Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T07:33:31.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Speculation or Specification? A Note on Flanigan and Zingale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2016

J. Morgan Kousser
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent article in Social Science History, Flanigan and Zingale reviewed the old problem of inferring individual relationships from aggregate data, cast doubt on Goodman’s ecological regression technique as a method of estimating such relationships, and contended that the specification analysis approach to the issue was misleading. Instead, they argued that an ad hoc procedure suggested by Shively in a 1974 article was superior to Goodman’s point estimates because it avoids dubious assumptions and forces investigators to make their premises clear. Comparing results from analyses of state-level data on major party voting in the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections with figures from the Michigan surveys, they concluded, to their satisfaction at least, that the assumptions required for ecological regression were badly violated and that it was preferable in this and other cases to use the system that Shively, without making any grandiose claims for it, had originated (Flanigan and Zingale, 1985; Goodman, 1959; Hanushek et al., 1974; Shively, 1974; Langbein and Lichtman, 1978).

Information

Type
Comment and Debate: On Flanigan’s and Zingale’s “Alchemist’s Gold”
Information
Social Science History , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , Spring 1986, pp. 71 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association 1986 

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

Andersen, K. (1979) The Creation of a Democratic Majority, 1928–1936. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Austin, E. A., Clubb, J. M., and Traugott, M. W. (1981) “Aggregate Units of Analysis” in Clubb, J. M., Flanigan, W. H., and Zingale, N. H. (eds.) Analyzing Electoral History: A Guide to the Study of American Voter Behavior. Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Bourke, P. F. and DeBats, D. A. (1979) “Identifiable Voting in Nineteenth Century America: Toward a Comparison of Britain and The United States Before the Secret Ballot.” Perspectives in American History 11: 259–88.Google Scholar
Bourke, P. F. and DeBats, D. A. (1980) “Individuals and Aggregates: A Note on Historical Data and Assumptions.” Social Science History 4: 229–49.Google Scholar
Butler, D. and Stokes, D. (1969) Political Change in Britain: Forces Shaping Electoral Choice. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Duncan, O. D. and Davis, B. (1953) “An Alternative to Ecological Correlation.” American Sociological Review 18: 665–66.Google Scholar
Elklit, J. (1985) “Nominal Record Linkage and the Study of Non-Secret Voting: A Danish Case.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 15: 419–43.Google Scholar
Flanigan, W. H. and Zingale, N. H. (1985) “Alchemist’s Gold: Inferring Individual Relationships from Aggregate Data.” Social Science History 9: 71–92.Google Scholar
Flanigan, W. H. and Zingale, N. H. (1981) “Relationships Among Variables.” in Clubb, J. M., Flanigan, W. H., and Zingale, N. H. (eds.) Analyzing Electoral History: A Guide to the Study of American Voter Behavior. Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Goodman, L. (1959) “Some Alternatives to Ecological Correlation.” American Journal of Sociology 64: 610–25.Google Scholar
Hanushek, E. A., Jackson, J. E., and Kain, J. F. (1974) “Model Specification, Use of Aggregate Data, and the Ecological Correlation Fallacy.” Political Methodology 1: 87–106.Google Scholar
Ingelhart, R. (1985) “Aggregate Stability and Individual-Level Flux in Mass Belief Systems: The Level of Analysis Paradox.” American Political Science Review 79: 62–78.Google Scholar
Johnston, J. (1984) Econometric Methods. 3rd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Kousser, J. M. (1974) The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880–1910. New Haven, Ct.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kramer, G. H. (1983) “The Ecological Fallacy Revisited: Aggregate- Versus Individual-Level Findings on Economics and Elections, and Sociotropic Voting.” American Political Science Review 77: 92–111.Google Scholar
Langbein, L. I. and Lichtman, A. J. (1978) Ecological Inference. Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Robinson, W. S. (1950) “Ecological Correlation and the Behavior of Individuals.” American Sociological Review 15: 351–57.Google Scholar
Shively, W. P. (1974) “Utilizing External Evidence in Cross-Level Inference.” Political Methodology 1: 61–74.Google Scholar