23,582 rated or chosen profiles from 5,969 respondents, in up to 2 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 9 attributes.
| Description | Choice-based candidate conjoint (two vignette pairs per respondent, one with and one without party labels) on candidate disability, fielded to online quota samples in the US and UK (5,969 respondents). Outcomes: vote choice, perceived left-right position (0-10) and agreement that the candidate represents under-represented groups (0-4). |
|---|---|
| Reference | Reher, S. (2025). Voting for disabled candidates. The Journal of Politics, 87(2), 790-794. |
| DOI | 10.1086/732994 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/8TEZ2R |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 5,969 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 23,582 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 2 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 9 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | candidate choice |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | person |
| Country | US, GB |
| Language shown | en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | observed in the data (not documented by the source): in the party task the two candidates always had opposite parties (one left, one right; 5,931 of 5,931 two-profile party tasks); weights (SI Table S1): disability none 0.4 vs 0.2 per disability type; names 0.35/0.35 majority female/male vs 0.15/0.15 minority female/male (minority 0.3 vs 0.7) |
| Task order | recorded in the deposit |
| 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.
Outcomes:
| choice | Which candidate would you be more likely to vote for? [choice, forced] |
|---|---|
| rating_ideology | In politics people often talk of left and right. Where would you place the candidates on the following scale from left to right? [rating, 0 (Left) to 10 (Right)] |
| rating_represent | Candidate A/B represents people who are under-represented in politics. [rating, 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)] |
attr_ageattr_childrenattr_disabilityattr_experienceattr_genderattr_jobattr_name_minorityattr_officeattr_partychoicecov_age_groupcov_countrycov_disabledcov_educationcov_employmentcov_gendercov_lr_groupcov_lr_selfidprofilerating_ideologyrating_representtasktrial_party_shown
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("reher_2025_disabled_candidates", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("reher_2025_disabled_candidates", source="conj")
@article{Reher_2025, title={Voting for Disabled Candidates}, volume={87}, ISSN={1468-2508}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/732994}, DOI={10.1086/732994}, number={2}, journal={The Journal of Politics}, publisher={University of Chicago Press}, author={Reher, Stefanie}, year={2025}, month=Apr, pages={790–794} }
| 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 |