Paths to peace: conflict management trajectories in militarized interstate disputes

When multiple third-parties (states, coalitions, and international organizations) intervene in the same conflict, do their efforts inform one another? Anecdotal evidence suggests such a possibility, but research to date has not attempted to model this interdependence directly. The current project breaks with that tradition. In particular, it proposes three competing explanations of how previous intervention efforts affect current intervention decisions: a cost model (and a variant on it, a limited commitments model), a learning model, and a random model. After using a series of Markov transition (regime-switching) models to evaluate conflict management behavior within militarized interstate disputes in the 1946-2001 period, this study concludes that third-party intervention efforts inform one another. More specifically, third-parties examine previous efforts and balance their desire to manage conflict with their need to minimize intervention costs (the cost and limited commitments models). As a result, third-parties intervene regularly using verbal pleas and mediation, but rely significantly less frequently on legal, administrative, or peace operations strategies. This empirical threshold to the intervention costs that third-parties are willing to bear has strong theoretical foundations and holds across different time periods and third-party actors. Furthermore, the analysis indicates that the first third-party to intervene in a conflict is most likely to use a strategy designed to help the disputants work toward a resolution of their dispute. After this initial intervention, the level of third-party involvement declines and often devolves into a series of verbal pleas for peace. Such findings cumulatively suggest that disputants hold the key to effective conflict management. If the disputants adopt and maintain an extreme bargaining position or fail to encourage third-parties to accept greater intervention costs, their dispute will receive little more than verbal pleas for negotiations and peace.

Personality and the healthy lifestyle as predictors of physical health: Can the healthy lifestyle be explained by personality?

In health and epidemiological research, the Healthy Lifestyle (HLS) is often invoked as an explanation for inconsistent effects. Modifiable components of the HLS are advocated as a panacea for the most common threats to public health. Biases resulting from the HLS are theorized to result from covariance among its components. This covariance has not yet been formally modeled. Furthermore, no mechanism has been proposed to explain this covariance among these factors. Using three large nationally representative samples, I evaluated the HLS as a latent variable. Using structural equation modeling (SEM) I evaluated the degree to which the shared variance of HLS components is accounted for by personality traits, and tested the HLS as a mediator of the personality health relationship. Across all three samples, the HLS fits well as a latent variable, is partially accounted for by personality traits, and mediates the effects of personality traits on health. In all cases personality traits have direct effects on health independent of the HLS. These results suggest that the utility of personality traits as predictors of health exceeds that provided by commonly used lifestyle predictors.