Lecture 5 - behaviouralism

Question 1

theoretical approaches and the use of theory

Answer 1

different theoretical approaches have a different meaning of theory

behaviouralists would subscribe to a definition like this:
theory as orientation about a methodological orientation that tells us how to go about social science

Question 2

logical postivism

be aware!

Answer 2

• fits with positivist epistemology, but it is not the same

logical positivism: school of philosophy of science (epistemological school that was influential on positivism as an epistemology and thus also on behaviouralism)

!not all behaviouralists subscribe to all the ideas that logical positivists have

Question 3

behaviouralism substansive or methodological focus?

Answer 3

methodological prescriptions on how we should do political science research

it is devoid of substance

people behave in patterned ways, it remains to be seen in observation in what way
- so methodological, not substantive

Question 4

basic features of behaviouralism

Answer 4

• political science should (as far as possible) be done in the same way as natural science: causal claims, isolating variables
• movement away from normative theory and description
• movement away from the (legalistic) study of formal political institutions (old institutionalism)
• movement towards observing individuals/agents and explaining their observable political behaviour
• claims to be unbiased, objective, value-neutral approach

Question 5

behaviouralism’s simple question

Answer 5

why do agents (e.g. people, institutions, parties) behave the way they do?

• why do people vote?
• why do they vote for party A instead of party B
• why do they decide to join a party?
• why do some of them give to charity?
• why do some shun strangers and immigrants?

behaviouralists try to find causal answers

Question 6

position on human behaviour

Answer 6

it has patterns

we can make predictions based on (complicated) models

Question 7

behaviouralism specific for political science?

Answer 7

No, it is a general perspective used by many disciplines in the (social) sciences

any social science that tries to explain human behaviour

Question 8

behaviouralism’s simple question analysed closely

Answer 8

Why do people behave the way they do?

• Why = focus on explanation/erklaren
• People = focus on individuals or collectives (still: collectives seen/studied as groups of individuals)
• Behaviors = empirical, objectively obervable

Question 9

core characteristics behaviouralism

Answer 9

• foundationalist ontology (the world IS some particular way, has some objective features)
• positivist epistemology (we can have objective/scientific knowledge)
• privileges quantitative methodology

Question 10

origins behaviouralism

Answer 10

mid 20th century

associated with the ‘behavioural revolution’: behavioural sciences movement in the social science

associated with the rise of comparative politics (is a type of behaviouralist research)

subfield: political behaviour

before, they were studying:
- formal institutions
- political philosophy

Question 11

philosophical origins behaviouralist revolution
+ what does it contribute?

Answer 11

logical positivism

You have to specify what type of claim you are making

three types of analytical statements:
1. tautologies (definitional or conceptual statements: not testable)
2. empirical statements: testable against observation
3. other statements/garbage statements (e.g. normative statements)

only type 1 and 2 are scientific (so, they find normative theory as not scientific)

empirical statement: we need to know what observation would disprove the claim

Question 12

logical positivism example
statements
- Chair

Answer 12

1. chairs are objects you can sit on + they have 4 legs (tautology)
2. chairs have 4 legs (empirical statements)
3. all chairs are beautiful (other statement: devoid of analytical meaning)

Question 13

empirical theory vs normative theory
+
explanatory theory vs interpretative theory

Answer 13

empirical theory = is
normative theory = ought

explanatory = why
descriptive = what

Question 14

criticism to logical positivism

Answer 14

it doesn’t define what type of statements it makes: it isn’t testable

lots of positivists aren’t as radical as logical positivism: normative statements aren’t garbage, they aren’t scientific

Question 15

What is a good theory?

Answer 15

• internally consistent (logically possible)
• externally consistent with other accepted theories (as far as possible)
• consistent with direct observation (factual proof)

Question 16

verification vs falsification

Answer 16

verification = how would we know if it were correct?
- induction: they check out with what we expect

falsification = how would we know if it were incorrect?
- we need to have a clear idea of what would definitively disprove a claim

Question 17

Popper vs Lakatos

Answer 17

Popper: we can’t affirm general claims inductively, we must seek to generate falsifiable hypotheses

Lakatos (1791): not all assumptions/propositions in theory need to be falsifiable (some core assumptions can’t be)

*e.g. rational choice models assume that people maximize utility, but this is not measurable/observable. all types of behaviour might be considered to maximize utility
- Popper would reject self-interest: not measurable
- Lakatos could be fine with it: it results in behaviour and that is measurable/observable

Question 18

swan example

Answer 18

tautology claim: all swans are white = fine, that’s your definition, black ‘‘swan’’ is not a swan by definition

empirical claim: all swans are white = we need to say: if we see a swan like bird, that is black, then the claim is falsified

garbage claim: all swans are beautiful = not falsifiable; wat defines beautiful, there is no specific observation that can disprove the claim

if it isn’t falsifiable, it is not science, according to Popper

Question 19

where do behaviouralist hypotheses come from?

Answer 19

behaviouralism has no main ideas/theories, so you can’t derive political hypotheses from that

they get hypotheses from:

• other fields/disciplines/research (sociology, psychology)
• other theoretical perspectives (e.g. rational choice, normative theory)

Question 20

example: psychology and behaviouralism
Party identification theory

Answer 20

what can explain voter choice?

behaviouralism looks at other theories to generate hypotheses, it tests it in a behavioural way (e.g. survey research

• rational choice theory: voting theory assumes that votes are determined by social economic status
• cognitive political psychology explains voting behaviour as the result of framing and imaging

puzzle: why do some people remain loyal to a party, while others follow electoral trends? e.g. populism

Question 21

positivism in social science

Answer 21

more probablistic than that it is deterministic

leads to problems with Popper: if you say something is more likely than something else, than the theory can’t be disproven with one observation, you’d need to see the exact opposite (-> studying many cases)

-> complicated falsification

Question 22

strengths of behaviouralism

Answer 22

• brought the individual (elite or mass) and groups into political science
• brought behaviour into political science
• brought focus on explanation into political science
• sought to better the scientific standard of political science research
• concern with replicability (allows for verification and falsification)

Question 23

weaknesses of behaviouralism

Answer 23

• mindless empiricism, easily measurable? (is it theoretically important, are there variables and areas ignored, is there a focus on statistical correctness instead of theoretically sound explanation)
• objectivity of researcher?
• independence of research from researcher?
• methodological individualism: focus to much on agency, not enough on structure?

Question 24

cofounding variables

Answer 24

alternative explanations also need to be taken into account
this can’t be done experimentally -> statistical measures

e.g. voters choosing Trump over Clinton because of party identification, but it might also be because of education level, authoritarian personalities etc.