welfare: Issue Framing and Support for Welfare Reform
In paths: An Imputation Approach to Estimating Path-Specific Causal Effects

A dataset of 213 Danish students containing variables on gender, education, political interest, ideology, political knowledge, extremity of political values, treatment assignment (job/poor frame), beliefs about why some people receive welfare benefits, perceived importance of different considerations related to welfare policy, and support for a proposed welfare reform (Slothuus 2008; Imai and Yamamoto 2013).

welfare

A data frame with 213 rows and 15 columns:

gender1: Gender. 0: Female; 1: Male.
educ1: Level of education. 1: the municipal primary and lower secondary school before ninth form; 2: the municipal primary and lower secondary school after ninth or tenth form; 3: Basic schooling; 4: Vocational education; 5: Higher preparatory examination course student 6: Upper secondary school student; 7: Higher commercial examination student 8: Higher technical examination student; 9: Short-term further education; 10: Medium-term further education; 11: Long-term further education; 12: Foreign education; 13: Else.
polint1: Political interest, measured on a 0-4 scale.
ideo1: Ideological self-placement on a 1-8 scale. A larger value denotes a more right-wing position.
know1: Political knowledge. 1: low; 2: medium; 3: high.
value1: Extremity of political values. 0: moderate. 1: extreme.
ttt: Treatment assignment. Whether the respondent read a newspaper article that highlighted the positive effect of welfare reform on job creation (1) versus one emphasizing its negative effect on the poor (0).
W1: The degree to which the respondent attributes welfare recipiency to internal factors, measured on a 0-1 scale.
W2: The degree to which the respondent attributes welfare recipiency to external factors, measured on a 0-1 scale.
M1: How important the respondent thinks that there should always be an incentive for people to take a job instead of receiving welfare benefits, measured on a 0-1 scale.
M2: How important the respondent thinks that nobody should live in poverty, measured on a 0-1 scale.
M3: How important the respondent thinks that government expenditures on welfare benefits should not be too expensive, measured on a 0-1 scale.
M4: How important the respondent thinks that no defrauder should receive welfare benefits, measured on a 0-1 scale.
M5: How important the respondent thinks that the unemployed should have benefit rates making it possible to maintain a decent standard of living conditions, measured on a 0-1 scale.
Y: Support for the proposed welfare reform, measured on a seven-point scale.

Slothuus, Rune. 2008. "More than Weighting Cognitive Importance: A Dual-process Model of Issue Framing Effects." Political Psychology 29(1):1-28.

Imai, Kosuke and Teppei Yamamoto. 2013. "Identification and Sensitivity Analysis for Multiple Causal Mechanisms: Revisiting Evidence from Framing Experiments." Political Analysis 21(2):141-171.

paths documentation built on June 18, 2021, 9:07 a.m.