Bandura and Locke

CSGnet Archive CSG2003
1

[From Rick Marken (2002.01.02.1045)]

I just had the pleasure of reading Jeff Vancouver's response to Bandura and
Locke's critique of control theory and I want to echo Bill Powers' evaluation
of that paper: "it is the best paper you [Jeff] have written on PCT and its
relationship to other theories in psychology". Indeed, I think it is one of
the (if not _the_) best papers _anyone_ has ever written on PCT and its
relationship to other theories in psychology. I think it is a model of how to
explain where PCT fits into modern psychology. It covers all the complex
issues separating conventional from PCT psychology (for example, behavior as
controlled input rather than observable output, the nature of feedback, the
behavioral illusion, the different version of control theory, etc) in a clear
and effective manner. It is really quite an accomplishment. I would not be
surprised if this paper starts many conventional psychologists down the path
to PCT science.

Bravo, Jeff.

Best regards

Rick

2

[from Jeff Vancouver (2003.01.02.1430)]

Thanks Rick and Bill. It clearly reflects the many threads with you and
others on CSGnet as well as the writing of both of you (I will get that
reference in, Rick). That interaction has reorganized my perception of the
theory and the problems some psychologists have with it.

Jeff

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu]On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 1:46 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Bandura and Locke

[From Rick Marken (2002.01.02.1045)]

I just had the pleasure of reading Jeff Vancouver's response
to Bandura and
Locke's critique of control theory and I want to echo Bill
Powers' evaluation
of that paper: "it is the best paper you [Jeff] have written
on PCT and its
relationship to other theories in psychology". Indeed, I
think it is one of
the (if not _the_) best papers _anyone_ has ever written on
PCT and its
relationship to other theories in psychology. I think it is a
model of how to
explain where PCT fits into modern psychology. It covers all
the complex
issues separating conventional from PCT psychology (for
example, behavior as
controlled input rather than observable output, the nature of
feedback, the
behavioral illusion, the different version of control theory,
etc) in a clear
and effective manner. It is really quite an accomplishment. I
would not be
surprised if this paper starts many conventional
psychologists down the path
to PCT science.

Bravo, Jeff.

Best regards

Rick

3

[From Rick Marken (2003.01.02.1500)]

Jeff Vancouver (2003.01.02.1430)

Thanks Rick and Bill. It clearly reflects the many threads with you and
others on CSGnet as well as the writing of both of you (I will get that
reference in, Rick). That interaction has reorganized my perception of the
theory and the problems some psychologists have with it.

That's very kind of you to say. To the extent that this is true, it's really a
case of the student making the teacher look way better than he deserves (at least
in my case). You paper is far better than anything I could have done. It is
absolutely a gem; the structure is brilliant, the writing is excellent, and the
tone is right. This paper is all yours, Jeff, and I am very impressed. Actually,
you have done what I thought was impossible: you have explained the relationship
between PCT and conventional psychology without rancor or compromise.

I really hope that you will come to the CSG meeting this Summer and give a
presentation based on this paper. What better way to start the next 30 years of
PCT?

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

4

From Phil Runkel about Rick Marken about Jeff Vancouver:

I have just had the pleasure of reading Marken's pleasure with
Vancouver's paper about Bandura and Locke. I hope, Jeff, your paper
will before long be available to me in some form or place so that I can
join the pleasure. Meanwhile, congratulations for pleasing various of
us. (It is sometimes not easy.) ��Phil R.

5

Hi Bill,

I have attached my revised response to Bandura and Locke’s critique
of

control theory in the Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP). This revision
was

requested by JAP, but I was hoping I could get your comments on it before
I

send it back to them.
Hi, Jeff –

···

At 09:34 AM 12/20/2002, you wrote:

In my opinion, this is the best paper you have written on PCT and its
relationship to other theories in psychology. Your grasp of the Big
Picture is impressive, and the writing is clear and businesslike, while
still being interesting. In fact, fascinating for long stretches. This
could be an important paper in the debate with Locke, Bandura, and so
forth. I feel no need to respond separately to them, now. Well
done.

A few slips of the keyboard:

p. 7 line 10: prima fascia —> prima facie. Fascia is a bundle
or a layer of connective tissue.

 line 14:  what is "willowing"?

Fractured sentence.

P. 9, line 14. word omitted between “uses” and
“might”

P. 24, line 1 not useful – omit “not”

P. 26, line 6 could create —> could not create

P. 29, 2 lines from last: “acerbate” means to sour, embitter,
or irritate. On the other hand, “exacerbate” means to make
worse, which is what I think you meant.

I didn’t really proofread – those happened to strike my eye.

Best,

Bill P,

P. S. Considering some of my comments in the past, I’m copying this
“review” to CSGnet. Enjoy.

6

[From Rick Marken (2002.12.21.1002)]

Bill Powers wrote:

Hi, Jeff –

Hi Bill,
I have attached my revised response to Bandura and Locke’s
critique of

control theory in the Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP).
This revision was

requested by JAP, but I was hoping I could get your comments
on it before I

send it back to them.

In my opinion, this is the best paper you have written on PCT and
its relationship to other theories in psychology.

This sounds great. Could you send me an electronic copy if you have one,
please, Jeff.
Thanks.

Best regards

Rick

···

At 09:34 AM 12/20/2002, you wrote:

–

Richard S. Marken

MindReadings.com

marken@mindreadings.com

310 474-0313

7

This is Phil Runkel making a request of Jeff in response to Powers's of
21 Dec 08:29:30.

Jeff: I hope the JAP will now print your comments. When you know what
issue it will appear in, please let me know so I can go read it.
Thanks. ��Phil R.

8

[From Dag Forssell (2002.12.22 8:20)]

Jeff, I too would appreciate an electronic copy of your response.

Best, Dag

9

Me too.
David

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Forssell Translation Team" <team@FORSSELLTRANS.COM>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: Bandura and Locke

[From Dag Forssell (2002.12.22 8:20)]

Jeff, I too would appreciate an electronic copy of your response.

Best, Dag