Outcomes: six 0-4 agreement items on the legitimacy of the process and decision. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Rasmussen, A., & Reher, S. (2023). (Inequality in) interest group involvement and the legitimacy of policy making. British Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 45-64. |
| DOI | 10.1017/S0007123422000242 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/GPGWKJ |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 16,808 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 27,386 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 2 |
| Profiles per task | 1 |
| Attributes | 3 |
| Topic | democracy institutions |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | scenario |
| Country | GB, US, DE |
| Language shown | en, de |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| 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:
| rating_actors | When making the decision, policy-makers took the views of all relevant actors into account. [rating, 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)] |
|---|---|
| rating_affected | Legislators made the best decision for those who are affected by the policy. [rating, 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)] |
| rating_citizens | Legislators made the decision that is best for the citizens of [country]. [rating, 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)] |
| rating_democratic | The process that led to the decision was democratic [rating, 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)] |
| rating_fair | The process that led to the policy decision was fair. [rating, 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)] |
| rating_right | Legislators made the right decision. [rating, 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)] |
attr_attainmentattr_public_supportattr_representationcov_agecov_attention_passcov_countrycov_failed_manipulationcov_gendercov_ideologycov_res_econ_buscov_res_econ_concov_res_econ_envcov_res_repres_buscov_res_repres_concov_res_repres_envidprofilerating_actorsrating_affectedrating_citizensrating_democraticrating_fairrating_righttasktrial_issue
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("rasmussen_2023_interest_groups", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("rasmussen_2023_interest_groups", source="conj")
@article{Rasmussen_2022, title={(Inequality in) Interest Group Involvement and the Legitimacy of Policy Making}, volume={53}, ISSN={1469-2112}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123422000242}, DOI={10.1017/s0007123422000242}, number={1}, journal={British Journal of Political Science}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Rasmussen, Anne and Reher, Stefanie}, year={2022}, month=July, pages={45–64} }
| IRW version | v607 |
|---|---|
| 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 v47.0 |