Case-Based, Model-Based, and Explanation-Based Styles of Reasoning in Foreign Policy

Sylvan, Donald A.; Ostrom, Thomas M.; Gannon, Katherine M.

doi:10.2307/2600872

Cited by 18 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The foreign policy decision‐making literature suggests that analogical reasoning dominates discourse (e.g., Khong, 1992; Houghton, 1996; Peterson, 1997; Hemmer, 2000). The Sylvan et al (1994) findings, on the other hand, suggest that abstract reasoning––and particularly explanation‐based reasoning––should be somewhat more frequent than analogical reasoning.…”

Section: Analogies and Reasoning Stylesmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…It has a more deductive flavor than case‐based reasoning (DeJong, 1988:73). One form of abstract reasoning is explanation‐based reasoning, which relies on causal assertions and “if…, then…” statements (Sylvan et al, 1994).…”

Section: Analogies and Reasoning Stylesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In short, while in cognitive psychology there is the recognition that reasoning does not exclusively conform to analogical models, the literature on foreign policy decision‐making has tended to assume that decision‐makers reason by analogy. This focus on analogical reasoning is likely to underplay the role of abstract forms of reasoning, such as explanation‐ or model‐based reasoning (Sylvan et al, 1994). That is not to say that analogies play no role in reasoning, but that the prominence given to their role in decision‐making may have been overstated in the foreign policy decision‐making literature.…”

Section: Analogies and Reasoning Stylesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whether or not decision‐makers actually employ analogical reasoning, either exclusively or primarily, is an empirical question. Sylvan et al's (1994) experimental research showed that the assumption that decision‐makers use analogical or case‐based reasoning is premature. Their study contrasted analogical reasoning with both explanation‐ and model‐based reasoning.…”

Section: Analogies and Reasoning Stylesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When the reasoning is “prepackaged” into a “law” or “theory,” we consider it to be an example of model‐based reasoning. (Sylvan et al, 1994:65)…”

Section: Analogies and Reasoning Stylesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Role of Analogies and Abstract Reasoning in Decision-Making: Evidence from the Debate over Truman's Proposal for Development Assistance

Breuning

2003

Int Studies Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analogical, or case-based reasoning has received quite a bit of attention in the literature on foreign policy decision-making. There has been little attention paid to whether analogical reasoning does indeed predominate or to what degree abstract reasoning plays a role in the decisionmaking process. If decision-makers do not primarily reason by analogy (an empirical question), then the focus on such reasoning runs the risk of ignoring important aspects of problem formulation and the scope of possible solutions considered. Hence, this article investigates the degree to which decision-makers employ analogical and abstract reasoning.The empirical data are from the Senate hearing regarding the first American program for development aid. This case permits an empirical assessment of the consensus in the foreign aid literature that the Marshall Plan was the central analogy for this aid. In addition, it has been argued that in public discourse, decision-makers should be expected to use analogies as justifications for their preferences. The study finds a preference for explanation-based reasoning and discusses some of the implications of these findings.Analogical, or case-based reasoning plays an important role in explanations of decision-making processes in foreign policy (Jervis). However, in cognitive psychology researchers are not convinced that analogical reasoning can account for the entire scope of human reasoning. They recognize that both analogical and abstract reasoning play a role (Nosofsky, Clark, and Shin, 1989;Ahn, Brewer, and Mooney, 1992; Smith, Langston, and Nisbett, 1992;Wattenmaker, McQuaid, and Schwertz, 1995). The assumption that decisionmakers reason by analogy (and to investigate only which analogies are chosen) runs the risk of ignoring important aspects of how problems are framed and how solutions emerge. Hence, this article asks to what degree decision-makers do

show abstract

Section: Analogies and Reasoning Stylesmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Analogies and Reasoning Stylesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analogies and Reasoning Stylesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analogies and Reasoning Stylesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When the reasoning is “prepackaged” into a “law” or “theory,” we consider it to be an example of model‐based reasoning. (Sylvan et al, 1994:65)…”

Section: Analogies and Reasoning Stylesmentioning

confidence: 99%