Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-vqtzn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-27T06:36:46.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Change Comes with Time: Substantive Interpretation of Nonproportional Hazards in Event History Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Amanda A. Licht
Amanda A. Licht*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of South Carolina, 3rd Floor Gambrell Hall, Columbia, SC 29205 e-mail: aalicht@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although methodologists have provided us ample notice of both the problem of nonproportional hazards (NPHs) and the means of correcting for them, less attention has been paid to the postestimation interpretation. The suggested inclusion of time interactions in our models is more than a statistical fix: These corrections alter the substantive meaning and interpretation of results. Framing the issue as a specific case of multiplicative-interaction modeling, I provide detailed discussion of the problem of NPHs and present several appropriate means of interpreting both the substantive impact and the significance of variables whose effects may change over time.

Information

Type
Regular Articles
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , Spring 2011 , pp. 227 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ai, Chunrong, and Norton, Edward C. 2003. Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters 80:123–29.Google Scholar
Balch-Lindsay, Dylan, Enterline, Andrew J., and Joyce, Kyle A. 2008. Third-party intervention and the civil war process. Journal of Peace Research 45: 345–63.Google Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick. 2006. Grinter: A Stata utility for graphing the marginal effect of an interacted variable in regression models. http://myweb.uiowa.edu/fboehmke/methods.html.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, and Jones, Bradford S. 2004. Event-history modeling: A guide for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, Reiter, Dan, and Zorn, Christopher J. W. 2003. Nonproportional hazards and event history analysis in international relations. Journal of Conflict Resolution 47 (1): 33–53.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, and Zorn, Christopher J. W. 1998. Duration models and proportional hazards in political science. Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 23-25, 1998, Chicago, Illinois. http://polmeth.wustl.edu/workingpapers.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, and Zorn, Christopher J. W. 2001. Duration models and proportional hazards in political science. American Journal of Political Science 45: 972–88.Google Scholar
Brambor, Thomas, Clark, William Roberts, and Golder, Matt. 2006. Understanding interaction effects: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis 14: 63–82.Google Scholar
Chiozza, Giacomo, and Goemans, H. E. 2004. International conflict and the tenure of leaders: Is war still ex post inefficient? American Journal of Political Science 48: 604–19.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making votes count: Strategic coordination in the World's electoral systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1997. An economic theory of democracy. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha, and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization 52(4): 887–917.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Robert J. 1982. Defense of multiplicative terms in multiple regression equations. American Journal of Political Science 26: 797–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golub, Jonathan. 2007. Survival analysis and European Union decision-making. European Union Politics 53: 733–64.Google Scholar
Golub, Jonathan, and Steunenberg, Bernard. 2007. How time affects EU decision-making. European Union Politics 8: 555–66.Google Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald, and Welzel, Christian. 2005. Modernization, cultural change and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kam, Cindy D., and Franzese, Robert J. Jr. 2007. Modeling and interpreting interactive hypotheses in regression analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert. 1989. The logics of party formation: Ecological politics in Belgium and West Germany. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Tomz, Michael, and Wittenberg, Jason. 2000. Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science 44: 347–61.Google Scholar
Light, Paul C. 1999. The President's agenda: Domestic policy choice from Kennedy to Clinton. 3rd ed. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Meinke, Scott R. 2005. Long-term change and stability in house voting decisions: the case of the minimum wage. Legislative Studies Quarterly 30: 103–26.Google Scholar
Toynbee, Arnold. 1972. A study of history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Warwick, Paul V. 1992. Rising hazards: An underlying dynamic of parliamentary government. American Journal of Political Science 36: 857–76.Google Scholar
Wittrock, Jill. 2008. “Voting behavior after electoral reform: Cross-national experiments.” PhD diss., The University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Wright, Quincy. 1942. A study of war. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Zhelyazkova, Aysa, and Torenvlied, Rene. 2009. The time-dependent effect of conflict in the council on delays in the transposition of EU directives. European Union Politics 10 (1): 35–62.Google Scholar