A Simple Multivariate Test for Asymmetric Hypotheses
Abstract
In this paper, we argue that claims of necessity and sufficiency involve a type of asymmetric causal claim that is useful in many social scientific contexts. Contrary to some qualitative researchers, we maintain that there is nothing about such asymmetries that should lead scholars to depart from standard social science practice. We take as given that deterministic and monocausal tests are inappropriate in the social world and demonstrate that standard multiplicative interaction models are up to the task of handling asymmetric causal claims in a multivariate, probabilistic manner. We illustrate our argument with examples from the empirical literature linking electoral institutions and party system size.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The suggestions for addressing measurement error made by Dion, Braumoeller and Goertz, and Clark, Gilligan, and Golder have found little or any resonance among scholars employing QCA.
“These suggestions for explicitly (or implicitly) addressing measurement error made by Dion (1998), Braumoeller and Goertz (2000), and Clark, Gilligan, and Golder (2006) have, however, found little or any resonance among scholars employing QCA.”
From Qualitative Comparative Analysis: How Inductive Use and Measurement Error Lead to Problematic Inference (2013) · cites this paper as Clark, Gilligan, and Golder (2006)
Necessary and sufficient conditions have the characteristic that the presence and absence of a condition do not have symmetric effects on the outcome.
“As these authors nicely explain, necessary and sufficient conditions have exactly this characteristic”
From Qualitative Comparative Analysis: How Inductive Use and Measurement Error Lead to Problematic Inference (2013) · cites this paper as Clark, Gilligan, and Golder (2006)
Clark, Gilligan, and Golder (2006) suggest evaluating asymmetric hypotheses with traditional quantitative tools and interaction effects.
“Clark, Gilligan, and Golder (2006), on the other hand, suggest evaluating 'asymmetric' hypotheses, that is, hypotheses suggesting that the presence and the absence of a condition do not have symmetric effects on the outcome to be explained, with traditional quantitative tools and the use of interaction effects.”
From Qualitative Comparative Analysis: How Inductive Use and Measurement Error Lead to Problematic Inference (2013) · cites this paper as Clark, Gilligan, and Golder (2006)
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 47 · Cited by 120
- Authors
- Clark, W. R., Gilligan, M. J., & Golder, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- New York University (US)
- Florida State University (US)
- Venue
- Political Analysis
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2006
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 311-331
- ISSN
- 1047-1987 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4989
- OpenAlex
- W2050174223
- Cited by
- 120
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 17.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Political Analysis (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Science Research and Education
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Keywords
- necessity and sufficiency, multivariate hypothesis testing, multiplicative interaction model, probabilistic causation, electoral institutions, party system size
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
