Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences - Alexander L. George [100]
Similarly, if all or many of the conceivable outcomes would be consistent with the theory, then its explanatory power may be limited or negligible. Conversely, if other outcomes might have occurred that were not consistent with the theory, then the investigator has additional presumptive evidence of the explanatory power of the theory at least for the actual or the other conceivable outcomes identified.
A hypothetical example will illustrate and clarify how questions of this kind, which attempt to replicate the logic of controlled experiment, can contribute to making more refined and more valid causal interpretations in single-case analysis.
In our hypothetical example, the first actor takes an action (independent variable XX) that appears to have a particular impact on the second actor’s behavior (outcome A). The investigator finds that independent variable XX (but not YY or ZZ) is consistent with outcome A. The investigator now asks whether XX can explain and predict only outcome A. Or would outcomes B, C, and D—outcomes that did not occur in this case—also have been consistent with XX? If so, while XX may be part of the explanation, its explanatory (and predictive) power is diminished since other explanatory variables are needed to round out the explanation of why the second actor’s response was A (and not B, C, or D). These interpretations of the explanatory power of XX are summarized in Figure 9.1.
A more refined analysis is possible. Suppose that although outcome A differs in interesting respects from outcomes B, C, and D, all four outcomes share a certain characteristic—for example, that all are conciliatory responses by the second actor to the first actor’s action (though the precise nature of the conciliatory response varies). Suppose further that out-comes G, H, and I are all hard, refractory responses to the first actor’s behavior. If so, then XX acquires added explanatory and predictive power of a quite useful kind, for it discriminates between conciliatory and refractory responses (though not by itself between variants of a conciliatory response).391
Figure 9.1. Possible Outcomes of an Independent Variable.
From this hypothetical example we turn to a more general discussion of using the congruence mode to assess the causal role of an actor’s beliefs in his or her decision-making.
Use of the Congruence Method to Assess the Causal Role of Beliefs in Decision-Making
Specialists who focus on decision-making approaches in the study of foreign policy have long emphasized the importance of cognitive variables. 392 Attention has centered on how decision-makers’ general beliefs about international politics can affect their choices of policy. However, important methodological issues arise in attempting to assess the role that such beliefs play in two different phases of the process of decision-making: the processing of information and analysis that precedes the decision taken, and the actual choice of policy. The foregoing discussion of the congruence method is relevant for addressing these issues.
General support for the assumption that a policymaker’s beliefs about international politics influence his or her decisions is provided by cognitive consistency theory. But an individual’s beliefs and behavior are not always consistent with one another for various reasons. While a decision-maker’s beliefs play an important role in information processing that precedes actual choice of action, variables other than these beliefs affect the choices made. For example, the policymaker’s decisions will likely be influenced by the need to obtain sufficient support for whatever policy he or she decides upon, by the need for compromise, by domestic or international constraints on the leader’s freedom of action, etc. These factors may run in a direction that significantly modifies or is contrary to his or her