2,659 rated or chosen profiles from 2,659 respondents, in up to 1 tasks of 1 profile varying on 2 attributes.
One of 2 tables from the same source; this one is the prolific table. The others are listed under Related tables.
| Description | Prolific sample of US adults (Sep-Oct 2022), n = 2,659, each read one bullet-point vignette about a country developing nuclear weapons with regime type and the country's racial makeup randomized (2 x 2), and rated support for a US strike on its nuclear sites (1-7); plus 1-7 agreement that not attacking leaves a serious security threat (rating_threat) and that attacking would be morally wrong (rating_immoral). |
|---|---|
| Reference | Rathbun, B. C., Parker, C. S., & Pomeroy, C. (2024). Separate but unequal: Ethnocentrism and racialization explain the "democratic" peace in public opinion. American Political Science Review, 119(2), 621-636. |
| DOI | 10.1017/S0003055424000509 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/9JWDKK |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 2,659 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 2,659 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 1 |
| Profiles per task | 1 |
| Attributes | 2 |
| Topic | foreign policy security |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | scenario |
| Country | US |
| Language shown | en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Task order | recorded in the deposit |
| Profile position | recorded in the deposit |
Outcomes:
| rating | By attacking the country's nuclear development sites now, the United States could prevent the country from making any nuclear weapons. Would you favor or oppose using the U.S. military to attack the country's nuclear development sites? [rating, 1 (unknown) to 7 (unknown)] |
|---|---|
| rating_immoral | It would be morally wrong for the U.S. to attack the country's nuclear development sites. [rating, 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)] |
| rating_threat | If the U.S. does not attack the nuclear development sites, the country's nuclear weapons would pose a serious security threat to the U.S. and its allies. [rating, 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)] |
attr_raceattr_regimecov_agecov_collegecov_ethno1cov_ethno10cov_ethno11cov_ethno12cov_ethno2cov_ethno3cov_ethno4cov_ethno5cov_ethno6cov_ethno7cov_ethno8cov_ethno9cov_gender_malecov_ideology_codecov_party_id7_codecov_race_whiteidprofileratingrating_immoralrating_threattask
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("rathbun_2024_nuclear_strike_prolific", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("rathbun_2024_nuclear_strike_prolific", source="conj")
@article{RATHBUN_2024, title={Separate but Unequal: Ethnocentrism and Racialization Explain the “Democratic” Peace in Public Opinion}, volume={119}, ISSN={1537-5943}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055424000509}, DOI={10.1017/s0003055424000509}, number={2}, journal={American Political Science Review}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={RATHBUN, BRIAN C. and PARKER, CHRISTOPHER SEBASTIAN and POMEROY, CALEB}, year={2024}, month=May, pages={621–636} }
| IRW version | v607 |
|---|---|
| Redivis dataset | irw_conjoint_2 v1.5 |
| Redivis dataset DOI | 10.57761/g2hc-zw49 |
| Manifest pin for this IRW version | v1.4 |
| Metadata source | irw_meta v47.0 |