The “dyad” has become the analytical cornerstone of quantitative interstate conflict studies. Stuart Bremer, in no small part due to his “Dangerous Dyads” article, has been identified with the dyadic/dyad-year approach. We think this has come at the expense of his interest in “process models” of interstate conflict. Our examination of his writings on The Process of War indicate that multilateral conflict processes are most probably misspecified by a dyadic approach. We draw on examples such as alliance coalition formation, extended deterrence, economic sanctions, and especially war expansion, to elaborate upon and support our claim. We conclude our assessment of the dyadic/dyad-year approach by suggesting some areas for our colleagues to consider before adopting a dyadic approach in their own research.
Alt, J.E., G. King, and C. Signorino.2001. Aggregation among binary, count, and duration models: Estimating the same quantities from different levels of data . Political Analysis9(1): 21-44.
2.
Bennett, D.S., and A.C. Stam III.1996. The duration of interstate wars, 1816-1985. American Political Science Review90(2): 239-257.
3.
Bennett, D.S., and A.C. Stam III.2000. Research design and estimator choices in the analysis of interstate dyads. Journal of Conflict Resolution44(5): 653-685.
4.
Braumoeller, B.F.1997. Deadly doves: Liberal nationalism and the democratic peace in the Soviet successor states. International Studies Quarterly41(3): 375-402.
5.
Bremer, S.A.1992. Dangerous dyads: Conditions affecting the likelihood of interstate war, 1816- 1965. Journal of Conflict Resolution36(2): 309-341.
6.
Bremer, S.A.1995a. Advancing the scientific study of war. In The process of war: Advancing the scientific study of war, ed. S. A. Bremer and T. R. Cusack, 1-33. Luxembourg: Gordon and Breach.
7.
Bremer, S.A.1995b. Final words. In The process of war: Advancing the scientific study of war, ed. S. A. Bremer and T. R. Cusack, 259-273. Luxembourg : Gordon and Breach.
8.
Bremer. S.A.2000. Who fights whom, when, where, and why? In What do we know about war? ed. J. A. Vasquez , 23-36. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
9.
Bremer, S. A., and T. R. Cusack (ed.). 1995. The process of war: Advancing the scientific study of war. Luxembourg: Gordon and Breach.
10.
Bueno de Mesquita, B., and R.M. Siverson.1995. War and the survival of political leaders: A comparative study of regime types and political accountability. American Political Science Review89(4): 841-855.
11.
Danilovic, V.2001a. Conceptual and selection bias issues in deterrence. Journal of Conflict Resolution45(1): 97-125.
12.
Danilovic, V.2001b. The sources of threat credibility in extended deterrence . Journal of Conflict Resolution45(3): 341-369.
13.
Diehl, P.F., and G. Goertz.2000. War and peace in international rivalry . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
14.
Drezner, D.2000. Bargaining, enforcement, and multilateral economic sanctions: When is cooperation counterproductive?International Organization54: 73-102.
15.
Dubin, J.A., and D. Rivers.1990. Selection bias in linear regression, logit and probit models. In Modern methods of data analysis , ed. J. Fox and J. S. Long, 410-442. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16.
Freeman, J.R.1990 . Systematic sampling, temporal aggregation and the study of political relationships. Political Analysis1: 61-98.
17.
Gartner, S., and R.M. Siverson.1996. War expansion and war outcome. Journal of Conflict Resolution40: 4-15.
18.
Gibler, D.M., and J.A. Vasquez.1998. Uncovering the dangerous alliances, 1495-1980. International Studies Quarterly42(4): 785-808.
19.
Hagerty, D.T.1998. The consequences of nuclear proliferation: Lessons from South Asia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
20.
Huth, P.K.1999. Deterrence and international conflict: Empirical findings and theoretical debates. Annual Review of Political Science2: 25-48.
21.
Huth, P.K., and T. Allee.2003. The democratic peace and territorial conflict in the twentieth century. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Huth, P.K., and T. Allee.2004. Research design in testing theories of international conflict. In Models, numbers and cases: Methods for studying international relations, ed. D. F. Sprinz and Y. Wolinsky-Nahmias, 193-223. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
23.
Jervis, R.1978. Cooperation under the security dilemma. World Politics30(2): 167-214.
24.
King, G.1998. Unifying political methodology: The likelihood theory of statistical inference. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
25.
Lemke, D.2002. Regions of war and peace. New York : Cambridge University Press.
26.
Lemke, D., and W. Reed.2001. War and rivalry among great powers. American Journal of Political Science45: 457-469.
27.
Maoz, Z.2001. Democratic networks: Connecting national, dyadic, and systemic perspectives in the study of democracy and war. In War in a changing world, ed. Z. Maoz and A. Gat, 143-182. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Morrow, J.D.1991. Alliances and asymmetry: An alternative to the capability aggregation model of alliances. American Journal of Political Science35(4): 904-933.
30.
Nooruddin, I.2002. Modeling selection bias in studies of sanctions efficacy . International Interactions28(1): 57-74.
31.
Pape, R.1997. Why economic sanctions do not work. International Security22(2): 90-136.
32.
Russett, B., and J. Oneal.2001. Triangulating peace: Democracy, interdependence, and international organizations. New York: Norton.
33.
Schweller, R.L.1994. Bandwagoning for profit: Bringing the revisionist state back in. International Security19: 72-107.
34.
Senese, P., and J.A. Vasquez.2003. A unified explanation of territorial conflict: Testing the impact of sampling bias, 1919-1992. International Studies Quarterly47(2): 275-298.
35.
Shellman, S.M.2004. Time series intervals and statistical inference: The effects of temporal aggregation on event data analysis. Political Analysis12(1): 97-104.
36.
Signorino, C.S., and K. Yilmaz.2003. Strategic misspecification in regression models. American Journal of Political Science47(3): 551-566.
37.
Teo, T.K., and S.E. Croco.2004. Modeling the process of war expansion: Beyond dyads by default. Presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Oreleans, January 2004.
38.
Vasquez, J.A.1993. The war puzzle. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39.
Vasquez, J.A.1996. Distinguishing rivals that go to war from those that do not: A quantitative comparative case study of the two paths to war. International Studies Quarterly40: 531-558.
40.
Walt, S.1987. The origins of alliances. Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press.
41.
Waltz, K.N.1979. Theory of international politics. New York: McGraw Hill.
42.
Werner, S., and D. Lemke.1997. Opposites do not attract. International Studies Quarterly41(3): 529-546.
