European Political Science

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 73–85 | Cite as

Adding Meaning to Regression

  • Rein Taagepera
Research
First Online:

Abstract

In any data analysis we should look for ability to predict and for connections to a broader comparative context. Our equations must not predict absurdities, even under extreme circumstances, if we want to be taken seriously as scientists. Poorly done linear regression analysis often does lead to absurd predictions. Fixed exponent and exponential patterns seem more prevalent in social nature than linear patterns. Before applying regression to two variables, graph them against each other, showing the borders of the conceptually allowed space and possible logical anchor points. Transform the data until anchor points and data points do fit a straight line which does not pierce conceptual ceilings or floors. During regression, consider symmetric regression, because Ordinary Least Squares y-on-x and x-on-y differ from each other and their slopes depend on the degree of scatter. After regression, look at the numerical values of parameters and ask what they tell us in a comparative context. When considering multivariable regression, pay more than lip service to Occam's Razor.

Keywords

allowed areas anchor points graphing linear regression Occam's Razor symmetric regression 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank Allan Sikk, Mirjam Allik, Rune H. Andersen, Russ Dalton, Steve Coleman and two anonymous reviewers for thoughtful comments on the manuscript, and Rune also for finalizing the graphs.

References

  1. Coleman, S. (2007) ‘Testing theories with qualitative and quantitative predictions’, European Political Science 6 (2): 124–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Colomer, J.M. (2007) ‘What other sciences look like’, European Political Science 6 (2): 134–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dalton, R.J. and Shin, D.C. (2006) Citizens, Democracy, and Markets Around the Pacific Rim: Congruence Theory and Political Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Grofman, B. (2007) ‘Toward a science of politics?’ European Political Science 6 (2): 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kvålseth, T.O. (1985) ‘Cautionary note about R2’, The American Statistician 39: 279–285.Google Scholar
  6. Levine, J.H. (1993) Exceptions Are the Rule: An Inquiry into Methods in the Social Sciences, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  7. Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Taagepera, R. (2007a) ‘Why political science is not scientific enough: a symposium’, European Political Science 6 (2): 111–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Taagepera, R. (2007b) ‘Predictive versus postdictive models’, European Political Science 6 (2): 114–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Taagepera, R. (2008) Making Social Sciences More Scientific: The Need for Predictive Models, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Taagepera, R. (2009) ‘Logical models in social sciences: how to begin’, http://www.psych.ut.ee/stk/Beginners_Logical_Models.pdf.

Copyright information

© European Consortium for Political Research 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rein Taagepera
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Government, University of TartuTartuEstonia
  2. 2.School of Social Sciences, University of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations