Skip to main content Accessibility help

Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses

  • Thomas Brambor (a1), William Roberts Clark (a2) and Matt Golder (a3)


Multiplicative interaction models are common in the quantitative political science literature. This is so for good reason. Institutional arguments frequently imply that the relationship between political inputs and outcomes varies depending on the institutional context. Models of strategic interaction typically produce conditional hypotheses as well. Although conditional hypotheses are ubiquitous in political science and multiplicative interaction models have been found to capture their intuition quite well, a survey of the top three political science journals from 1998 to 2002 suggests that the execution of these models is often flawed and inferential errors are common. We believe that considerable progress in our understanding of the political world can occur if scholars follow the simple checklist of dos and don'ts for using multiplicative interaction models presented in this article. Only 10% of the articles in our survey followed the checklist.


Corresponding author

e-mail: (corresponding author)


Hide All

Authors' note: Our thanks go to Nathaniel Beck, Fred Boehmke, Michael Gilligan, Sona Nadenichek Golder, Jonathan Nagler, and two anonymous reviewers for their extremely useful comments on this paper. We also thank the research assistants at Political Analysis—Jeronimo Cortina, Tse-hsin Chen, and Seung Jin Jang—for kindly double-checking the results from our literature survey. Finally, we are grateful to those authors who have provided us with their data. To accompany this paper, we have constructed a Web page at that is devoted to multiplicative interaction models. On this page, you will find (i) the data and computer code necessary to replicate the analyses conducted here, (ii) information relating to marginal effects and standard errors in interaction models, (iii) STATA code for producing figures illustrating marginal effects and confidence intervals for a variety of continuous and limited dependent variable models, and (iv) detailed results from our literature survey. STATA 8 was the statistical package used in this study.



Hide All
Ai, Chunrong, and Norton, Edward. 2003. “Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models.” Economics Letters 80: 123129.
Aiken, Leona, and West, Stephen. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. London: Sage.
Allison, Paul D. 1977. “Testing for Interaction in Multiple Regression.” American Journal of Sociology 83: 144153.
Bernhardt, Irwin, and Jung, Bong S. 1979. “The Interpretation of Least Squares Regression with Interaction or Polynomial Terms.” Review of Economics and Statistics 61: 481483.
Berry, Frances Stokes, and Berry, William. 1991. “Specifying a Model of State Policy Innovation.” American Political Science Review 85: 573579.
Boix, Carles. 1999. “Setting the Rules of the Game: The Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced Democracies.” American Political Science Review 93: 609624.
Brambor, Thomas, Clark, William, and Golder, Matt. 2005. “Are African Party Systems Different?” Unpublished manuscript, New York University.
Braumoeller, Bear. 2004. “Hypothesis Testing and Multiplicative Interaction Terms.” International Organization 58: 807820.
Busemeyer, Jerome, and Jones, Lawrence. 1983. “Analysis of Multiplicative Combination Rules When the Causal Variables Are Measured with Error.” Psychological Bulletin 93: 549562.
Clark, William Roberts. 2003. Capitalism, Not Globalism: Capital Mobility, Central Bank Independence and the Political Control of the Economy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Clark, William Roberts, and Reichert, Usha Nair. 1998. “International and Domestic Constraints on Political Business Cycles in OECD Economies.” International Organization 52: 87120.
Cleary, Paul, and Kessler, Ronald. 1982. “The Estimation and Interpretation of Modifier Effects.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 23: 159169.
Cox, D. R. 1984. “Interaction.” International Statistical Review 52: 131.
Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties. New York: Wiley.
Frant, Howard. 1991. “Specifying a Model of State Policy Innovation.” American Political Science Review 85: 571573.
Franzese, Robert. 2003a. “Multiple Hands on the Wheel: Empirically Modeling Partial Delegation and Shared Policy Control in the Open and Institutionalized Economy.” Political Analysis 11: 445474.
Franzese, Robert. 2003b. “Quantitative Empirical Methods and Context Conditionality.” APSA-CP: Newsletter of the Organized Section on Comparative Politics of the American Political Science Association 14: 2024.
Friedrich, Robert. 1982. “In Defense of Multiplicative Terms in Multiple Regression Equations.” American Journal of Political Science 26: 797833.
Gill, Jeff. 2001. “Interpreting Interactions and Interaction Hierarchies in Generalized Linear Models: Issues and Applications.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.
Golder, Matt. 2003. “Electoral Institutions, Unemployment, and Extreme Right Parties: A Correction.” British Journal of Political Science 33: 5255346.
Golder, Matt. Forthcoming. “Presidential Coattails and Legislative Fragmentation.” American Journal of Political Science.
Golder, Sona Nadenichek. 2005. “Pre-electoral Coalitions in Comparative Perspective: A Test of Existing Hypotheses.” Electoral Studies.
Greene, William. 2003. Econometric Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Griepentrog, Gray, Ryan, Michael J., and Smith, Douglas L. 1982. “Linear Transformations of Polynomial Regression Models.” American Statistician 36: 171174.
Gujarati, Damodar. 2003. Basic Econometrics. New York: McGraw Hill.
Jaccard, James, and Wan, Choi. 1995. “Measurement Error in the Analysis of Interaction Effects between Continuous Predictors Using Multiple Regression: Multiple Indicator and Structural Equation Approaches.” Pyschological Bulletin 117: 348357.
Jaccard, James, Wan, Choi, and Turrisi, Robert. 1990. “The Detection and Interpretation of Interaction Effects between Continuous Variables in Multiple Regression.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 25: 467478.
Kam, Cindy, and Franzese, Robert. 2003. “Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis: A Brief Refresher and Some Practical Advice.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.
Mozaffar, Shaheen, Scarritt, James R., and Galaich, Glen. 2003. “Electoral Institutions, Ethnopolitical Cleavages and Party Systems in Africa's Emerging Democracies.” American Political Science Review 97: 379390.
Nagler, Jonathan. 1991. “The Effect of Registration Laws and Education on U.S. Voter Turnout.” American Political Science Review 85: 13931405.
Nagler, Jonathan. 1994. “Scobit: An Alternative to Logit and Probit.” American Journal of Political Science 38: 230255.
Norton, Edward, Wang, Hua, and Ai, Chunrong. 2004. “Computing Interaction Effects and Standard Errors in Logit and Probit Models.” STATA Journal 4: 103116.
Rosnow, Ralph, and Rosenthal, Robert. 1989. “Definition and Interpretation of Interaction Effects.” Psychological Bulletin 105: 143146.
Rosnow, Ralph, and Rosenthal, Robert. 1991. “If You're Looking at the Cell Means, You're Not Looking at Only the Interaction (Unless All Main Effects Are Zero).” Psychological Bulletin 110: 574576.
Samuels, David. 2000. “The Gubernatorial Coattails Effect: Federalism and Congressional Elections in Brazil.” Journal of Politics 62: 240253.
Smith, Mark. 2000. “The Contingent Effects of Ballot Initiatives and Candidate Races on Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 700706.
Wright, Gerald. 1976. “Linear Models for Evaluating Conditional Relationships.” American Journal of Political Science 2: 349373.
MathJax is a JavaScript display engine for mathematics. For more information see

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses

  • Thomas Brambor (a1), William Roberts Clark (a2) and Matt Golder (a3)


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.