Does polygyny cause intergroup conflict? Re-examining Koos and Neupert-Wentz (2020)

IF 2 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Research and Politics Pub Date : 2022-10-01 DOI:10.1177/20531680221134969
K. Ash
{"title":"Does polygyny cause intergroup conflict? Re-examining Koos and Neupert-Wentz (2020)","authors":"K. Ash","doi":"10.1177/20531680221134969","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An article recently published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution by Koos and Nuepert-Wentz finds an association between geographically proximate polygynous ethnic groups and rural violence in Africa. This study applies several empirical adjustments to their analysis. The association between rural violence and polygynous neighbors loses significance when replacing violent events with fatalities in both ACLED and UCDP-GED data or converting event counts to binary. Subsetting Afrobarometer data by urban and rural respondents shows that rural respondents from polygynous groups are not significantly more likely to feel violence is justified. Moreover, there is no evidence the conflicts leading to the most rural violence in ACLED, farmer-herder clashes, or UCDP-GED, violence during the apartheid transition in South Africa, are related to “excess men.” Both conflicts suggest broader violations in the assumptions made in hypothesizing why polygynous neighbors lead to rural violence. The re-analysis calls the claim that polygyny is associated with rural violence into question and suggests researchers use broader approaches to measuring violence than just event counts.","PeriodicalId":37327,"journal":{"name":"Research and Politics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680221134969","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

An article recently published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution by Koos and Nuepert-Wentz finds an association between geographically proximate polygynous ethnic groups and rural violence in Africa. This study applies several empirical adjustments to their analysis. The association between rural violence and polygynous neighbors loses significance when replacing violent events with fatalities in both ACLED and UCDP-GED data or converting event counts to binary. Subsetting Afrobarometer data by urban and rural respondents shows that rural respondents from polygynous groups are not significantly more likely to feel violence is justified. Moreover, there is no evidence the conflicts leading to the most rural violence in ACLED, farmer-herder clashes, or UCDP-GED, violence during the apartheid transition in South Africa, are related to “excess men.” Both conflicts suggest broader violations in the assumptions made in hypothesizing why polygynous neighbors lead to rural violence. The re-analysis calls the claim that polygyny is associated with rural violence into question and suggests researchers use broader approaches to measuring violence than just event counts.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一夫多妻制会引起群体间的冲突吗?重新审视kos和Neupert-Wentz (2020)
kos和Nuepert-Wentz最近在《冲突解决杂志》上发表的一篇文章发现,在非洲,地理位置接近的一夫多妻民族与农村暴力之间存在关联。本研究对其分析进行了若干实证调整。在ACLED和UCDP-GED数据中将暴力事件替换为死亡人数或将事件计数转换为二进制时,农村暴力与一夫多妻制邻居之间的关联失去了意义。根据城市和农村受访者对非洲晴雨表数据的细分显示,来自一夫多妻制群体的农村受访者并不明显更有可能认为暴力是合理的。此外,没有证据表明导致ACLED、农牧民冲突或UCDP-GED(南非种族隔离过渡时期的暴力)中大多数农村暴力的冲突与“男性过剩”有关。这两种冲突都表明,在假设一夫多妻制邻居导致农村暴力的原因时,所做的假设存在更广泛的违反。这项重新分析对一夫多妻制与农村暴力有关的说法提出了质疑,并建议研究人员使用更广泛的方法来衡量暴力,而不仅仅是事件数量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Research and Politics
Research and Politics Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
34
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Research & Politics aims to advance systematic peer-reviewed research in political science and related fields through the open access publication of the very best cutting-edge research and policy analysis. The journal provides a venue for scholars to communicate rapidly and succinctly important new insights to the broadest possible audience while maintaining the highest standards of quality control.
期刊最新文献
Voters don’t care too much about policy: How politicians conceive of voting motives Assessing survey mode effects in the 2019 EP elections: A comparison of online and face-to-face-survey data from six European countries Unexpected, but consistent and pre-registered: Experimental evidence on interview language and Latino views of COVID-19 Thinking generically and specifically in International Relations survey experiments Infectious disease and political violence: Evidence from malaria and civil conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1