Behavioral Revolution Research Articles

Sterilization in Quebec

The total fertility rate in Quebec, which has remained high throughout the 1940s and 1950s declined rapidly between 1960 and 1975 (from 3.8 children/woman to 1.8). Although data on contraceptive practice in Quebec is fragmentary, data from a number of sample surveys indicate a quiet revolution in reproductive behavior during the 1960s--part of a profound change in values and behavior that characterized the period. Using service statistics from the Regee de l'Assurance-Maladie du Quebec, the authors examine a further dramatic shift in contraceptive practice during the 1970s. While in 1971 only 2.5% of women surveyed said they or their husbands had been surgically sterilized, a follow-up survey in 1976 found that almost 1 in 3 women under age 40 who had been married at least 5 years was in a marriage where 1 partner was sterilized. By 1979 1/2 of Quebec women reaching age 40 had become surgically sterile (33% as a result of contraceptive sterilization and 17% as the result of hysterectomy), levels which will probably be surpassed by future generations. Findings are compared to the situation in other Canadian provinces and in the US.

Empirical model building for key variables in the international relations system

In spite of decades of labor during the “behavioral revolution,” there have been few general models developed for the international relations system or its subsystems (such as NATO). This is not to say that numerous highly deductive models (such as Richardson based models) have not been attempted. Unfortunately, however, the fit to data has been modest and, in many cases, only minor efforts have been made to empirically test such deductive elaborations. In contrast, the present effort attempts an inductive approach by first modeling each nation (by distance theory) and then constructing a world model and several regional models through summation techniques using the individual nation models. This allows not only a description of each region treated and regional comparisons, but also an estimate of the degree of individual nations fit with each region. It is suggested that the methods employed, or some variant of them, may allow concrete, useful modeling of the I.R. system.

ICPSR: Resources for the Study of Conflict Resolution

WYhen the first issue of the Journal of Conflict Resolution (JCR) was published in 1957, the behavioral revolution in political science was still in its infancy. Nevertheless, JCR adopted many of the characteristics of the foundling as its own. Indeed, the initial editorial called for an interdisciplinary effort, suggested research at many levels of analysis and stated, Our main concern is to stimulate a new approach, especially in the direction of the formulation and testing of theoretical models related to the central problem. We are also interested in5 the improvement of the information processes in the area through quantification, index numbers and any other means. Building on suggestions in the first issue, JCR became a pioneer in social science by publishing data-based research articles from a number of disciplinary perspectives. In fact, the study of conflict resolution, as presented through the pages of JCR, has been perhaps the focus of inquiry which followed the tenets of the behavioral method most closely. Scholars have sought explanation for conflict at various levels of analysis and have tested hypotheses using data gathered from survey research, content analysis, event coding, public records, participation observation, gaming, and computer simulation. During these same early years the study of electoral behavior also experienced a marked growth in data-based research. The proliferation of data in this area led to the establishment in 1962 of the Inter-university Consortium for Political Research. Twenty-one universities joined together to further the development of computer-readable data resources, to provide training in methodology for graduate students and

Pre-Behavioralism in Political Science

Political behavior research has delivered less than the “behavioral revolution” seemed originally to promise. A survey of recent work suggests that the reason is not its epistemological premises (which are accepted here) or its methodology, but (1) its unsystematic, atheoretical character and limited range of research topics, and (2) the erroneous conception of human nature on which research rests. Compared with either the established principles of modern biobehavioral science or the conceptions of human problems of earlier political science, political behavior research remains “pre-behavioral.”To progress beyond this stage, political scientists must recognize and apply the basic knowledge about human behavior provided by the biobehavioral sciences. Two brief examples of such application are given: how ethological knowledge can supply a needed theoretical perspective for identifying political behavior problems worth studying; and how neurophysiological knowledge, particularly psychophysiology and psychophysics, can correct mistaken conceptions of the relationship between political attitudes, political words, and political actions.

“Hands-On” Problem-Solving in Introductory Political Science

Political science and the other social sciences have had their behavioral revolution,1 but the news of this revolution has not reached most of the undergraduates en tering the first social science methods course. Many stu dents major in a social science or take social science courses because they want to learn about real world problems. Many pre-law students also take a social science major. In overwhelming numbers social science students either fear quantitative methods, or they feel that a quanti tative methodology can contribute little to their under standing of real world problems or to their career in law. Colleagues I have spoken with, both in and out of the social science disciplines, generally agree with the above assessment. The introductory methods course can open up a whole new approach to real-world problem solving and provide students with valuable insights applicable to analysis beyond social science. Oftentimes, however, the introductory methods course becomes an exercise in mem orization for the student. Basic terminology, alternative research designs and approaches, and introductory statis tics are gone over in a textbook or a series of readings. Students read about a particular method or methods and how they have been applied, and are tested on what they remember and presumably have learned. Should the time come when students have to do an empirically biased paper, it is expected that they would be able to use the knowl edge of what others did and apply it to the paper at hand. The purpose of this report is to communicate to social scientists and others how a hands-on problem-solving approach can be used in an introductory methods course. This particular course, as reported by student and col league observation, helps overcome student fears of quant itative methods and does impress upon students the utility

World politics and the behavioural revolution

Davis B. Bobrow, International Relations: New Approaches, Free Press, New York, 1972, pp. 95. Robert J. Lieber, Theory and World Politics, George Allen and Unwin, 1973 pp. 166. Ralph Pettman, Human Behaviour and World Politics, Macmillan, London, 1975, pp. 343. Steven Rosen and Walter Jones, The Logic of International Relations, Winthrop, Cambridge (Mass.), 1974 (1st edn.), 1977 (2nd edn.), pp. 390.

Judging in Trial Courts: An Exploratory Study

T RIAL JUDGES are among the least studied and least well understood of all political actors. Unlike judges on appellate courts, trial judges have received relatively little attention in the past decade's behavioral revolution. This inattention is partially attributable to the judges' low visibility, the difficulty of gathering data on their behavior and the difficulty of determining what about their job and their activities is most worthy of study. Unlike appellate judges, who are frequently involved in the making of policy decisions which are both controversial and important to large contituencies, the actions of trial judges do not appear, at first glance, to have broad political impact. Furthermore, while the most important activity of appellate judges comes in deciding cases and writing opinions, the activities of judges at the trial court level are much more varied and difficult to rank. Sentencing, deciding on the admissibility of evidence, conducting arraignments and pre-trial conferences, these are just a few of the highly consequential tasks which trial judges carry out. Most of what we know about trial judges pertains to three general issues. First, what role do trial judges play in the court considered as an organization?' Most research on the activities of

A behavioral revolution in community mental health.

There are many professionals who are predicting the eventual demise of community mental health because of a failure to develop a relevant conceptual model for community intervention. It remains the position of this paper that behavior theory offers the potential for conceptualizing the individual's interaction with his environment. Further, the behaviorally oriented mental health worker has several choices of intervention available to him. These models or choices are described and recommendations for the enhancement of community mental health service delivery are presented.

Well, Does Leviathan…?

In the October 1973 issue of this Journal, John Orbell and Brent Rutherford published an article which sought to test the central thesis of Hobbes’ Leviathan. Although I shall try to show that as a piece of research it was fatally flawed, the authors deserve acclaim for their boldness, and for showing the way back to serious comparative government research in the Aristotelian manner. To test the basic principles of constitutions against the claims made for them is so obviously worthwhile that it is inexplicable and sad that their article stands virtually alone. In part its rarity reflects the unspoken assumption in modern political science that, after the behavioural revolution, anyone taking constitutions seriously was bound to be returning to the discredited legalism of the past. This overreaction has had its worst excess in political theory, for we seem all to have forgotten that political theory used to be an attempt to devise constitutional frameworks within which human nature would be led to produce the good life. As a theorist I hope we will return to that, and as an empirical researcher I hope we take up Orbell and Rutherford's lead and start to test such general constitutional claims. There are plenty of examples to go on with, starting perhaps with the claim that the United States Constitution is apt to ‘establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty’.

Ethnicity and Religion in Philadelphia Politics, 1924-40

HISTORIANS AND POLITICAL SCIENTISTS HAVE ONLY RECENTLY COME to recognize something that was always apparent to grass-roots politicians: a voter's ethnic and religious affiliation is an important determinant of how he casts his ballot. The major substantive fruit of the behavioral revolution that is slowly overtaking American political history has been the discovery of cultural roots in voting behavior and a downgrading of economic, class and sectional interpretations. Lee Benson in a seminal study of New York during the Jacksonian period found that the stand of parties on socioeconomic issues had relatively little effect upon bloc voting; far more important were factors that stimulated reference group associations, both positive and negative. Pious Yankees, for example, were attracted to WhigAnti-Masonic appeals for state guided moral reforms; Irish Catholics were hostile.' In complementary studies of the political realignment of the 1890s, Paul Kleppner and Richard Jensen2 pursued the main thrust of Benson's reference group analysis to discover that the polarization of important segments of the voting population of selected Midwestern states between those of pietistic religious bent (Methodists and Baptists) against those of more ritualistic orientation (e.g., Catholics and Lutherans) was a major force in sustaining the political stalemate that prevailed until the 90s. The political vacillation that accompanied the realignment resulted from the shifting of party allegiance of critical blocs, particularly the German Lutherans, in response to cultural issues but little related to national political debates or

The Behavioral Revolution and Communist Studies. Edited by Roger E. Kanet. (New York: The Free Press, 1971. Pp. 376. $9.95.)

The Behavioral Revolution and Communist Studies. Edited by Roger E. Kanet. (New York: The Free Press, 1971. Pp. 376. $9.95.)

On Theory of Statecraft

Today the term political theory has two main meanings. It means the study of great thinkers who have, more or less systematically or polemically, written on matters political. This is the sense in which the term has been used in this century, down to the “behavioral revolution.” We shall adhere to that usage. Since the “behavioral revolution,” the term has also come to mean a theory, or theories, formal or axiomatic in structure, on subjects political but not traditionally dealt with by political theory in the first sense. This kind of political thought we shall call formal (political) theory.

The Behavioral Revolution and Communist Studies: Applications of Behaviorally Oriented Political Research on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe

The Behavioral Revolution and Communist Studies: Applications of Behaviorally Oriented Political Research on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe

The Behavioral Revolution and Communist Studies: Applications of Behaviorally Oriented Political Research on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Edited by Roger E. Kanet. New York: Free Press, 1971. xv, 376 pp. $9.95.

The Behavioral Revolution and Communist Studies: Applications of Behaviorally Oriented Political Research on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Edited by Roger E. Kanet. New York: Free Press, 1971. xv, 376 pp. $9.95. - Volume 32 Issue 1

Easton I ad Easton II

N THE political science literature called behavioralist which has emerged in the past twenty years, two distinct and incompatible approaches have been used. Mathematics has been employed for rank-ordering, for the computation of correlations, and for whatever other purposes numbers may serve. This method is analytical and reductionist and assumes the validity of mechanical cause-andeffect explanation. The other outlook is called system or theory. Most commonly systems theory appeals to the analogy of organicist biology, which rejects the analytical and reductionist method and adopts a teleological perspective. Its origins are to be found in Aristotle, who believed that all of nature was purposive. The organicist or organismic view has been abandoned by virtually all twentieth-century biologists. An exception is Ludwig von Bertalanffy, who revived the organicist outlook in biology in the 1920s and generalized it into a cosmology in 1949.' Systems theory in social science derives from Bertalanffy's advocacy. Like its counterpart in biology, systems theory in social studies is frequently holistic rather than analytical, and ordinarily it seeks to answer the question why 2 in terms of function or purpose, in terms of goals, rather than in terms of antecedent propelling causes. The mechanical and organicist approaches are clearly incompatible, but it is very common for a single author to employ them both. A simulacrum of scientific method is presented in a discussion of cause-and-effect; but functionalist or organicist language is employed to suggest that what is at work is a teleological process. The best-known exponent of systems theory in political science is David Easton of the University of Chicago. The difficulties which result from mixing mechanism and organicism are clearly exemplified in Easton's work. Indeed, it is fair to say that unknown to Easton himself there are two David Eastons. One is a mechanist, the other a vitalist. We will call the former Easton I, the latter Easton II. As might be expected since Easton is oblivious to the mixture the organism Easton cannot be identified entirely with one or the other position at particular periods in the development of Easton's thought; these two incompatible strands compete in his work, with one predominating, then the other. As we will see, a final victory appeared to have been won by vitalism; nevertheless, Easton's presidential address to the American Political Science Association in 1969 his most recent statement concerning shows that he believes he has been faithful to the assumptions of analytical science. In this same address, he claims for behavioralism a victory over other approaches to the study of politics. He cites his own work as part of a virtually completed behavioral revolution in political sci-

The Sexual Behavior of Adolescents in Middle America: Generational and American-British Comparisons

Data obtained from 4,220 middle American boys and girls in communities of different socioeconomic status offer no evidence of a major revolution in the sexual behavior of adolescents. Similar behavior for both sexes, at culturally defined lower levels of sexual activity, was shown. Light petting was the earliest stage at which girls demonstrated the sexual inhibitions associated withthe traditional double standard. Regardless of differences in incidence rates, the developmental progression of girls was similar to that of boys. American-British comparisons show the degree premarital coital activity can vary at different age levels in different societies. Findings support Reiss' proposal that social and cultural support theory is the best single explanation of premarital sexual intercourse.

A Note on Behavioralists and Post-Behavioralists in Contemporary Political Science

In 1969 David Easton argued that a new revolution was “underway in American political science.” This revolution, which he labelled the post-behavioral revolution, is motivated by a “deep dissatisfaction with political research and teaching, especially of the kind that is striving to convert the study of politics into a more rigorously scientific discipline modelled on the methodology of the natural sciences.” Specifically, post-behavioralists, according to Easton, attack the abstractness, irrelevance, “methodological purity” and conservatism of the existing literature, and argue that political scientists as well as the associations of which they are a part, must take a more active role in the solution of contemporary social problems. In short, post-behavioralists seek to “help create a ‘new political science’ that will not be trivial or misleading.” But, what is the nature of the support within the profession for this goal? In other words, what kinds of attitudes do American political scientists hold about this new revolution? In addition, what are their views on the behavioral revolution, the other major event in the recent history of the discipline?To answer these questions we recently conducted a mail survey of 176 political scientists in the Mountain West (i.e. Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.) Our questionnaire included twenty three items dealing with professional and related issues.

A Note on Behavioralists and Post-Behavioralists in Contemporary Political Science

In 1969 David Easton argued that a new revolution was “underway in American political science.” This revolution, which he labelled the post-behavioral revolution, is motivated by a “deep dissatisfaction with political research and teaching, especially of the kind that is striving to convert the study of politics into a more rigorously scientific discipline modelled on the methodology of the natural sciences.” Specifically, post-behavioralists, according to Easton, attack the abstractness, irrelevance, “methodological purity” and conservatism of the existing literature, and argue that political scientists as well as the associations of which they are a part, must take a more active role in the solution of contemporary social problems. In short, post-behavioralists seek to “help create a ‘new political science’ that will not be trivial or misleading.” But, what is the nature of the support within the profession for this goal? In other words, what kinds of attitudes do American political scientists hold about this new revolution? In addition, what are their views on the behavioral revolution, the other major event in the recent history of the discipline?To answer these questions we recently conducted a mail survey of 176 political scientists in the Mountain West (i.e. Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.) Our questionnaire included twenty three items dealing with professional and related issues.

A Note on Behavioralists and Post-Behavioralists in Contemporary Political Science

In 1969 David Easton argued that a new revolution was “underway in American political science.” This revolution, which he labelled the post-behavioral revolution, is motivated by a “deep dissatisfaction with political research and teaching, especially of the kind that is striving to convert the study of politics into a more rigorously scientific discipline modelled on the methodology of the natural sciences.” Specifically, post-behavioralists, according to Easton, attack the abstractness, irrelevance, “methodological purity” and conservatism of the existing literature, and argue that political scientists as well as the associations of which they are a part, must take a more active role in the solution of contemporary social problems. In short, post-behavioralists seek to “help create a ‘new political science’ that will not be trivial or misleading.” But, what is the nature of the support within the profession for this goal? In other words, what kinds of attitudes do American political scientists hold about this new revolution? In addition, what are their views on the behavioral revolution, the other major event in the recent history of the discipline?To answer these questions we recently conducted a mail survey of 176 political scientists in the Mountain West (i.e. Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.) Our questionnaire included twenty three items dealing with professional and related issues.

Political Theory as a Vocation

The purpose of this paper is to sketch some of the implications, prospective and retrospective, of the primacy of method in the present study of politics and to do it by way of a contrast, which is deliberately heightened, but hopefully not caricatured, between the vocation of the “methodist” and the vocation of the theorist. My discussion will be centered around the kinds of activity involved in the two vocations. During the course of the discussion various questions will be raised, primarily the following: What is the idea which underlies method and how does it compare with the older understanding of theory? What is involved in choosing one rather than the other as the way to political knowledge? What are the human or educational consequences of the choice, that is, what is demanded of the person who commits himself to one or the other? What is the typical stance towards the political world of the methodist and how does it compare to the theorist's?The discussion which follows will seek, first, to locate the idea of method in the context of the “behavioral revolution,” and, second, to examine the idea itself in terms of some historical and analytical considerations. Then, proceeding on the assumption that the idea of method, like all important intellectual choices, carries a price, the discussion will concentrate on some of the personal, educational, vocational, and political consequences of this particular choice. Finally, I shall attempt to relate the idea of the vocation of political theory to these same matters.