2008 KU Workshop VICS Hand Coding Revised Manual- Dr. Stephen Walker

Coding and Scoring Operational Code Beliefs by Hand:

The Verbs in Context System (VICS) Manual*

Copyright 2006

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Revised August, 2007

Stephen G. WalkerDepartment of Political Science

Arizona State UniversityTempe, AZ 85287-3209

*The author would like to acknowledge Mark Schafer and MichaelYoung as co-authors of one part of an earlier version of thismanual, which was presented as Appendix 1. VICS Coding Protocolin a conference paper presented at the 1997 Annual Meeting of theInternational Studies Meeting. We later revised and published theISA paper (without Appendix 1) as three chapters in Jerold Post,ed., The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders (AnnArbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2003). I have edited theoriginal version of the appendix and expanded it by addingsections on calculating and interpreting the VICS indices. Themethodological and theoretical foundations of operational codeanalysis are in Mark Schafer and Stephen G. Walker, eds., Beliefsand Leaders in World Politics: Methods and Applications ofOperational Code Analysis (New York: Palgrave, 2006).

1

Coding and Scoring Operational Code Beliefs by Hand:

The Verbs in Context System (VICS) Manual

Introduction

The Verbs In Context System (VICS) is a content analysis

coding procedure designed to retrieve information contained in

statements made by political decision makers. Certain properties

of each politically related, verb-based attribution are coded for

subject (actor) verb (action), and object (target). Each one of

these coded attributions is then combined in different ways to

calculate index scores that provide answers to the research

questions associated with a leader’s operational code. This

construct is an individual’s system of diagnostic beliefs

regarding the political universe plus strategic and tactical

beliefs regarding effective political action, which a leader may

also share with a group or larger entity such as the state.

Coding Verbs In Context

There are two general types of verbs. The first type is an

action verb, i.e., a verb that “does” something to an object.

These types of verbs are transitive verbs. A simple example is,

“The boy hit the ball,” in which “hit” is the transitive verb.This verb attributes an action to a subject (boy) who “doessomething” (hit) to an object (the ball).

The other type of verb is an intransitive verb, which does

2

not "do" anything. Instead of "doing," intransitive verbs

express "being," a form of existence that does not connote

action, and are usually represented by such words as "is" and

"are." A simple example is, "He is tall." Here the verb in the

sentence, "is," does not take any action toward an object, but

instead links a description, "tall," with a subject, "He."

The VICS scoring system only codes and indexes transitive

verbs. To begin coding a text, follow the numbered instructions

below. Before doing so, you may want to answer the questionnaire

in Appendix I, which will provide an anchor of your expert biases

against which to evaluate the VICS results for your leader.

1. Identify all transitive verbs. Read the decision maker's

comments, underlining consecutively each transitive verb in the

text as you read. It is important to understand the context of

the comments. Speakers may make only a brief reference to a

topic or an individual that was addressed in more depth in a

prior paragraph. For example, in one paragraph a speaker may use

a pronoun such as "he" or “them” without specifying the name of

the subject or object. In order to determine the proper name of

the subject or object, it may be necessary to refer back to a

previous paragraph or to an even earlier point in the speech.

2. Edit the identified verbs. Assign a number only to those

underlined verbs that are transitive and have some political

content, i.e., address issues or policies. Do not number

intransitive verbs or any verbs contained in routine introductory

3

comments, acknowledgments, jokes, or other non-political matters.

Some sentences contain multiple verbs. In such cases, each verb

is considered a separate “utterance” and should have a unique

number. Be aware, however, that some verbs will be in the

infinitive form (preceded by the word "to") and are thus

necessarily linked with the preceding non-infinitive verb to make

up one (and only one) “utterance” as a verb construction.

For example, a speaker might say: "We intend to send troops

to the region." Here there are two verbs in the sentence intend

and send. Because the second is an infinitive form (see the word

“to” before “send”), the sentence actually contains only one verbconstruction (utterance), namely, intend to send, and would thus

be coded only once.

After identifying and numbering the transitive verbs with

political content, edit each politically-related attribution

mentally (i.e., in your head) to form a sentence in the active

voice, which specifies the properties of interest. The form of

the reconstructed sentence should be as follows: subject—editedverb construction--target. The subject is the person or entity

"doing" the verb. The target is the entity on the receiving end

of the verb (to whom the verb is directed or targeted). Here is

an example of a sentence with only one utterance, underlined and

coded “#1” by the coder. Then the coder has coded the verb as a

Self (S) utterance, i.e., the speaker is the subject “doing” thesending.

4

#1SExample 1. "U.S. troops were sent to Bosnia for peacemaking

purposes."

However, the sentence in this example is written in passive

voice and needs to be reconstructed mentally as follows in order

to make the coding decision of attributing the verb’s subject asSelf (S) or Other (O). First, identify the verb construction,

which in this case is "were sent." Second, identify the subject,

or the person "doing" the verb. Inspection reveals that the

subject is not specified because the sentence is written in

passive voice. Ask yourself who "did" the verb, i.e., who did

the sending?

Since it is not specified in the original construction, the

task at this point is to reconstruct the sentence in active form

and make the specification. If President Clinton is the speaker

of this text, it can be inferred from this information that the

U.S. sent the troops--or perhaps the President sent the troops--

in the end both of these constructed subjects will be coded the

same, as "Self"(S).

Once the subject and the verb are specified in active form

as "U.S. sent," ask yourself toward whom the action of the verb

is directed. In this case, the target of sending troops is

inferred from the speech to be the Bosnian Serbs. The mentally

edited sentence now looks like this:

5

Subject--Active Voice--Target Object

"U.S.--sent troops--Bosnian Serbs."

In some cases the subject of the sentence, as written in its

original form, is not a political actor but an inanimate object

or force. Wherever possible, these subjects should be converted

to political actors, e.g., the President, NATO, Germany, Iraqi

people. To illustrate, "These reform efforts never got to this

point," said President Clinton referring to the efforts of former

presidents regarding NATO reforms. The syntactic subject of the

sentence is "reform efforts," but the sentence would be rewritten

from the context as the following attributions in the active

voice: "Previous U.S. presidents--never got their NATO allies--

to this point with reform efforts."

3. Code the edited transitive verbs. The next step is to

actually code the edited verb construction, and this step usually

follows quite easily once the verb has been edited mentally or

rewritten into the proper format. There are five coding

decisions to make for each transitive attribution in the active

voice.

First, specify the subject as either Self or Other, as in

Example 1 above. Simply analyze the edited sentence that already

specifies the subject and ask: Is the speaker referring directly

to Self, or to Self's country, government, cabinet, etc., with

whom the speaker identifies? Or is the speaker referring to

Other i.e., to other leaders, countries, political opponents,

6

people from another land, etc., with whom the speaker does not

identify? So, for instance, in Example 1 above, assuming that

Bill Clinton is the speaker, the coder has coded the attribution

as "Self," because he clearly is speaking either about himself or

his own country.

Second, specify whether it is a word or a deed. It is a

deed if the speaker is talking about a specific action that

someone has taken (past tense) or is taking at the time (present

tense). The verb in Example 1 is an example of a deed: U.S.--

sent--troops--for Bosnian peacekeeping. Words are not specific

actions, but rather are verbal intentions and expressions.

Examples of these include protests, demands, threats, promises,

or appeals, where the speaker is not actually taking an action,

but is talking about taking action. For example, "The U.S.--

promises to send--foreign aid--to the region" is an attribution

coded as a word because, even though the verb "send" is an action

verb, it is qualified by the verb "promise."

Also note that anytime an action verb is stated in the

future tense, it is a word and not a deed. Unless it has been

done or is being done, then it is only a statement of intent

(word) to take the action. For example, "The U.S.--will defeat--

Iraqi troops" is a future tense attribution ("will") with an

action verb ("defeat") and thus should be coded as a word.

Third, specify the valence of the attribution either as (+)

or (-), depending upon whether it is positive or negative,

7

conflict or cooperation, friendly or hostile. If the speaker

said, "We--have attacked--Germany--over support for racism," then

code the valence as a negative (-) deed because it is a conflict

action (past tense). On the other hand, some attributions are

clearly cooperative in their expression. For example, "We--will

work--with the United Nations--for peace" would be coded as a

positive (+) word (future tense).

In some cases the valence may not be apparent from the

attribution. Sometimes looking at the location of the statement

in a paragraph will be helpful. In some instances, there is no

logical valence associated with the attribution and, therefore,

do not code it (mark it "NC" for not coded). An example of such a

“Not Coded” verb is the example below in the utterance attributed

earlier to Bill Clinton about NATO and previously reconstructed

from passive to active voice as follows:

Example 2. “These reform efforts never got to this point.”#2S(NC)

“Previous U.S. presidents--never got their NATOAllies--to this point with reform efforts.”

Fourth, use the Word/Deed and + or - valence to locate each

transitive attribution in one of the six verb categories in

Figure 1. The verb categories are: reward, promise,

appeal/support, oppose/resist, threaten, and punish. These

categories are either positive (+) or negative (-) and either

words or deeds. Some of these can be derived simply from your

8

STEPS IN THE VERBS IN CONTEXT SYSTEM

1. IDENTIFY THE SUBJECT AS

SELF OR OTHER

2. IDENTIFY THE TENSE OF THE TRANSITIVE VERB AS

PAST PRESENT FUTURE

AND IDENTIFY THE CATEGORY OF THE VERB AS

POSITIVE (+) OR NEGATIVE (-)

----------------------------------------------------

APPEAL, SUPPORT (+1) OPPOSE, RESIST (-1)

WORDS OR OR

PROMISE BENEFITS (+2) THREATEN COSTS (-2)

----------------------------------------------------

DEEDS REWARDS (+3) PUNISHMENTS (-3)

3. IDENTIFY THE DOMAIN AS

DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN

4. IDENTIFY TARGET AND PLACE IN CONTEXT

AN EXAMPLE

A quote taken from President Carter's January 4, 1980 address to thenation: "Massive Soviet military forces have invaded the small, non-aligned, sovereign nation of Afghanistan..."

1. Subject. The subject is "Massive Soviet military forces" which iscoded as other, that is, the speaker is not referring to his or her selfor his or her state.

2. Tense and Category. The verb phrase "have invaded" is in the pasttense and is a negative deed coded, therefore, as punish.

3. Domain. The action involves an actor (Soviet military forces)external to the speaker's state (the United States); therefore, thedomain is foreign.

4. Target and Context. The action is directed toward Afghanistan;therefore, the target is coded as Afghanistan. In addition, wedesignate a context: Soviet-Afghanistan-conflict-1979-88.

The complete data line for this statement is: other -3 foreign pastafghanistan soviet-afghanistan-conflict-1979-88.

Figure 1. Steps in the Verbs in Context System for Coding Verbs

9

previous coding decisions. Some require one more coding

decision. In Example 1 above, we have already specified the

statement as a conflict (-) deed, because we earlier inferred

from the speech that “Bosnian Serbs” were the target of the U.S.troops. In Figure 1 there is only one Negative Deed category

(Punish) with a value of (-3). Therefore, the verb in Example 1

is coded (-3) as follows:

#1S(-3)"U.S. troops were sent to Bosnia for peacemaking purposes."

(U.S.--sent troops--Bosnian Serbs.)

The Word categories in Figure 1 require more judgments by

the coder than the Deed categories, as Reward ((+3) is the only

possible VICS category for Positive Deeds. If an attribution is

coded previously as a Positive Word, then it is necessary to

decide whether it is an Appeal(+1) or a Promise (+2). The same

type of judgment needs to be made if the attribution is already

coded as a Negative Word--it is necessary to choose between

Oppose (-1) and Threaten (-2). In some cases this coding

decision will not be difficult, and it will be apparent from the

attribution itself. In other cases, the decision will be harder.

Some general indicators and rules-of-thumb for making these

decisions include the following:

In general, Promises are pledges to take some

positive action in the future. On the other hand,

Appeal/Support attributions are generally

rhetorical expressions about things that should

10

occur, or an activity the leader would like to

encourage.

A similar distinction can be made on the negative

side of the word category. A Threat is

essentially a negative pledge about taking action

in the future, while the Oppose/Resist category is

a negative rhetorical statement about things the

leader thinks should not occur or an activity that

s/he does not want to encourage or see happen.

Anytime the words should, ought and must appear in

the original sentence, two inferences follow:

first, a future tense is implied (indicating a

Word category) and second, that it belongs in one

of the two rhetorical categories, either

Appeal/Support or Oppose/Resist. The valence (+)

or (-) then dictates which of these two categories

is correct.

Fifth, identify whether the location of the utterance

(Subject—Verb—Object) is in the domestic policy or foreign policy

domain. If both Subject and Object are in the speaker’s domesticdomain, then code the utterance as domestic (D). If either

Subject or Object is in the speaker’s foreign domain, then codethe utterance as foreign (F). This category allows the coder to

combine or separate the leader’s foreign and domestic operationalcodes, which may vary significantly across the two domains.

11

Because “Bosnia” Serbs as Object is a target located outside the

speaker’s (Self) domain, the completely coded utterance in our

example is as follows over the underlined verb:

#1S(-3)F"U.S. troops were sent to Bosnia for peacemaking purposes."

(U.S.--sent troops--Bosnian Serbs.)

The domestic/foreign distinction does not strictly apply if

the speaker is not the leader of a nation-state. Leaders of non-

state actors do not have a territorial base that distinguishes

domestic from foreign territorial locations. However, it may be

useful to use a parallel distinction between “intra- and inter-”domains for groups, organizations, or blocs if the leader is a

member of a non-state entity. Depending on the explicitness of

the contextual content, it is possible as well for the coder to

code topical context such as trade, human rights, security, or

cultural issues, and actor-target context, such as transitive

verbs with particular bilateral combinations, e.g., Sino-American

utterances or Israeli-Iranian utterances, as shown in the data

line in Figure 1.

CODING SUMMARY

Example: U.S--sent troops--Bosnia SerbsCategories: subj. in/tran w/d +/- verb tense domain

Codes: self tran d - pun past for

To sum up, here is the record of the five steps for Example

1. The original text read as follows: "U.S. troops were sent to

12

Bosnia for peacemaking purposes." (1) Underline and number the

transitive verb with political content as utterance #1. (2), Edit

the sentence mentally into active voice Subject—Verb—Objectformat as "U.S.--sent troops--Bosnia Serbs,” in order to identify

(3) the subject as Self (S), (4) the verb form as Punish (-3),

(5) the domain as Foreign because the target is “Bosnia Serbs.”Then move on to the next verb in the text.

Omitted from these five steps are two other judgments shown

in the summary above and also in Figure 1, which are also

necessary in order to categorize a verb correctly. However,

“intransitive/transitive” type of verb and “past/present/future”tense of verb do not need to be entered into the text above the

verb construction in order to calculate the index scores for the

leader’s operational code.Calculating VICS Index Scores

The logic for calculating the VICS index scores for a text

is based on the frequency, variation, balance, and intensity of

the different categories of verbal utterances that represent the

exercise of power by Self and Other. Numbering, underlining, and

coding the transitive verbs with political content uttered by the

speaker of a text provide this basic information. To calculate

by hand the various kinds of VICS index scores requires the coder

to count and enter the frequency of each attribution from a text

into the cells of Table 1.

13

Table 1. Hypothetical Number of Coded Attributions From Text

SUMMARY

SELF OTHER

VICS Categories Freq. Wtd. Percent Freq. Wtd. Percent

+3 Reward 2 +6 .17 1 +3 .13

+2 Promise 2 +4 .17 1 +2 .13

+1 Appeal/Support 3 +3 .25 1 +1 .13

+0 Not Codable (Discard-do not use) (Discard-do not use)

-1 Oppose/Resist 2 -2 .17 1 -1 .13

-2 Threaten 1 -2 .08 1 -2 .13

-3 Punish 2 -6 .17 3 -9 .38

Totals (N=20) 12 +3 1.01 8 -6 1.03Measures Mn=.25 Md=.25 Mn= -.75 Md=.38

TALLY*

SELF VICS CATEGORIES OTHER VICS CATEGORIES

+3 Reward: ** +3 Reward:*

+2 Promise: ** +2 Promise:*

+1 Appeal/Support: *** +1 Appeal/Support:*

+0 Not Codable: +0 Not Codable:

-1 Oppose/Resist: ** -1 Oppose/Resist:*

-2 Threat:* -2 Threat:*

-3 Punish:** -3 Punish:***_________________________________________________________________* Use f’s and d’s instead of asterisks to tally foreign anddomestic attributions and calculate the domestic and foreignoperational codes of the leader.

14

Let’s stipulate that a hypothetical text has twentytransitive verbs (N=20) with political content, coded and

distributed into the Self and Other columns as shown in Table 1.

Fifteen to twenty coded verbs by convention is the minimum number

of codable verbs necessary in order to include a text in a sample

of texts by the speaker. The Frequency (Freq.) columns show the

distributions for each type of transitive verb attributed to Self

and Other. The Weighted (Wtd.) columns show the frequency of

each attribution weighted by the scale value (+3 to -3) for each

type of transitive verb. The Percent columns calculate the

relative frequency of each attribution by dividing the frequency

of each attribution by the total number for Self or Other.

The Totals in Table 1 refer to the sums of the numbers in

each column. The Measures refer to the Mean (Mn.)or the Mode

(Md.) for a column, in which the Mean is the Weighted column’stotal divided by the number of attributions and the Mode is the

highest percent in the percent column’s distribution. Plug the

relevant information from Table 1 into the formulas for each

index, as shown in Table 2, to calculate operational code scores.

For example, the index for Philosophical belief (P-1) Nature

of the Political Universe is the sum of the %Positive minus the

%Negative attributions for Other where %Positive is the sum of

%Reward plus %Promise plus % Appeal/Support and %Negative is the

sum of %Oppose/Resist plus %Threaten plus %Punish. The index for

15

Table 2. A Hypothetical Leader’s Operational Code Profile________

Philosophical Beliefs

P-1. Nature of Political Universe (friendly +1.0/hostile -1.0)Index =(%Positive Other) minus (%Negative Other)

-.25 (.13 + .13 + .13) - (.13 + .13 + .38) = (.39) – (.64)= -.25

P-2. Realization of Political Values(optimist+1.0/pessimist -1.0)Index = (Mean Intensity of Other 3)

-.25 (-.75 3) = -.25

P-3. Predictability of Future (uncertain .00/certain 1.0)Index = (Md - .166) .834

.27 (.38 - .166) .834 = .256

P-4. Historical Control (none .00 none to total +1.0)a. Self Index = (Self Total Total N)

.60 (12/20) = .60b. Other Index = (Other Total Total N)

.40 (8/20) = .40

P-5. Role of Chance (low .00 /high+1.0)Index = 1 – (Political Future)(Self Historical Control)

.84 1 - (.27)(.60)= 1 - .16 = .84

Instrumental Beliefs

I-1. Approach to Goals (Strategy)(cooperate +1.0/conflict -1.0)Index =(%Positive Self) minus (%Negative Self)

+.07 (.17 + .17 + .25) - (.17 + .08 +. 17) = (.59)- (.52)= +.07

P-2. Pursuit of Goals (Tactics) (cooperate +1.0/conflict -1.0)Index = (Mean Intensity of Self 3)

+.08 (+.25 3) = +.08

I-3. Risk Orientation (risk averse .00)/risk acceptant +1.0)Index = (Md - .166) .834

.10 (.25 -.166) .834 = .101

I-4. Timing of Action (low flexibility .00/high flexibility 1.0)a. Coop v. Conf Index = 1 – Abs. Value [%Coop Self - %Conf Self]

.93 1 – |[.59 – .52]| = 1- |.07| = .93b. Word v. Deed Index = 1 – Abs. Value [%Word Self - %Deed Self]

.67 1 – |[.17 + .25 + .17 + .08 - .17 -.17]| = 1- |.33| = .67

I-5. Utility of Means {infrequent exercise .00/frequent exercise 1.0}Index = %Self for each category of exercise of powera.App/Sup = .25 b.Pro = .17 c.Rew = .17d.Opp/Res = .17 e.Thr = .08 f.Pun = .17_________________________

16

Realization of Political Values (P-2) is the Mean for Other

attributions divided by three. The scores for P-1, P-2, I-1, and

I-2 are the only ones to vary between -1.0 and +1.0. These

scores indicate the direction and strength of these diagnostic

and choice propensities.

The scores for the other Philosophical and Instrumental

beliefs vary between .00 and 1.0. These scores indicate the

strength of these diagnostic (P-3, P-4, P-5), choice (I-3 and I-

5), and shift (I-4)propensities. The scores for I-4a and I-4b are

the absolute (unsigned)values of the differences between

%Cooperation v. %Conflict and %Word v. %Deeds, respectively,

because we are interested only in the magnitude of their

differences.

Interpreting the VICS Scores

The results of the calculations for the various VICS indices

for our hypothetical leader appear in Table 2 along with the

formulas. The results show a leader with a somewhat hostile (P-1

= -.25) view of the political universe who is also somewhat

pessimistic (P-2 = -.25) about realizing political values and

relatively uncertain P-3 = .27) about the political future. The

leader attributes a slightly stronger ability to exercise

historical control to Self (P-4a = .60) than to Others (P-4b

=.40) while still recognizing a high (.84) role for chance in

politics.

17

The leader’s strategic orientation (I-1 = +.07) is mixed

(weakly cooperative), and the same is true for the leader’stactical orientation (I-2 = +.08). This combination is

accompanied by a risk averse (I-3 = .10) orientation toward both

the outcomes of submission and deadlock associated, respectively,

with intense cooperation and conflict tactics. The leader’scorresponding propensity to shift between cooperation and

conflict (I-4a = .93) is very high while the relatively lower

propensity to shift between words and deeds (I-4b = .67) reflects

a higher propensity to use words than deeds in the exercise of

power (I-5).

To sum up, this operational code profile reveals a shifty,

marginally cooperative leader who is risk averse with a higher

preference for talk than action in a somewhat hostile, relatively

uncertain, political universe where Self’s historical control issomewhat above medium and the role of chance is high.

What does this profile indicate about the leader’s type of

operational code, i.e., how do the philosophical and instrumental

beliefs combine into diagnostic, choice, and shift propensities

that differentiate this leader from other leaders? A typology of

belief systems in Figure 2, differentiated by the indices for

three key beliefs, classifies and summarizes the profile from

Table 2. The vertical axis in Figure 2 represents the leader’skey scores for Strategic Orientation (I-1) and Nature of the

Political Universe (P-1). The horizontal axis represents the

18

Type A QUADRANT TYPE C QUADRANTPassive Cooperation (I1/P1) Active Cooperation

Settle>Deadlock>Submit>Dominate +1.0 Settle>Dominate>Deadlock>SubmitSettle>Deadlock>Dominate>Submit

Appease Reciprocity ExploitDED DDE

Cooperative

Zone

Reward DeterDDD DEE

(+.20,+.07)* S

(P4d)-1.0______________________________________________+1.0(P4d)

Compel PunishEDD * O EEE

(-.20,-.25)Zone

Bluff BullyEED Reciprocity EDE

Conflictual

Dominate>Settle>Deadlock>Submit

Dominate>Settle>Submit>Deadlock -1.0 Dominate>Deadlock>Settle>Submit

Passive Conflict (I1/P1) Active ConflictTYPE DEF QUADRANT TYPE B QUADRANT

Figure 2. VICS* Prediction Typology for Tactics and Strategies**

*I-1 and P-1 Indices are scaled along the vertical axis, and P-4 Indices arescaled along the horizontal axis.

**Reward, Deter, Punish and Compel tactics around the midpoint of the verticaland horizontal axes are variants of reciprocity tactics in which an actorinitiates either an escalatory (E) move or de-escalatory (D) move and thenresponds in kind when the target escalates (E) or de-escalates (D) in responseto the actor’s initial move. Appease, Bluff, Exploit and Bully tactics at theextremes of the vertical and horizontal axes are variants of unconditionalconflict or cooperation tactics in which an actor initiates either anescalatory (E) move or de-escalatory (D) move and then does not reciprocateafter the target escalates (E) or de-escalates (D) in response to the actor’sinitial move.

Historical Control scores for Self (P-4a) and Other (P-4b)

adjusted to P4d difference scores (Self P4d = P4a – P4b; Other

19

P4d = P4b – P4a) so that a unit change in P4 as a vector is

weighted equivalent to a unit change in I1 or P1, making the P4d

indices range between -1.0 and +1.0 just like I1 and P1. Using

these scores as coordinates, it is possible to locate a leader’simages of Self (I1, P4a) and Other (P1, P4b) in the four

quadrants of the typology, as shown in Figure 2.

Also represented in the typology are different strategic and

tactical orientations associated with each type of leader. The

tactics bisect each quadrant at a forty-five degree angle between

a symmetrical zone of likely reciprocity tactics with settlement

and deadlock as likely strategic outcomes versus an asymmetrical

zone in which reciprocity tactics are less likely and strategic

outcomes of domination and submission are more likely. Mapping a

leader’s location for Self and Other within these quadrantsspecifies predictions about what moves and tactics the leader is

likely to use in bargaining with others and what moves and

tactics the leader expects others to use.

In the case of our hypothetical leader in Figure 2, Self’sscores from Table 2 map a location within the Type C Quadrant of

active cooperation that predicts Self has a slightly stronger

choice propensity for a cooperative initiative in the form of

asymmetrical tactics of Exploitation (DDE), in which Self De-

escalates, but when Other De-escalates, then Self Escalates.

Self’s location close to the horizontal axis also reflects apropensity to shift between De-escalate and Escalate as tactical

20

initiatives while preferring settlement as a strategic outcome.

These predictions reflect the tension within the leader’sbelief system between the relative strength of Self’s belief incooperation and Self’s belief in historical control, which is

resolved as a vector location within this typology. The

historical control difference score for Self (P4d = .60 -.40) is

.20 to the right of the midpoint of +.00 on the horizontal axis

while the strategic orientation score (I-1 = +.07) is only .07

above the midpoint of +.00 on the vertical axis. This combination

of coordinates places Self to the right and below the forty-five

degree angle bisecting Quadrant C, in which the historical

control score is further away (+.20 v. +.07) from the origin

(center) of the graph than the cooperation score.

Self’s location of Other in the passive conflict Quadrant

DEF and within the zone of reciprocity reflects the image of a

political universe in which the greater distance from the origin

of Other’s P-1 score (-.25) v. P4d score (P4d = .40 - .60 = -.20)

leads to the prediction of a conflict initiative in the form of

symmetrical Compel tactics (EDD) of reciprocity by Other rather

than the asymmetrical prediction that Other will engage in Bluff

(EED) tactics. Other’s location near the vertical axis also

reflects a shift propensity to use Punishment (EEE) as a tactic

if Self Escalates in response with deadlock as a likely strategic

outcome. Self’s likely optimum response, therefore, is De-

escalate in order to encourage Other to De-escalate (EDD) toward

21

settlement rather than deadlock as a likely strategic outcome.

Conclusion

These examples of plotting the locations of Self and Other

within the typology of operational codes illustrate how

operational code analysis can profile a leader and predict both

initiatives and responses as well as tactical sequences and

strategic directions. It is also possible to: (a) plot multiple

coordinates of successive texts uttered by the same leader to

baseline a leader and detect changes in beliefs over time; (b)

map the coordinates of more than one leader within a state in

order to compare different leaders and identify areas of

convergence and divergence in their belief systems, in order to

forecast consensus or conflict between them and continuity or

change in their decision-making patterns should one leader

replace another.

Coding a leader’s public statements by hand has both

advantages and disadvantages. Coding a single speech by hand

gives a fast, detailed account of the leader’s diagnostic and

choice propensities at a single point in time. Automated coding

gives a leader’s average diagnostic and choice propensities overtime by coding a larger number of speeches more quickly at the

cost of a smaller number of verbs per speech. Both approaches use

the key VICS indices (P1,I1,P4) to plot diagnostic propensities

attributed to others and choice propensities attributed to self

in the domains of domestic and foreign policy or between dyads.

22

APPENDIX I

OPERATIONAL CODE QUESTIONNAIRE

Before you begin to code a leader’s public statements,please answer the following questions about the leader tothe best of your ability. For each question circle theanswer that best describes the leader’s general beliefsabout the nature of the political universe and generalbeliefs about the most effective exercise of politicalpower.Your responses can provide an anchor for you tocompare your beliefs about the leader with what you havelearned from the VICS content analysis.

23

OPERATIONAL CODE QUESTIONNAIRE

LEADER______________ Page 1 of 2

Directions: Circle the word that best describes your rating of theleader for each of the following items.

PART I. BELIEFS ABOUT THE POLITICAL UNIVERSE

P-1. NATURE OF THE POLITICAL UNIVERSE (Hostile to Friendly)

HOSTILE (-) (+) (+) FRIENDLYVERY DEFINITELY SOMEWHAT MIXED SOMEWHAT DEFINITELY VERY

P-2. REALIZATION OF POLITICAL VALUES (Pessimism to Optimism)

PESSIMISTIC (-) (+) (+) OPTIMISTICVERY DEFINITELY SOMEWHAT MIXED SOMEWHAT DEFINITELY VERY

P-3. PREDICTABILITY OF POLITICAL FUTURE (Very Low to Very High)

PREDICTABILITY PREDICTABILITYVERY LOW LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH

P-4. CONTROL OVER HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT (Very Low to Very High)

CONTROL CONTROLVERY LOW LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH

P-5. ROLE OF CHANCE (Very Low to Very High)

CHANCE CHANCEVERY LOW LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH

PART II. BELIEFS ABOUT EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF POWER

I-1. DIRECTION OF STRATEGY (Conflict to Cooperation)

CONFLICT (-) (+) (+) COOPERATIONVERY DEFINITELY SOMEWHAT MIXED SOMEWHAT DEFINITELY VERY

I-2. INTENSITY OF TACTICS (Conflict to Cooperation)

CONFLICT (-) (+) (+) COOPERATIONVERY DEFINITELY SOMEWHAT MIXED SOMEWHAT DEFINITELY VERY

24

I-3. PREDICTABILITY OF TACTICS (Very Low to Very High)

PREDICTABILITY PREDICTABILITYVERY LOW LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH

I-4. FLEXIBILITY OF TACTICS (Very Low to Very High)

A. BETWEEN COOPERATION AND CONFLICT

FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITYVERY LOW LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH

B. BETWEEN WORDS AND DEEDS

FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITYVERY LOW LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH

I-5. UTILITY OF MEANS (Very Low to Very High)

A. UTILITY OF REWARD

FREQUENCY FREQUENCYVERY LOW LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH

B. UTILITY OF PROMISE

UTILITY UTILITYVERY LOW LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH

C. UTILITY OF APPEAL/SUPPORT

UTILITY UTILITYVERY LOW LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH

D. UTILITY OF OPPOSE/RESIST

UTILITY UTILITYVERY LOW LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH

E. UTILITY OF THREAT

UTILITY UTILITYVERY LOW LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH

F. UTILITY OF PUNISH

UTILITY UTILITYVERY LOW LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH