This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Dacey, R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Status of Likelihood Claims in International Relations and Peace Science

University of Idaho Moscow, Idaho, USA, rdacey{at}uidaho.edu

Many of the best scholars working in International Relations and Peace Science have employed statistical (e.g., logit/probit) and theoretical models to buttress claims of causally increased or decreased probabilities. The purpose of this paper is two-fold: to display the applicability of the tools of probabilistic causality and statistical explanation to assessing analyses in International Relations and Peace Science, and to assess the status of the claims of causally changed probabilities made in these disciplines. The paper displays the applicability of the relevant tools of probabilistic causality and statistical explanation by examining two remarkably interesting analyses due to Russell Leng and Patrick Regan. The paper concludes that claims of causally changed probabilities commonly made in the International Relations and Peace Science literatures are suspect.

Key Words: logit analysis • probit analysis • likehood claim • relevance • screening off • common cause

Conflict Management and Peace Science, Vol. 22, No. 3, 189-200 (2005)
DOI: 10.1080/07388940500200625


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?