[From Erling Jorgensen (981121.1315)]
[Rick Marken (981120.0845)]
I would like to be able to
present some examples of research that could at least be interpreted
as revealing the possible existence of controlled variables. So I
would appreciate any references to behavioral research articles that
describe research that seems to indicate (or, better,tests for) the
existence of controlled variables.
Rick, I don't know if the following references are really what you're
after, or whether they will meet your [rigorous & generally loud ;)]
standards for what counts as acceptable research. For one thing,
they deal with perceptions high up in the proposed hierarchy,
admittedly a difficult region to test systematically. For another,
most of them do not come from mainstream psychology -- whether that
is conceived as "conventional," "behavioral," or "experimental" --
so they may not carry any weight with your intended audience. A
few seem more from the "social constructivist" camp, and that would
be a strike against them right there (perhaps in your own eyes as
well, I'm not sure.)
But ever since coming across these articles, I have been struck by
their ingenuity and clarity, and the sense that they somehow attend
to control processes at work in interactive settings; so, see what
you think. (In what follows, I'll capitalize words if I'm making
an explicit reference to Bill's hierarchy, [although he may be
getting tired of seeing those labels bandied about!]).
Fivaz-Depeursinge, Elisabeth (1991). Documenting a time-bound,
circular view of hierarchies: A microanalysis of parent-infant
dyadic interaction. _Family Process, 30_, 101-120.
Deals with how certain parent-infant episodes are constructed and
modified (which sounds like a control process to me.) I see
episodes here as consisting of behavioral Events which are brought
into Relationships of temporal correlation. If the parent is
varying perceptions of Events and Relationships in order to
stabilize a perception of an episode (e.g., reciprocal gaze),
presumably episodes can be thought of as either Sequence or Program
perceptions.
This article suggests that some episodes are being nested inside
other episodes. A compelling strength of the article is that it
uses time frames to determine those relative hierarchical positions.
In other words, longer (and slower) episodes are higher up in the
hierarchy, framing briefer (and faster) episodes. This is exactly
the relationship PCT would predict -- slower control systems set
the terms, while faster control systems become the means for
carrying out the higher level control. I believe the Plooij's
used a similar methodology/insight in their observations and
classification of the developmental control systems of chimpanzees.
Tannen, Deborah & Wallat, Cynthia (1987). Interactive frames
and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical
examination / interview. _Social Psychology Quarterly, 50_ (2),
205-216.
This article seems to show a doctor controlling for, and changing
the Sequence of, communicative episodes (Programs?) consisting of
examining a child, consulting with her mother, and teaching
residents via a simultaneous videotaping of the session. She
frames and signals a change between these different aspects of the
interview, primarily through shifts in her vocal register -- e.g.,
"motherese" vs. normal conversation vs. flat intonation.
Cools, A. R. (1985). Brain and behavior: Hierarchy of feedback
systems and control of input. In P.P.G. Bateson & P.H. Klopfer
(Eds.), _Perspectives in Ethology, Volume 6: Mechanisms_ (109-168).
New York: Plenum Press.
You may know of this article already, since it is explicitly based
on Powers' work (B:CP, & the _Science_ article in 1973). It
identifies brain areas (viz., neostriatum, substantia nigra, and
colliculus superior) involved in controlling Programs via "the
ordering and sequencing of behavioral states" (p.112). It is not
a study of humans, as you requested, but one using invasive
techniques with rats and cats. However, its methodology and
reasoning are quite impressive.
Baumeister, Roy F. & Newman, Leonard S. (1994). Self-regulation
of cognitive inference and decision processes. _Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 20_ (1), 3-19.
I haven't had a chance to look at this closely, but it seems to
involve what may be control of Principles (inference processes).
It suggests that a scientist vs. a lawyer would use different
Programs as they gather evidence, assess & reassess implications,
and integrate the data, in order to self-regulate their inferences.
Gergen, Kenneth J. & Gergen, Mary M. (1988). Narrative and the
self as relationship. _Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
Vol. 21_, 17-56.
Deals with how narratives of the self are constructed and maintained,
which I see as one example of control of high-level System Concepts.
Different Principles are offered as what may get varied to construct
coherent narratives, as well as how narratives are negotiated in the
social arena (protected against disturbances) via the accounts people
give for their actions. It also presents the structure of several
scenarios for expressing emotions, which are written as interactive
choice points -- (I was reminded of the decision nodes of Bill's
conception of Programs.)
Rick, while only one of the above authors seems to know of Bill's
work, I don't think we should insist that everything of value has
to use PCT terminology and concepts. I think it is perfectly
acceptable if a given author is moving in the right direction (in
terms of implicitly realizing the importance of control as a
phenomenon), _as long as_ they are not making huge errors due to
what they don't yet know about control processes. At any rate,
good luck with your publication efforts.
One other thought occurs to me. There seems to be a lot more
openness to cybernetics / control / systems concepts in certain
fields other than those mainstream psychology journals you
mentioned. I wonder if we should build more linkages to them,
rather than keep hammering at a fortress that doesn't want to
let down the gates. You might consider gearing your paper in
a different way for a more receptive audience.
All the best,
Erling