In the journal article of Ross Miller entitled, "Regime type, strategic interaction and the diversionary use of force," the author illustrated, through a comparative analysis of two regime types, how diversionary theory takes place under a democratic and autocratic leadership. The broader or general theory utilized in the study is diversionary theory, which posits that leaders tend to engage in international conflict or war when presented with possible conflicts domestically or in the leader's home country. Thus, Miller attempts to analyze the existence or absence, as well as nature and effect of diversionary theory when applied in the context of democratic and autocratic governance.

             In analyzing the nature and effects of diversionary theory to both democracy and autocracy, two hypotheses are explored by the author's study. The first hypothesis stated that "democratic leaders are more likely than autocratic leaders to use force when faced with declining levels of support." The second hypothesis posits that "democratic leaders are less likely than autocratic leaders to use force when faced with declining levels of support." These hypotheses are actually two-tailed assumptions that sought to identify whether domestic conflict results to strategic interaction, accomplished through "diversionary use of force" or engaging in international conflict or war against other countries.

             .

             The basic dependent variable used in the study is force, measured by assigning codes that enabled Miller to quantitatively assess the results of the study. A code of 0 is given when "the dispute participant either did nothing or threatened or displayed force,"; 1 is given when "minor levels of military force were used"; and 2 is coded when the "use of force resulted in at least 1,000 battle deaths." Given these measures, Miller also specifically identified incidences of domestic conflict and violence within the regime, and the indicators used are changes in economic growth rates, levels of rebellion, and levels of protest.