Theory as guide to the analysis of polygyny and conflict: A response to Ash (2022)

TY - JOUR

T1 - Theory as guide to the analysis of polygyny and conflict

T2 - A response to Ash (2022)

AU - Neupert-Wentz, Clara

AU - Koos, Carlo

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2022.

PY - 2023/4

Y1 - 2023/4

N2 - Ash (2022, "Ash" hereafter), in this journal, re-assesses our 2020 article “Polygynous Neighbors, Excess Men, and Intergroup Conflict in Africa.” The article analyzed the relationship between polygyny (one man marrying several wives) and intergroup conflict events in Africa. Ash includes assessments that support our original results, though others lead Ash to call our findings into question. While some of Ash’s data transformations are reasonable robustness tests, others seem to be insufficiently rooted in theory and ignore statistical power. Specifically, using fatality counts as an outcome requires theorization, in particular against the backdrop of different underlying theoretical mechanisms, issues of measurement accuracy, and other statistical considerations. Overall, we argue that there are good theoretical and statistical reasons why some of the operationalizations in Ash are not appropriate substitutes for our outcome variable. We appreciate the re-assessment but dismiss the claim in Ash that its findings give sufficient evidence to change the conclusion in our article.

AB - Ash (2022, "Ash" hereafter), in this journal, re-assesses our 2020 article “Polygynous Neighbors, Excess Men, and Intergroup Conflict in Africa.” The article analyzed the relationship between polygyny (one man marrying several wives) and intergroup conflict events in Africa. Ash includes assessments that support our original results, though others lead Ash to call our findings into question. While some of Ash’s data transformations are reasonable robustness tests, others seem to be insufficiently rooted in theory and ignore statistical power. Specifically, using fatality counts as an outcome requires theorization, in particular against the backdrop of different underlying theoretical mechanisms, issues of measurement accuracy, and other statistical considerations. Overall, we argue that there are good theoretical and statistical reasons why some of the operationalizations in Ash are not appropriate substitutes for our outcome variable. We appreciate the re-assessment but dismiss the claim in Ash that its findings give sufficient evidence to change the conclusion in our article.

KW - conflict severity

KW - intergroup conflict

KW - polygyny

KW - Robustness

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85151625194&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/20531680221144244

DO - 10.1177/20531680221144244

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85151625194

SN - 2053-1680

VL - 9

JO - Research and Politics

JF - Research and Politics

IS - 4

ER -