Dataset Link: Click Here
Pubilication Date: 15 September 2021
DOI: 10.26193/Z3H0RO
This data set is available for replication and/or new use of the data analysed in Colvin et al. (2020). The study collected data on public opinion (levels of support or opposition) about 12 fictitious land use change proposals from a large, quota sample of the Australian public (n = 1,147). The 12 land use change proposals were across mining, conservation, farming, and fishing. All scenarios were presented in three conditions: no conflict (neutral description), some conflict (conflict framing), and high conflict (conflict framing including the identity of the groups engaged in the conflict). Each participant was randomly allocated to one of the three conditions. To each land use change scenario, participants responded with how much they would support or oppose the land use change proposal (scale of −10 to 10) and how much conflict they felt was associated with the proposal (scale of 0 to 10). We also measured the level of identification with the relevant land use change sectors (miners, environmentalists, farmers, and fishers) and the four major Australian political parties (Liberal Party, Labor Party, The Greens, and The Nationals) using a pictorial identity elicitation tool (adapted from Schubert and Otten 2002 in Self and Identity) to assess whether identification with groups would predict polarisation. A measure of decision‐making style was included to account for different ways of processing information, that is, how much information people seek when making decisions, along with general demographic questions.
The full paper plus supplementary information will assist analysts in the use of these data. Contact the lead author (Colvin) to request a copy of the full article plus SI if otherwise unavailable.
Colvin, R. M., Witt, G. B., Lacey, J. & McCrea, R. 2020. The role of conflict framing and social identity in public opinion about land use change: An experimental test in the Australian context. Environmental Policy and Governance, 30, 84-98.