IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v45y2001i1p97-125.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conceptual and Selection Bias Issues in Deterrence

Author

Listed:
  • Vesna Danilovic

    (Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University)

Abstract

Three critical issues involved in quantitative analysis of deterrence are addressed: the criteria for identifying deterrence cases, the problem of selection bias, and understanding the nature of deterrence outcomes. The criteria for establishing the presence of immediate deterrent threats are refined to allow for a more robust selection of cases, and deterrence outcomes are revised to include compromise as a midpoint between success and failure. A new data set of extended-immediate deterrence for the 1895-1985 period is presented and compared to previous data sets. Hypotheses about the effects of relative power and alliances on deterrence outcomes are developed to rectify the problem of selection bias due to unobservable prior beliefs. Alliances are shown to be a more reliable predictor of behavior than previously assumed. The results support theoretical expectations about the consequences of selection bias that more powerful states are less likely to acquiesce. The inclusion of compromise proves significant because only this outcome is strongly associated with the balance of power.

Suggested Citation

  • Vesna Danilovic, 2001. "Conceptual and Selection Bias Issues in Deterrence," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(1), pages 97-125, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:45:y:2001:i:1:p:97-125
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002701045001005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002701045001005
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002701045001005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Signorino, Curtis S., 1999. "Strategic Interaction and the Statistical Analysis of International Conflict," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(2), pages 279-297, June.
    2. Huth, Paul & Gelpi, Christopher & Bennett, D. Scott, 1993. "The Escalation of Great Power Militarized Disputes: Testing Rational Deterrence Theory and Structural Realism," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(3), pages 609-623, September.
    3. Fearon, James D., 1994. "Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(3), pages 577-592, September.
    4. de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno & Siverson, Randolph M., 1995. "War and the Survival of Political Leaders: A Comparative Study of Regime Types and Political Accountability," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(4), pages 841-855, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bülent, Köksal & Abdülkadir, Civan, 2009. "Nükleer Enerji Sahibi Olma Kararını Etkileyen Faktörler ve Türkiye için Tahminler [Factors that Affect the Decision of Having Nuclear Energy and Predictions for Turkey]," MPRA Paper 30513, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Kilgour D. Marc & Zagare Frank C., 2001. "The Impact of Conventional Force Reductions on Strategic Deterrence: A Game-Theoretic Analysis," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(2), pages 1-26, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nikolay Marinov, 2005. "Do Economic Sanctions Destabilize Country Leaders?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(3), pages 564-576, July.
    2. Kenneth A. Schultz, 2001. "Looking for Audience Costs," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(1), pages 32-60, February.
    3. Yuleng Zeng, 2020. "Bluff to peace: How economic dependence promotes peace despite increasing deception and uncertainty," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(6), pages 633-654, November.
    4. David Brulé, 2006. "Congressional Opposition, the Economy, and U.S. Dispute Initiation, 1946-2000," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(4), pages 463-483, August.
    5. Alastair Smith, 2009. "Political Groups, Leader Change, and the Pattern of International Cooperation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(6), pages 853-877, December.
    6. Michael W. Simon & Erik Gartzke, 1996. "Political System Similarity And The Choice of Allies," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 40(4), pages 617-635, December.
    7. Muhammet A. Bas, 2012. "Measuring Uncertainty in International Relations: Heteroskedastic Strategic Models," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(5), pages 490-520, November.
    8. Fiona McGillivray & Alastair Smith, 2005. "The Impact of Leadership Turnover and Domestic Institutions on International Cooperation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 49(5), pages 639-660, October.
    9. Nakao, Keisuke, 2022. "Democratic Victory and War Duration: Why Are Democracies Less Likely to Win Long Wars?," MPRA Paper 112849, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Xinyuan Dai, 2006. "The Conditional Nature of Democratic Compliance," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(5), pages 690-713, October.
    11. Darren Filson & Suzanne Werner, 2007. "Sensitivity to Costs of Fighting versus Sensitivity to Losing the Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(5), pages 691-714, October.
    12. Matthew Hauenstein, 2020. "The conditional effect of audiences on credibility," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(3), pages 422-436, May.
    13. Christopher Gelpi & Joseph M. Grieco, 2001. "Attracting Trouble," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(6), pages 794-817, December.
    14. Brock F. Tessman & Steve Chan, 2004. "Power Cycles, Risk Propensity, and Great-Power Deterrence," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(2), pages 131-153, April.
    15. H.E. Goemans, 2008. "Which Way Out?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 52(6), pages 771-794, December.
    16. Michael J. Ireland & Scott Sigmund Gartner, 2001. "Time to Fight," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(5), pages 547-568, October.
    17. Paul K. Huth & Todd L. Allee, 2002. "Domestic Political Accountability and the Escalation and Settlement of International Disputes," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(6), pages 754-790, December.
    18. William D. Baker & John R. Oneal, 2001. "Patriotism or Opinion Leadership?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(5), pages 661-687, October.
    19. Kevin A. Clarke & Curtis S. Signorino, 2010. "Discriminating Methods: Tests for Non‐nested Discrete Choice Models," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(2), pages 368-388, March.
    20. Patricia L. Sullivan, 2008. "Sustaining the Fight: A Cross-Sectional Time-Series Analysis of Public Support for Ongoing Military Interventions," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 25(2), pages 112-135, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:45:y:2001:i:1:p:97-125. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.