Arguing for a Negligible Effect

2014/03/07 by Carlisle Rainey · 1 voice · 21 citations
Mathematics · Social Sciences · #Advanced Causal Inference Techniques #Electoral Systems and Political Participation #Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research

paper · doi:10.1111/ajps.12102

openalex publication_date 2014/03/07 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/29

Abstract

Political scientists often theorize that an explanatory variable should have “no effect” and support this claim by demonstrating that its coefficient's estimate is not statistically significant. This empirical argument is quite weak, but I introduce applied researchers to simple, powerful tools that can strengthen their arguments for this hypothesis. With several supporting examples, I illustrate that researchers can use 90% confidence intervals to argue against meaningful effects and provide persuasive evidence for their hypothesis.

Citations

• Modeling Multilevel Data Structures
• Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes
• A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity
• Testing the Effects of Independent Judiciaries on the Likelihood of Democratic Backsliding
• Rehabilitating Duverger’s Theory
• Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War
• Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation

Cited by

• Nuclear balance and extended deterrence: evidence from cold war superpower alliances
• Feeding Conflict? New Data on the Impact of Humanitarian Food Aid on Civil Conflict
• Policy Impact and Voter Mobilization: Evidence from Farmers’ Trade War Experiences
• Lights, Camera, Inaction? The Effects of Gavel-to-Gavel Floor Coverage on U.S. State Legislatures
• Does the US Really Embolden its Allies? Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Japan
• External threats and state support for arms control
• Defending democracy: investigating the efficacy of elite democratic defence in a competitive information environment
• Threats and the Public Constraint on Military Spending
• Revisiting an “urban legend”: an experimental assessment of common method variance’s impact on relationships in self-reported data
• ‘The Economy is Rigged’: Inequality Narratives, Fairness, and Support for Redistribution in Six Countries
• The Null Impact of Parenthood on Technical Risk Preferences
• Political Speech from Corporate America: Sparse, Mostly for Democrats, and Somewhat Representative
• Validating Generative Agent-Based Models for Logistics and Supply Chain Management Research
• More than meets the ITT: A guide for anticipating and investigating nonsignificant results in survey experiments
• Still Instrumentally Inclusive
• Counter-Stereotypes and Attitudes Toward Gender and LGBTQ Equality
• Language Shapes People's Time Perspective and Support for Future‐Oriented Policies
• How Labor Unions Increase Political Knowledge: Evidence from the United States
• Exposure to the Russian Internet Research Agency foreign influence campaign on Twitter in the 2016 US election and its relationship to attitudes and voting behavior
• Reexamining the Effect of Mass Shootings on Public Support for Gun Control
• External Territorial Threats and Military Regimes

Discussions

• @carlislerainey.bsky.social Rainey, Carlisle. "Arguing for a negligible effect." American Journal of Political Science 58, no. 4 (2014): 1083-1091. doi.org/10.1111/ajps... [bsky, 6 points, 1 comments]

Related

• Explaining Causal Findings Without Bias: Detecting and Assessing Direct Effects
• Quantitative Political Science Research is Greatly Underpowered
• Saying ‘no’ with confidence: statistical approaches to test for the absence of an effect
• What to Observe When Assuming Selection on Observables
• The Most Difference in Means: A Statistic for the Strength of Null and Near-Zero Results