The problem of aggregating WEIS events data, coded as discrete events, into a continuous time series representing conflict or cooperation between two nations is discussed. Past literature on the subject reveals continuing confusion and controversy regarding such a conflict-cooperation scale. A new scale based on a small panel of international relations faculty is presented. Replication of several past studies of great power reciprocity, using the new scale, shows a slight increase in the statistical significance of relationships.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Achen, C. 1987. Statistical models for event data: A review of errors in variable theory. Paper presented at the First DDIR (Data Development for International Research) Conference on Event Data, Columbus, Ohio, May.
2.
Alker, H. R., Jr. 1988. Toward globalized event-data research on avoidable war. DDIR-Update 3 (Data Development for International Research), Marriam Laboratory, University of Illinois, Champaign.
3.
Andriole, S. J.1984. Detente: A quantitative analysis. International Interactions11:381-395.
4.
Andriole, S. J. , and G. W. Hopple. 1984. The rise and fall of event data: From basic research to applied use in the U.S. Department of Defense. International Interactions10:293-309.
5.
Azar, E. E. 1980. The codebook of the conflict and peace data bank (COPDAB). Typescript, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
6.
Azar, E. E. , and T. N. Havener. 1976. Discontinuities in the symbolic environment: A problem in scaling. International Interactions2:231-246.
7.
Beer, F. A. , and J. F. Ringer. 1990. Ranking international cooperation and conflict events. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, August.
8.
Bobrow, D. R. 1982. Uncoordinated giants. In Foreign policy: USA/USSR, edited by C. W. Kegley, Jr. and P. McGowan, 23-49. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
9.
Burgess, P. M. , and R. W. Lawton. 1975. Evaluating events data: Problems of conception, reliability, and validity. In International events and the comparative analysis of foreign policy, edited by C. W. Kegley, Jr., G. A. Raymond, R. M. Rood, and R. A. Skinner, 106-119. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
10.
Burrowes, R. 1974. Mirror, mirror, on the wall: A comparison of event data sources. In Comparing foreign policies: Theories, findings, and methods, edited by J. N. Rosenau, 383-406. New York: Wiley.
11.
Calhoun, H. L. 1978. Some problems of measurement: Events and situations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Washington, DC, February.
12.
Dixon, W.J.1983. Measuring interstate affect. American Journal of Political Science27:828-851.
13.
Dixon, W.J. 1987. A lag sequential approach to the analysis of foreign policy behavior. In New directions in the study of foreign policy, edited by C. F. Hermann, C. W. Kegley, Jr., and J. N. Rosenau, 77-95. Boston: Allen & Unwin.
14.
Dixon, W.J.1988. The discrete sequential analysis of dynamic international behavior. Quality and Quantity22:239-254.
15.
Dixon, W.J.1990. Interdependence and cooperation in foreign policy behavior: A comment on Vincent. International Interactions16:109-114.
16.
Goldstein, J. S.1991. Reciprocity in superpower relations: An empirical analysis. International Studies Quarterly35:195-209.
17.
Goldstein, J. S. , and J. R. Freeman. 1990. Three-way street: Strategic reciprocity in world politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
Havener, T. , and A. Peterson. 1975. Measuring conflict/cooperation in international relations: A methodological inquiry. In Theory and practice of events research: Studies in inter-nation actions and interactions, edited by E. E. Azar and J. D. Ben-Dak, 57-61. New York: Gordon & Breach.
19.
Hermann, C. F. 1988. Two kinds of event data. DDIR-Update 3 (Data Development for International Research), Merriam Laboratory, University of Illinois, Champaign.
20.
Hoggard, G. 1974. Differential source coverage in foreign policy analysis. In Comparing foreign policies: Theories, findings, and methods, edited by J. N. Rosenau, 353-381. New York: Wiley.
21.
Howell, L. D.1983. A comparative study of the WEIS and COPDAB data sets. International Studies Quarterly27:149-159.
22.
Howell, L. D.1984. Comparative analysis with events data: A reply to McClelland. International Studies Quarterly28:111-113.
23.
Howell, L. D. , S. Groves, E. Morita, and J. Mullen. 1987. Changing priorities: Putting the data back into events data analysis. Foreign Policy Analysis Notes14:22-31.
24.
Kegley, C. W., Jr. , N. R. Richardson, and G. Richter. 1978. Conflict at home and abroad: An empirical extension. Journal of Politics40:742-752.
25.
King, G.1989. Event count models for international relations: Generalizations and applications. International Studies Quarterly33:123-147.
26.
Laurance, E. J.1990. Events data and policy analysis: Improving the potential for applying academic research to foreign and defense policy problems. Policy Sciences23:111-132.
27.
Lebovic, J. H.1985. Capabilities in context: National attributes and foreign policy in the Middle East. Journal of Peace Research22:47-67.
28.
Leng, R. J.1975. The future of events data marriages: A question of compatibility. International Interactions2:45-62.
29.
Leng, R. J. 1978. Event data validity: Comparing coding schemes. In Measuring international behavior: Public sources, events and validity, edited by D. Munton, 127-142. Halifax, NS, Canada: Centre for Foreign Policy Studies, Dalhousie University.
30.
Mansbach, R. W. , and J. A. Vasquez. 1981. The effect of actor and issue classification on the analysis of global conflict-cooperation. Journal of Politics43:861-874.
31.
McClelland, C. A. 1971. The management and analysis of international event data. Typescript, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
32.
McClelland, C. A.1983. Let the user beware. International Studies Quarterly27:169-178.
33.
McClelland, C. A. , and G. D. Hoggard. 1969. Conflict patterns in the interactions among nations. In International politics and foreign policy: A reader in research and theory, edited by J.N. Rosenau, 711-724. New York: Free Press.
34.
Moses, L. E. , R. A. Brody, O. R. Holsti, J. B. Kadane, and J. S. Milstein. 1967. Scaling data on inter-nation action. Science156:1054-1059.
35.
Rajmaira, S. , and M. D. Ward. 1990. Evolving foreign policy norms: Reciprocity in the superpower triad. International Studies Quarterly34:457-475.
36.
Richardson, N. R. , and C. W. Kegley, Jr.1981. Cumulation and the domestic-foreign conflict hypothesis. Journal of Politics43:143-151.
37.
Richardson, N. R. , C. W. Kegley, Jr., and A. C. Agnew. 1981. Symmetry and reciprocity as characteristics of dyadic foreign policy behavior. Social Science Quarterly62:128-138.
38.
Salmore, S. A. , and D. Munton. 1974. An empirically based typology of foreign policy behaviors. In Comparing foreign policies: Theories, findings, and methods, edited by J. N. Rosenau, 329-352. New York: Wiley.
39.
Schrodt, P. A. 1988. Experimental results on coding the New York Times and FBIS. DDIR-Update 3 (Data Development for International Research), Merriam Laboratory, University of Illinois, Champaign.
40.
Schrodt, P. A. , and C. Donald. 1990. Machine coding of events data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Washington, DC, April.
41.
Sloan, T. 1975. The development of cooperation and conflict interaction scales: An advance in the measurement and analysis of events data. In Theory and practice of events research: Studies in inter-nation actions and interactions, edited by E. E. Azar and J. D. Ben-Dak, 29-39. New York: Gordon & Breach.
42.
Vasquez, J. A. , and R. W. Mansbach. 1984. The role of issues in global co-operation and conflict. British Journal of Political Science14:411-433.
43.
Vincent, J. E. 1979. Project theory. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
44.
Vincent, J. E.1981. Internal and external conflict: Some previous operational problems and some new findings. Journal of Politics43:128-142.
45.
Vincent, J. E.1983. WEIS vs. COPDAB: Correspondence problems. International Studies Quarterly27:160-168.
46.
Vincent, J. E.1990. Interdependence reexamined. International Interactions16:91-107.
47.
Walker, S. G. , D. Bohlin, R. Boss, D. Cownie, H. Nakajima, and T. Willson. 1984. Evidence of learning and risk orientation during international crises: The Munich and Polish cases. British Journal of Political Science14:33-51.
48.
Ward, M. D.1981. Seasonality, reaction, expectation, adaptation, and memory in cooperative and conflictual foreign policy behavior. International Interactions8:229-245.
49.
Ward, M. D.1982. Cooperation and conflict in foreign policy behavior. International Studies Quarterly26:87-126.
50.
Ward, M. D. , and S. Rajmaira. 1992. Reciprocity and norms in U.S.-Soviet foreign policy. Journal of Conflict Resolution36:342-368.
51.
Wilkenfeld, J. , G. W. Hopple, and P. J. Rossa. 1979. Indicators of conflict and cooperation in the interstate system, 1966-70. In To augur well: Early warning indicators of interstate conflict, edited by J. D. Singer and M. D. Wallace, 109-153. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
52.
Young, R. A. 1975. A classification of nations according to foreign policy output. In Theory and practice of events research: Studies in inter-nation actions and interactions, edited by E. E. Azar and J. D. Ben-Dak, 175-195. New York: Gordon & Breach.
