Rules for Constructing Causal Theories

King, Keohane and Verba99-109

Rules for Constructing Causal Theories

Same as causality: the objective is to demonstrate that a variable causes or causes a change in another variable.

Internally Consistent:Theories need to be internally consistent.

Rule 1: Construct Falsifiable Theories

A theory incapable of being wrong is not a theory.

In fact, a theory should be designed so that:

1) It can be shown to be wrong as easily as possible 2) It is tentative.

3) Should be prepared to reject the theory as soon as possible.

Falsification

Theories are NOT verifiable: Too many possible HypothesesNo particular theory can in fact be verified, since there are there are an

infinite number of possible hypotheses. Hence, the objective is not to prove a theory, but to test its boundaries of applicability.

FalsificationA falsified theory does not claim universal application. Rather it admits that it

applies only to some circumstances, but not all. It can, then, be proven wrong.

It is valid under certain conditions or in a particular setting. There are, in other words, boundaries its applicability.

Falsification

Example:Theory: In American politics, presidential campaigns have a very limited

effect on voter preferences.

Hypothesis: There could be dozens or more:

1) Campaign ads have no effect2) Debates have no effect

Etc.

Falsification

We cannot test them all to see if any contradict the theory. It still might be the case, that in some situation, campaigns do have an effect. Solution: we should not try to explain everything.

Modify the theory so it asserts less:

Theory: In American politics, presidential campaigns have a very limited effect on voter preferences, unless a candidate is viewed as dangerous. (1964) (This is not a universal claim. It boundaries are clearly stated.)

LBJ Video

Rule 2: Build Theories that are Internally Consistent

Internal Consistency is related to Reliability

Reliability: “is the extent to which an experiment, test, or any measuring procedure yields the same result on repeated trials.”

Internal Consistency: If any part of your theory contradicts another, it is internally inconsistent, no evidence from the empirical world will uphold your theory. You cannot say that some population has contradictory practices andbeliefs.

Formal models: can help with internal consistency.

Rule 3: Select DV Carefully

Need to avoid selection bias.

Should not select cases on DVDV should not be constant. Do no pick just countries with revolutions, for

example, if you want to study the factors that facilitate social revolution.

Choose DV that varyHave cases were there were and were not revolutions.

Rules 4 and 5

Rule 4: Maximize ConcretenessNeed to operationalize hypotheses.

Rule 5: State Theories in as Encompassing Way as FeasibleValue of generalizations.…

Review: Levels of Analysis

Theory: Concept 1 is related to Concept 2

Hypothesis: Variable 1 (IV: Cause) is related to Variable 2 (DV: Effect)

Operational Definition: IV: Definition of Cause

DV: Definition of Effect

Review: Levels of Analysis

Theory: Inequality and Democracy

Hypothesis: Inequality (IV) adversely effects Democracy (DV).

Operational Definitions: IV: (Inequality): Income Levels

DV: (Democracy): Voting

IV: (Inequality): Political Contributions DV: (Democracy): Representation

IV: (Inequality): Racial Density of City DV: (Democracy): Rate of Government Response

Essay OutlinesIntroduction:

Topic: Inequality and Democracy Question: How does Inequality affect Democracy? Thesis: Racial Inequality (IV) adversely effects Democracy

(DV). Hypothesis: The federal response will vary by the racial

density of a city.

Literature Review: What have other said about the topic?

Argument/Analysis: (Operational Definitions):How do you plan to test/demonstrate your argument:

IV: (Inequality): Racial Density of City DV: (Democracy): Rate of Government Response(Selection Bias: Look at Variety of DVs: Instances where the government

responded to a crisis)

Review: Levels of Analysis

Theory: SSM and 2004 Election

Hypothesis: State bans on SSM (IV) aided Bush’s reelection (DV).

Operational Definitions: IV: (SSM): States with SSM bans on the ballot

DV: (Bush Reelection): Republican Voting % by state

Selection Bias: Variation on DVDV: (Bush Win): Rep. Voting % in state DV: (Bush Loss): Rep. Voting % in state

You cannot just look at states where Bush won. You need to look at states where he lost, and where SSM ban or may not have been on the ballot.

Essay Outlines

Introduction:Topic: SSM and 2004 ElectionQuestion: How did State bans on SSM impact the Bush’s reelection?Thesis: (Hypothesis): State bans on SSM (IV) aided Bush’s reelection (DV).

Literature Review: What have other said about the topic?

Argument/Analysis: (Operational Definitions):How do you plan to test/demonstrate your argument:

IV: (SSM): States with SSM bans on the ballotDV: (Bush Win): Rep. Voting % in state DV: (Bush Loss): Rep. Voting % in state

Review: Levels of AnalysisTheory: Conservatism and US Foreign Policy

Thesis: Bush embraced a crusading, unilateral approach to foreign policy.

Hypothesis: After Bush’s election (IV), the US became less likely to seek multi-literal support (DV) when confronted by threats from abroad.

Operational Definitions: IV: (Bush): His election (2000-2009)

DV: (Multi-literalism): Number of US Allies In Afghanistan and Iraq.

DV: (Multi-literalism): Number of US Allies In Gulf War I and II (before and after study of Bush).

DV: (Multi-literalism): Number of US Allies In Korea, Vietnam, GWI compared with Afghan, GWII (before and after

study of Bush, times series).

Review: Levels of Analysis

Theory: US Culture and Foreign Policy

Thesis: During the Bush years, US Foreign Policy (DV) was defined by a culture of unilateralism (IV).

Hypothesis: During the Bush presidency, culture of unilateralism (IV) in the pentagon made it less likely (inversed relationship) for the US to seek international support (DV) for its foreign policy.

Operational Definitions: IV: (Unilateralism): Policy/Rhetoric of Pentagon/White House.

DV: (Inter. Support): Number of US Allies In Afghanistan and Iraq.

Essay Outlines

Introduction:Topic: US Culture and Foreign PolicyQuestion: Is a Culture of Unilateralism shaping US Foreign Policy?Thesis: A Culture of Unilateralism (IV) defines US Foreign Policy (DV).

Literature Review: What have other said about the topic?

Research Design: Quasi-Experimental: Before and AfterDV: (US Foreign Policy): Number of US Allies In Iraq during Bush adminDV: (US Foreign Policy): Number of US Allies In Iraq during Obama admin

Essay OutlinesIntroduction:

Topic: US Culture and Foreign PolicyQuestion: Is a Culture of Unilateralism shaping US Foreign

Policy?Thesis: (Hypothesis): A Culture of Unilateralism (IV) is

shapes US Foreign Policy (DV).

Literature Review: What have other said about the topic?

Argument/Analysis: (Operational Definitions):How do you plan to test/demonstrate your argument:

IV: (Unilateralism): Policy/Rhetoric of White House DV: (US Foreign Policy): Number of US Allies In IraqDV: (US Foreign Policy): Number of US Allies In Afghanistan

Essay Outlines

Introduction:Topic: SSM and 2004 ElectionQuestion: How did State bans on SSM impact the Bush’s reelection?Thesis: (Hypothesis): State bans on SSM (IV) aided Bush’s reelection (DV).

Literature Review: What have other said about the topic?

Argument/Analysis: (Operational Definitions):How do you plan to test/demonstrate your argument:

IV: (SSM): States with SSM bans on the ballotDV: (Bush Win): Rep. Voting % by state DV: (Bush Loss): Rep. Voting % by state

Review: Levels of Analysis

Theory: Women and Politics

Hypothesis: Gender (IV) had a defining effect on Nancy Pelosi’s election as Speaker of the House of Representatives. (DV).

Operational Definitions: IV: (Gender): Gender of Candidate

DV: (Leadership): Likelihood a Woman are Elected as a Leader.